Isn't nuclear power dangerous?

We've all seen the Simpsons - the three eyed fish, "radioactive man", and Homer Simpson fusing tobacco and tomatoes with uranium. But few things are more misleading.

In reality, nuclear power is extremely safe. No person has ever died (or even had an increased risk of cancer) due to nuclear power in the US. France gets 78% of its power from nuclear fission, and they have never had a casualty. Also, its important to remember that other sources of energy lead to casualties, so from a safety standpoint, nuclear fission isn't only acceptable, its the safest energy source we have. (4, 12)

Doesn't nuclear fission produce radioactive waste?

About a cubic meter per year for a large plant. Nonetheless, the Yucca mountain facility currently in production has enough capacity to hold all of America's radioactive waste for over 300 years, with no radiation risk to the public (1).

What about Chernobyl?

Chernobyl is the only example of human death or suffering resulting from nuclear power. But, nonetheless, it occurred in the Soviet Union, where safety procedures were being phased out, and the plants were grossly underfunded. (2, 12)

What about Three Mile Island?

No one died or even got sick from Three Mile Island (3) . Moreover, it was 40 years ago, and we've seen nations like France get over 78% of their energy from nuclear power - with no disasters (4).

Where does the fuel come from? Won't it run out?

Uranium, which is mined in Canada (world's largest supplier). Uranium is a very efficient source of energy, and best of all - it comes from one of the safest and most peaceful nations in the world. (5)

By current estimates, we have enough uranium to supply all of Earth's energy needs for 5 billion years or longer:

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/pro gress/cohen.html

For comparison, the Earth is only a couple billion years old, and civilization is about 7000 years old. On a human scale, uranium is inexhaustible. In fact, our uranium supply might even last longer than the sun, making it the ultimate sustainable resource - even more sustainable then solar. (6)

Isn't it dangerous to have nuclear fission, since terrorists can get the uranium and make bombs?

No, the enrichment level is far too low for use in nuclear weapons. Enrichment of uranium is the major step in building a nuclear bomb, and stealing uranium from a power plant is a waste of time for terrorists.

But aren't there other, better alternatives?

The only alternative we'll ever have in the future is nuclear fusion.

No other power sources can promise the cleanness, safety, and sustainability of nuclear power.

Solar Power:

-Not reliable, low-yield (8)
-Depends too heavily on weather patterns
-Takes a vast amount of land to produce a small amount of energy
-Solar Power has great opportunity as a supplement, but the amount of land required may confine its practical usage to residential and commercial areas attempting to reduce outside electrical consumption.

Wind Power:

-Too low-yield
-Cannot be effectively scaled
-Requires massive amounts of land for small returns (10)
-Wind power has great promise as a supplement, but it does not have the capability to eliminate the need for other power generation techniques.

Oil:

-Limited supply
-Major supplies are in dangerous and hostile nations (11)

Coal:

-Dangerous to mine (many people die every year in mine accidents) (12).
-Dirty, limited supply

Why does Greenpeace oppose nuclear power than?

They're morons.

What should I do?

Ignore the hype and look at the facts. Instead of just assuming that nuclear power really is dangerous just because of the jokes, look at the real information that is out there.

The US government does a great public service by publishing massive, 1000 page essays called Environmental Impact Statements. These are chock full of statistics and data on the effects of various projects. They're a good place to start when researching nuclear power.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oeca/webeis.ns f/viEIS01?OpenView

Citations:

1:

http://www.ymp.gov/documents/feis_2/su mmary/summain.htm#S.5.1.8

"Short-term radiological health impacts to the public for Yucca Mountain construction, operation and monitoring, and closure would be small. (Impacts from transportation are discussed in Section S.4.2.) More than 99.9 percent of the potential health impact would be from naturally occurring radon-222 and its decay products released in exhaust ventilation air. The highest annual dose would range from 0.73 to 1.3 millirem, less than 1 percent of the annual 200-millirem dose that members of the public in Amargosa Valley would receive from ambient levels of naturally occurring radon-222 and its decay products.

The maximally exposed individual would have an increase in the probability of incurring a latent cancer fatality ranging from about 0.000016 to 0.000031 (from 16 to 31 chances in 1,000,000) from exposure to radionuclides released from repository facilities over a 70-year lifetime. The total estimated number of latent cancer fatalities in the potentially exposed population would range from 0.46 for the higher-temperature operating mode to 0.97 to 2.0 for the lower-temperature repository operating mode.

For the sake of comparison, statistics published by the Centers for Disease Control indicate that, during 1998, 24 percent of all deaths in the State of Nevada were attributable to cancer of some type and cause. Assuming this mortality rate would remain unchanged for the estimated population in 2035 of about 76,000 within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the Yucca Mountain site, about 18,000 members of this population would be likely to die from cancer-related causes unrelated to the Proposed Action. During the time the project was active (100 to 324 years), the number of cancer deaths unrelated to the project would range from 30,000 to 89,000 in the general population. Estimated project-related impacts (0.46 to 2.0) would be a very small increase (0.007 percent or less) over this baseline"

In other words, many natural rock formations pose a greater cancer risk than nuclear power's radioactive waste. The increased risk of cancer would be less than .007%

2:

"The Soviet Chernobyl reactor, built on a much less safe design concept, did not have such a containment structure; if it did, that disaster would have been averted."

-Bernard L. Cohen
Professor at the University of Pittsburgh

http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-r isk.htm

3:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2385 551.stm

4:

http://www.industrie.gouv.fr/energie/s tatisti/pdf/elec-analyse-stat.pdf

In French, but still pretty understandable. For an easier format:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/
en/4/46/Sources_of_Electricity_in_Fran ce_in_2006.PNG

So far it has been safe and effective:

http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-r isk.htm

"Risks from reactor accidents are estimated by the rapidly developing science of "probabilistic risk analysis" (PRA). A PRA must be done separately for each power plant (at a cost of $5 million) but we give typical results here: A fuel melt-down might be expected once in 20,000 years of reactor operation. In 2 out of 3 melt-downs there would be no deaths, in 1 out of 5 there would be over 1000 deaths, and in 1 out of 100,000 there would be 50,000 deaths. The average for all meltdowns would be 400 deaths. Since air pollution from coal burning is estimated to be causing 10,000 deaths per year, there would have to be 25 melt-downs each year for nuclear power to be as dangerous as coal burning.

Of course deaths from coal burning air pollution are not noticeable, but the same is true for the cancer deaths from reactor accidents. In the worst accident considered, expected once in 100,000 melt-downs (once in 2 billion years of reactor operation), the cancer deaths would be among 10 million people, increasing their cancer risk typically from 20% (the current U.S. average) to 20.5%. This is much less than the geographical variation--- 22% in New England to 17% in the Rocky Mountain states. "

In other words, the risks of nuclear power to civilians are dramatically dwarfed by the risks of coal, and even simple geographically variation.

5:

http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/f ig_uranium_6_3.gif

Australia is a close #2, again - a safe and peaceful ally.

6:

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/pro gress/cohen.html

Shows that uranium supplies will last for 5 billion years.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/
commons/e/ea/Sun_Life.png

In contrast, our sun will die out in little over 5 billion years.

8:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industri es/energy/2007-07-25-solar-project_N.h tm

A modern solar plant produces 553 MW per 9 square miles, this is

61.4 MW/miles^2

A modern nuclear plant produces 15625 MW per square mile.

http://www.progress-energy.com/abouten ergy/powerplants/nuclearplants/index.a sp

(Size calculated from Google Earth. Just search "Harris nuclear plant". Estimate includes all parts of the nuclear power facility: parking lots, office spaces, reactor, etc.)

That's a 254 times advantage in favor of nuclear power. And even with that, this methodology actually favors solar power - since the plant we're talking about is the newest and most efficient plant built - using the best real estate possible for solar power.

10:

The Maple Ridge wind farm, one of the largest in the US, produces a max energy output of 320 MW, and occupies a space of 18.75 square miles.

http://www.mapleridgewind.com/whytughi ll.htm

This leads to an energy density of 17 MW per square mile.

Using the nuclear power density from citation 9, we find that nuclear power is 916 times more efficient per unit of land than wind power.

11:

http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/misc/
oil/proved.BP.reserves.gif

12:

http://www.msha.gov/stats/charts/coalb ystate.asp

About 30 people die every year working in coal mines. Compare that to the 0 per year that die working in nuclear power plants.

http://gabe.web.psi.ch/research/ra/pic s/ra_fn_OECD.jpg

According to this data from the Paul Scherrer Institute (which conducts general scientific research), the probability of dangerous nuclear power accidents is significantly below that of coal, oil, or any other power source.