Comparing the health impacts of different energy sources

Assessing health impacts of different energy sources requires synthesis of research results from many different disciplines into a rational framework. Information is often scanty; qualitatively different risks, or energy systems with substantially different end uses, must be put on a common footing. Historically institutional constraints have inhibited agencies from making incisive intercomparisons necessary for formulating energy policy; this has exacerbated public controversy over appropriate energy sources. Risk assessment methods reviewed include examples drawn from work of the Biomedical and Environmental Assessment Division at Brookhaven National Laboratory and elsewhere. Uncertainty over the mechanism and size of air pollution health damage is addressed through a probabilistic health-damage function, using sulphate-particle exposure as an indicator. This facilitates intercomparison through analysis of each step in the whole fuel cycle between a typical coal and nuclear power plant. Occupational health impacts, a significant fraction of overall damage, are illustrated by accident trends in coal-mining. In broadening comparisons to include new technologies, one must include the impact of manufacturing the energy-producing device as part of an expanded fuel cycle, via input/output methods. Throughout the analysis, uncertainties must be made explicit in the results, including uncertainty of data and uncertainty in choice of appropriate models and methods. No single method of comparative risk assessment is fully satisfactory; each has its limitations. Several methods must be compared if decision-making is to be realistic. (author)