NO It’s far safer than people realize
As physicians we explain the risk and benefits of treatment plans daily. The risk/benefit profile of nuclear energy is clear. Nuclear is extremely safe, it is our lowest CO2 energy source and is essential to reaching our climate goals.
After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, many Americans felt that flying was too risky and started driving instead. An analysis by the U.S. Department of Transportation revealed a significant rise in fatal crashes in the final three months of 2001: an extra 353 deaths compared to previous years due to increased traffic.
After Fukushima, many countries felt that nuclear energy was too risky. As a result of the earthquake and tsunami 20,000 people died; as a result of radiation released from the meltdown of three large reactors, zero people died. Yet around the world non-emitting nuclear plants were closed and replaced not by renewables but fossil fuels, whose air pollution resulted in tens of thousands of deaths.
Nuclear has potential risks, but they are much smaller than we have been led to believe. In fact, outside of the Soviet Union, at most one person, a Japanese plant worker, died as a result of radiation from a nuclear power plant accident. According to the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, the accident at Chernobyl — the result of an obsolete reactor design not used in the West — has caused fewer fatalities than a single major aviation accident. Scientific analysis demonstrates that nuclear power has saved more than 1.8 million lives by displacing air polluting fossil fuels.
Despite concerns over Russia’s capture of Ukrainian nuclear plants, these facilities have continued to operate safely. Nuclear plants are some of the most hardened structures ever built. Both the reactors and spent fuel pools are within a 1.2-metre-thick, steel-reinforced containment. According to experts, breaching it would require strikes with specialized bunker buster bombs, not stray artillery shells.
Due to inherent physical principles, plants cannot blow up like nuclear bombs. What happened at Chernobyl — a power excursion followed by a graphite fire — cannot happen at water-moderated reactors like Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia, or any of Canada’s nuclear power plants. If a military were seeking to cause maximum harm by targeting energy infrastructure, they would target hydro dams causing devastating foods. Should we phase out hydroelectricity, Canada’s number one source of low-carbon energy as a result of this potential risk?
Why are we so scared of nuclear energy? In a word, radiation — specifically its association with nuclear war. After all, we do not fear radiation when the doctor sends us for an X-ray.
We live on a naturally radioactive planet and our bodies are well adapted. Every single second 4,300 radioactive decays of the naturally occurring radioisotope Potassium-40 occur inside our cells. Much of the state of Kerala, India, has a naturally occurring radiation rate higher than the most contaminated sites in Fukushima, without any appreciable increase in cancer rates.
When it comes to artificial radiation, things get more surprising. The medical tests and treatments we order as physicians produce almost the entire amount of artificial radiation that the average person receives. Radiation is dangerous at high doses but, excluding Chernobyl with its obsolete reactor design, nuclear plant accidents do not result in high enough doses to members of the general public to cause harm.
Nuclear energy creates the zero-carbon, ultrareliable power we need to get off fossil fuels. In Ontario, nuclear provided 90 per cent of the energy required to phase out coal, which the Ontario Medical Association estimates has saved 1,000 lives every single year. It was also North America’s greatest greenhouse gas reduction measure.
Opponents of nuclear energy say we can decarbonize with renewables, instead. However, the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine. Germany, the world’s leader in renewables deployment, with 550 billion pounds spent so far, has failed to phase out coal, the top source of German electricity in 2021.
It is too risky to ignore science and make poor decisions based on unsubstantiated fears. Nuclear energy has saved millions of lives from avoided air pollution and it is our most scalable tool to fight climate change.
DR. CHRISTOPHER KEEFER IS A LECTURER AT DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY MEDICINE, UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO DR. MARK WALKER IS VICE DEAN, INTERNATIONALIZATION AND GLOBAL HEALTH, FACULTY OF MEDICINE, UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA. DR. DOUGLAS BOREHAM IS DIVISION HEAD OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, NORTHERN ONTARIO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE.