Science...Well Sort Of: Why Fairfax and Marin Should Not Oppose Nuclear Power

OK. This is a tough one…emotive as it gets. But in the spirit of generating debate on why we choose to believe certain things in the face of often complex and nominally conflicting scientific data, I’m going to weigh in here. Gulp.

I believe that the relative risks of nuclear energy power plants are extremely low, the benefits far outweigh them, and that we should therefore continue and indeed expand nuclear generated power in America. 

Here’s some of the data I’m relying on for this belief.

As terrible and real as the risks of radiation related diseases and cancers are, there’s not many of them to date. And while I’ll stipulate that I’m not going to get the data completely correct ( in part because, surprise surprise, some of it is in dispute), here’s what I look at. 

As horrific as the effects of the nuclear bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were, the scientific data is suggesting that the total long-term health effects on survivors not killed by the blasts result in a decrease in life expectancy ranging from 4-6 years to 2-4 months, depending on proximity to the blast. But here’s the kicker… “The median life expectancy for all survivors combined who had estimated doses of at least 0-005 Gy (mean dose 0-27 Gy) was 80 years 265 days, about 4-months shorter than the zero-dose individuals.” This is based on 45 years of research on over 120,000 survivors.  Here’s the source if you are interested, from the Lancet medical Journal I’m not saying that there is no risk, but just that the actual data surprised me…I would have guessed the life expectancy would have been impacted much more by the radiation exposure than an average of 4 months.

A couple of other quick facts: Number of radiation related deaths attributable to 3 Mile Island- 0; Chernobyl, 29, 30 or 31 (conflicting numbers) to date, projection of maybe up to 4,000 over time, maybe; Fukushima, 0 to date, unknown over time.

The point I’m making is one of relative risk. As scary and bad as nuclear radiation is, it needs to be considered in terms of both actual impacts (above) and the impact of the alternative.

In order to address anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW) and have any chance of bending the carbon dioxide saturation levels back to 350 parts per million, we need to get off carbon-based energy sources as fast as possible. Nuclear energy, for all its challenges, can be a significant part of that effort. I argue that the relative risks posed by nuclear energy are far outstripped by those posed by AGW. We are talking about millions, if not billions of lives at risk from AGW if we do not act now.

I know this is a complex issue…and there is a long tradition of opposing nuclear energy by the environmental movement and other ideologically progressive folks. I get it. But when weighing the risks posed by the now certain impacts of AGW, I believe we need to re-examine our thinking.