Comparative risks from fossil and uranium fuel cycles: A literature review

Some twenty comparative assessments of the health impacts of different sources of energy have been published since 1974. The critical review by Paskievici, however, indicates that only a few of the studies are independent. Most authors quote the results of previous studies or rest on a few primary sources. The method used in the studies is to estimate the number of deaths, diseases and injuries attributable to the production of a given amount of eletric energy. However, this method involves a number of subtle methodical and conceptual problems. In this report these problems are reviewed to give an idea of how they are reflected in the assessed risk values for coal, oil and uranium fuel cycles. The best estimates recommended by Paskievici for the risk values of different fuel cycles are reviewed. On the basis of these values the corresponding health risks in a fuelimporting country have been assessed. Finally, the results of a Finnish health risk study from 1980 comparing peat, coal and nuclear energy are updated utilizing measured emission values.