The Simpsons. Three Mile Island. Chernobyl. Nuclear energy is infamous for its radioactivity and power plant meltdowns, its media image always accompanied by glowing green sludge and mutated superhumans. All of the aspects depicted with the energy beg the question: is nuclear energy a safe means of powering the energy grid, or does it warrant its apocalyptic image?
To understand nuclear energy and its risk, we need to start with the basics: radiation. Though we often think of it as something we are exposed to through dangerous technology or toxic materials, radiation is a constant in the natural world. Human-made radiation is only one of three types of radiation common on earth, the others being terrestrial (primarily from rocks) and cosmic (from space). Of the radiation that the average American is exposed to in a given year, the majority comes from natural sources, with the manmade exposure being almost entirely through medical procedures such as X-Rays.
This brings us to the first question: how much radiation do nuclear power plants expose their surrounding communities to? Surprisingly, very little. According to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, any area within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor receives only .01 millirem of radiation per year. For perspective, the average American receives 300 millirem of radiation purely from naturally radioactive sources, without including any medical radiation treatment.
Indeed, a Scientific American study in 2007 revealed that coal ash is up to 100 times more radioactive than the waste from nuclear power plants because of the uranium and thorium content in coal. This becomes incredibly problematic when we see shifts in countries like France and Germany away from nuclear power and towards coal. Because traditional renewable energies like solar and wind powers are reliant on variable light amounts and wind speed, when a shortage of power ensues during, say, a windless night, another source of energy is needed to meet consumer demand. Of the sources of energy that can provide instant access not dependent on outdoor conditions, fossil fuels and nuclear are the largest suppliers. This means that when countries like France and Germany move away from nuclear, they are unable to meet the energy demand of their citizens and thus have to revert to fossil fuel use to fill the gaps. After the closure of several nuclear power plants, France saw the use of fossil fuels more than double as a result.
It is clear that the background health impacts and radiation from nuclear power plants are incredibly small, especially compared to their replacement, fossil fuels. However, how does this safety record hold up with nuclear meltdowns like Chernobyl and Fukushima? In terms of measuring safety purely by death toll, nuclear consistently ranks as one of the least dangerous of all the energy types.
Even Three Mile Island, the infamous meltdown of a power plant in the United States, claimed zero lives and left the surrounding area with radiation levels equivalent to a single chest X-Ray. Chernobyl, the most dangerous nuclear meltdown in the history of nuclear power, claimed just 31 lives directly. Though the surrounding radiation of this event was much greater, it was not on the apocalyptic levels it is often depicted as.
Though nuclear energy is certainly not without its flaws, when we look past the image of radioactive green slime and nuclear apocalypse to the reality of what the technology really is, it becomes a much more viable option for a renewable energy future.