ＥＥＥ会議（Ｒｅ：原発事故被害額評価：　朴論文への反論）...........................................031208


標記テーマ（朴論文の信憑性）に関し、小生が先週末発信したとりあえずのコメ
ントと、もう一人（米国人？）からのコメントをご披露します。この人のコメントは、
「一般に日本では原子力発電は他のエネルギー（石炭、石油、天然ガス）に比較
して、環境への被害が統計的に少ないと考えられている。　原子力は、事故の
確率は低いが起これば被害は大きいが、石炭、石油などは確率は高いが被害は
低レベルだ。　これをどう評価するかが問題。例えば史上最悪の原発事故である
チェルノブイリ事故も、死者の数では石炭、石油火力発電より少なかった」と述べ
ていますが、妥当な意見といえましょう。　ご参考まで。
--KK

******************************************

A quick response to Mr. L. Repeta's enquiry:

The research paper by Dr. Pak Sung Jun, a full-time lecturer at the Kyoto
Sangyo University, which was carried by
The Japan Times (October 28, 2003),  was originally reported on the Fukui
Shimbun (October 27), a local newspaper
covering stories in and around the Fukui Prefecture known as Japan's largest
concentration of nuclear power plants including "Monju", a prototype fast
breeder reactor.  Apparently Pak's paper has not been reported on
nation-wide newspapers such as the Asahi and Yomiuri Shimbuns.  Hence, to
the best of my knowledge,  not much discussion on his paper here in Japan,
except among a limited number of nuclear experts.

Most of those experts, especially those in favor of nuclear power, say that
Pak's paper is almost a nonsense deserving no serious consideration.

If you are interested in what they say, please visit the home page of a
Tokyo-based NGO called Energy Issues Square (http://www.engy-sqr.com), click
"My Opinions", all in Japanese.   You are also welcome to my own HP
(http://www.eeecom.jp/)　where you may find some of my recent publications
in Japanese and English.

Best regards.

Prof. Kumao Kaneko
President,
Japan Council on Energy, Environment & International Security
Tokyo.
URL: http://www.eeecom.jp/

***************************************

Dear Forum Members;

Possibly Mr. Repeta is an American and so he may not be familiar with
the conventional wisdom that, outside of the US, the technical consensus
appears to be that nuclear power poses, statistically, less of an
environmental threat than other forms of artificial power generation
(coal, natural gas, oil).  Of course this is a difficult statistical
question, involving the trade-off of a low probability high impact
disaster on the nuclear side with the high probability low impact result
of elevated lung (and other) cancer rates and other problems associated
with coal, oil and natural gas fired power generation.  Chernobyl stands
as the major failure in nuclear power generation, but I might guess that
its death toll is lower than that from gas, coal and oil power
generation systems, overall.

Best regards,

Will Ames