I’m sorry but this is completely apples and oranges. UV is not, in fact, “high energy” in any physics sense of the word. I’m not sure what the transmission of UV to a solar panel is but I’m sure it’s not 0%, and with all of this, workers can protect themselves with clothing and Titanium Dioxide. The bad part is the spectrum.
> UV is not, in fact, “high energy” in any physics sense is the word.
But since a solar power plant is generating industrial levels of electricity by harvesting solar energy, it is clearly high energy in some practical sense.
> workers can protect themselves with clothing and Titanium Dioxide.
Each year many Australians (I'm from Australia, the number is >5,000) get diagnosed with skin cancer caused by sunlight. A double digit percentage of them die. Just because something is theoretically controllable doesn't mean that it is safe.
0 people died of radiation poisoning so far from the most recent nuclear disaster (Fukashima). Now, I am comparing apples and oranges, but it is entirely plausible that the cancer risks of a solar plant and a nuclear plant are comparable.
I'm not sure I follow. "High Energy" has a very specific meaning in physics, which typically refers particle physics, which may include nuclear physics but would definitely not include the UV spectrum. Energy, in the photonic radiation sense sense, refers quite literally to the wavelength of a photon. UV is not high energy. It's the energy of a photon which is the bad stuff for cancer. UV is energetic enough to damage molecular bonds, but that's easily mitigated through clothing (which workers _already_ wear) and titanium dioxide, which completely absorbs those photons.
You are right that both hazards for cancer risks in both plans are well understood, but one is mitigated by spending hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment, construction, water, a regulatory commission, constant improvement of procedure and policy, education, and clever engineering.
