Johnson D H, Kastenberg W E, Griesmeyer J M
Am J Public Health. 1981 Sep;71(9):1050-7. doi: 10.2105/ajph.71.9.1050.
A commentary is provided on the uncertainties in the data and in qualifying the phenomena relating to the risks imposed by the various steps involved in the use of coal, oil, natural gas, hydropower, and nuclear fuels for the generation of electricity. Uncertainties appear to be extremely large for hydropower which exhibits both large scale ecological impacts and the potential for high consequence, moderate frequency events at specific sites. Major risk-related uncertainties with the use of nuclear fuels include those surrounding nuclear weapons proliferation and reactor accident frequencies and consequences. Uncertainties for coal and oil include specification of the damage function of air transported sulfates and the effects of atmospheric CO2 buildup, acid rain, and groundwater contamination from mine water runoff. Compounding these problems is the potential impact of the growing global competition for a diminishing supply of oil. In the studies reviewed herein, the assessed risks of the nuclear fuel cycle are no greater than those of the primary alternatives. Prudence suggests that we do not totally reject any particular option at this time on the basis of health effects alone; similarly, no option is an undisputed choice.
本文对数据中的不确定性以及与使用煤炭、石油、天然气、水电和核燃料发电所涉及的各个步骤带来的风险相关的现象进行了评论。对于水电而言，不确定性似乎极大，因为它既会产生大规模的生态影响，又有可能在特定地点发生后果严重、频率适中的事件。使用核燃料所涉及的与风险相关的主要不确定性包括围绕核武器扩散以及反应堆事故频率和后果的那些问题。煤炭和石油的不确定性包括对空气中传输的硫酸盐损害函数的规定以及大气中二氧化碳积聚、酸雨和矿井水径流造成的地下水污染的影响。使这些问题更加复杂的是全球对日益减少的石油供应竞争加剧所带来的潜在影响。在本文所回顾的研究中，核燃料循环的评估风险并不高于主要替代方案的风险。审慎表明，我们目前不应仅基于对健康的影响就完全拒绝任何特定选项；同样，也没有任何选项是毫无争议的选择。
