Our fear of nukes is worse than the actual threat

Nuclear power is far less damaging to humans than many alternatives

Like many Ontarians, I was awakened Sunday morning to an emergency alert of an “incident” at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station.

Within a few hours, we learned that the alert was sent in error and there had been no incident.

However, the real harm of stoking fear of nuclear power had already been done. Like everything else, generating nuclear power entails risk, but the fear of nuclear power can be more deadly than nuclear accidents themselves.

The human brain is not naturally adept at comparing risks in the modern world, but data-based studies helps us make the right decisions.

As an example, many people have a fear of flying, but most people know that flying across Canada is safer than driving the same distance, so they overcome their fears and board the airplane.

Similarly, many have a visceral fear of radiation. But in the case of power generation, it is tragic that decisions are often driven by this fear instead of a dispassionate data-based comparison of risks.

The 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident is a case in point. Triggered by a massive 9.1 magnitude earthquake, a tsunami swept across the eastern coast of Japan’s northern islands, flooding the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant causing multiple reactor meltdowns. One workman died directly from radiation exposure and estimates of further deaths range up to 130 deaths due to increased incidents of cancer.

Within 14 months of the accident, Japan shut down all nuclear power production and increased imports of fossil fuels, resulting in sharply higher energy prices. A recent paper by researchers at Columbia University, Nagoya City University and the University of Verona studied changes in mortality during cold weather periods in Japan’s 21 largest cities due to the rise in energy prices.

By comparing regions that relied more heavily on nuclear power prior to the accident with regions that relied more on other sources of energy, the researchers estimated a total increase of 1,280 cold-weather related deaths in these cities between 2011 and 2014. In other words, over four years, the shut down of nuclear power plants was 10 times as deadly as the highest estimate of deaths due to the accident itself.

The story is even worse when considering alternatives to nuclear power. After the Fukushima accident, Germany shut down roughly half its nuclear production capacity, replacing it with coal and increased electricity imports. A study from the University of California and Carnegie Mellon University examined hourly data on power plant operations to estimate the increase in sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter and the resultant increase in mortality.

The researchers estimate an ongoing additional 1,100 deaths per year due to the increased pollution.

Of course, this is not to dismiss the actual risk of nuclear power. The 1984 Chornobyl disaster in the Soviet Union demonstrates the danger of a poorly designed nuclear power plant. The long-term death toll is disputed, but the United Nations estimates a total of 4,000 deaths as a result of the Chornobyl meltdown. At the high end, Greenpeace estimates mortality totalling between 93,000 and 200,000.

But even at the very highest estimates, this death toll from the world’s worst ever nuclear accident pales in comparison to the deaths caused by pollutants from coal plants.

A Mumbai-based think tank estimates more than 100,000 deaths per year in India, including 10,000 children under the age of five, caused by pollutants that could be avoided with a switch from coal to non-polluting nuclear power.

Of course, continued progress must be made to improve the safety and reduce the cost of nuclear power, and such efforts are underway. But even with current technology, nuclear power is far less damaging to humans than many alternatives.

Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, co-winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, and the United Nations Climate Change Conference recommend nuclear power as part of the solution to climate change. For the sake of our health and prosperity, and for the sake of our planet, it is vital that the emotional fear of nuclear power gives way to more responsible decision-making.