Which Causes More Deaths: Nuclear Power or Nuclear Fear?
Imagine the dawn of the 17th Century, when the first, most primitive steam engines emerged. Decades of innovation followed, leading to railroads and factories, efficiency sky-rocketed, and soon the invention was celebrated as the key to a Utopian future. But then, suddenly and disastrously, horrific accidents began to occur. Fear spreads, casting a shadow over progress, and as we know, "Fear leads to Anger, Anger leads to Hate." In this case, hate manifested as widespread public opposition, halting innovation and causing emissions to rise.
But it's not the steam engine we are talking about here; it's nuclear power. Now imagine how immense the loss would have been if we’d let fear stall the steam engine's development. We would have crippled our transportation future and stunted the growth of the industrial revolution. What kind of opportunities have we forfeited, and continue to forfeit, by allowing nuclear power to destabilize on the global stage?
It's challenging to theorize an answer to this question. Perhaps it’s more prudent to revisit the key facts and events that transformed what was once hailed as "The Energy Source Too Cheap to Meter" into the "genius but problematic child" of the energy industry. This article will explore just how rational our fear of nuclear power truly is.
Why Nuclear Equals Fear?
This is Trinity, the first man-made nuclear explosion. When it was detonated on the morning of July 16, 1945, the impact was felt over a 100-mile radius (160 km), with a mushroom cloud rising 7.5 miles (12.1 km) high. The black dots visible within the yellow rings? Those are trees. It’s images like this one, along with memories of the hundreds of thousands who perished in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that have shaped humanity’s first impressions of nuclear energy. Hence, the term: radiophobia.
However, to “paint” nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons with the same brush is like calling all domestic kittens “lions.” Both may be felines, but one is clearly more dangerous, while the other is low-maintenance and energy-efficient.
“The one similarity between nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons is that they both operate on the fission principle,” explains Thanh Tat Nguyen, Head Representative for Contract and Technical Control at Framatome, France. “This is when fissile isotopes, commonly Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239, split apart upon the insertion of neutrons.” The atoms break into smaller fission products, releasing more neutrons, which are then absorbed by safety rods or by other nuclei to continue the reaction, producing vast amounts of energy in the process.
The difference lies in the rate and purity of this energy release. The energy from a nuclear reactor’s fission process is harnessed gradually, over an extended period, while a nuclear weapon releases its energy quadrillions of times faster, in a single, devastating burst. A nuclear weapon’s fissile material is also almost pure, comprising about 90% fissile isotopes, while reactor fuel commonly contains less than 5% of these isotopes. Imagine: one device wraps itself with explosives and far more fissile material, aiming to unleash as much energy as widely as possible, while the other is designed to contain and secure its core at every level. Nuclear energy reactors are surrounded by round-the-clock law enforcement, a system of safety rods within the core, and containment domes engineered to withstand even airplane crashes. Few engineering projects receive such intense safeguarding.
Hollywood, also has been a potent source of fear-mongering. From the infamous radiated monster Godzilla to the far-fetched Chernobyl Diaries, with mutated monsters and escaped patients turned mutants, all contributed to hurting the already misunderstood industry. But perhaps the most acclaimed, and opportunistic, of nuclear disaster films is The China Syndrome. This American thriller tells the story of a nuclear plant nearly experiencing a meltdown due to corporate cover-ups and corruption. But what does a nuclear reactor in the U.S. have to do with China?
The ‘genius’ of the title lies in the absurd suggestion that a meltdown could get so hot the uranium fuel would melt through the Earth, from the U.S. “all the way to China” on the opposite side. How ‘genius’ that is!
The film also exploited a primal fear, that of mothers worried their children might consume radioactive milk. This fear played a prominent role in some of the earliest anti-nuclear movements, notes Michael Shellenberger, founder of Environmental Progress. A campaign led by David Pesonen (a former Sierra Club member) and some local dairy farms stoked this fear, warning that “nuclear fallout would create death dust” that would contaminate milk and poison people. This tapped into maternal anxieties and helped ignite the flame of the anti-nuclear movement.
Accidents and Safety
There are two main concerns when it comes to nuclear power, waste and safety. And this would be groundless nuclear safety discussion without mentioning the three high-profile nuclear meltdowns – Three Mile Island(1979), Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011).
We initially approached the health reports from these incidents with certain expectations, assumptions that soon proved to be biased. In the case of Three Mile Island (TMI), while one of the reactor cores did melt, the incident ultimately demonstrated that the safety system worked as intended. The root cause was traced to a lack of emergency response training, not a failure in the reactor’s safety mechanisms.
Although some radiation leaked into the atmosphere, the incident did not lead to any radiological health effects. After an 18-year health registry study tracking over 30,000 residents within a five-mile radius of TMI, the Pennsylvania Department of Health found no evidence of unusual health trends and discontinued the study in 1997.
Chernobyl, however, presented a different scenario, with casualties and lasting radiation effects. But how much of what we’ve heard, seen, and assumed about Chernobyl is accurate? Take a moment to recall the facts and estimates you think you know. Now, according to a 2008 United Nations report (Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation), there were 28 deaths from Acute Radiation Syndrome (ARS), mostly among firefighters who responded immediately after the explosion. Additionally, 15 deaths were attributed to thyroid cancer over the past 25 years.
Out of the estimated 16,000 cases of thyroid cancer (which has the highest survival rate among cancers at 99%), there were 160 fatalities, with many expected to die from old age rather than the illness. There is no scientific evidence of increased infant mortality, birth defects, fertility issues, or other cancers among the population, including the clean-up crew.
Fukushima provided another surprising finding: the level of radiation was much lower than Chernobyl. Of the approximately 20,000 total deaths, one person died as a result of radiation exposure (identified in 2018), while over 2,000 disaster-related deaths were primarily due to the government’s inefficient evacuation plan. Not only did evacuation put people in panic, it also exposed them to more radiation.
Technologies
The Chernobyl reactor used the RBMK model (Russian acronym), while the other two reactors used the Light Water Reactor (LWR) design. All three models rely on water as a coolant for the hot cores. However, “the use of water as a coolant was originally designed for nuclear-powered submarines, as it operates most efficiently underwater,” says Khamsay Boutsdy, a nuclear engineer at Framatome, France.
Most nuclear accidents have occurred due to human error, with some also resulting from natural disasters. “We often say that today’s advanced reactors are meltdown and catastrophe-proof. What this really means is that if something goes wrong with the plant, be it a tsunami, earthquake, or even an airplane crash—the plant can shut down on its own and cool without needing human intervention,” says Jessica Lovering, Director of Energy at the Breakthrough Institute.
Modern advanced reactors, like the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR), use liquid fuel and radioactive salt as coolants, eliminating common risks like steam explosions. Furthermore, in the event of a natural disaster or power outage, the liquid fuel can be drained into a failsafe compartment below, where it solidifies and prevents any risk of meltdown.
Nuclear waste management, in turn, can be greatly improved with the deployment of Breeder Reactors, which often work in conjunction with designs like the MSR. These reactors not only generate more fissile material, significantly enhancing nuclear sustainability (by reducing primary fuel needs), but they also shorten the lifespan of nuclear waste. Un-recycled nuclear waste can last thousands of years, whereas waste from a Breeder Reactor may last only a few hundred years.
Catalyst of a Nuclear Renaissance
Artificial intelligence (AI) is the focal topic of our time. According to Sequoia Venture Partner David Cahn, there is a simple yet potent formula defining the path to commercial success in the AI industry: Power + Server + Steel = AI Commercialization Success.
The first variable - power, has been a crucial factor long before the AI boom of 2022. The need for a global transition to cleaner, more reliable energy sources has been painfully evident, especially as 2023 became the hottest year on record in 174 years.
AI, now one of the most energy-intensive human discoveries, underscores this urgency. A single square meter of data center can consume up to 120 kilowatts - equivalent to the energy use and heat dissipation of about 15 to 25 households. This data, shared by Andrey Korolenko, chief product and infrastructure officer at Nebius, specifically references the energy demand of Nvidia’s Blackwell GB200 chip deployment. The EU also projected in 2018 that data center energy consumption could rise by 28% by 2030; however, the AI boom could drive this figure up by two or three times in some countries.
In response, Big Tech is turning to nuclear energy to meet these demands. Amazon recently announced a $500 million investment in X-Energy, a leader in high-temperature, gas-cooled reactors. In September, Microsoft entered a partnership with Constellation Energy to revive a nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island. Google also has plans to incorporate nuclear energy, having ordered multiple small modular reactors (SMRs) from California-based Kairos Power, with the first expected to be operational by 2030 and the rest by 2035.
While these tech giants are clearly motivated to maintain their dominance in the AI arena, we at Earth Venture Capital hold on to the view that “a rising tide raises all ships”. We’ve invested in two pioneering SMR startups, Aalo Atomics and Blykalla, making us the only institution in SEA other than Termasek with investments in the nuclear innovation sector.
The Consequences
All of this begs the question: how are these fears impacting us? The fear of radiation is harming us in multiple ways, arguably more than the radiation itself. Studies on the three major nuclear accidents have linked each to various mental health impacts, with Three Mile Island showing the least severe effects. There, evidence pointed to some mental stress after the incident. According to Crisis Contained, a report by the Department of Energy on Three Mile Island, widespread fear and heated debates over evacuation were fueled largely by distorted media communications.
In studies on the post-event mental health impacts of both Chernobyl and Fukushima, a clear parallel emerged. Depression and post-traumatic stress disorder rates surged, along with cardiovascular diseases, obesity, alcoholism, and suicidal behaviors.
Secondly, this radiophobia is hurting the environment. The less energy we generate from nuclear power, the more we have to get from fossil fuels. Yes, there are countries like Germany who’s phasing out their nuclear power to make way for renewables with some success, but it is also countries like Germany who’s proving to us that it is costly to scale renewables fast enough. At the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) first-ever nuclear energy summit in Brussels in March 2024, more than two dozen countries, including Germany’s close allies - France, the Netherlands, the U.S., and Japan - called for a renewed focus on nuclear technology. “Without the support of nuclear power, we have no chance of reaching our climate targets on time,” said IEA chief Fatih Birol at the summit.
Contrary to common public perception, study after study shows that nuclear energy is among the safest forms of energy available. Some figures reveal remarkable comparisons: the death rate per terawatt-hour (TWh) of coal production is 467 times higher than that of nuclear production. In the words of climate scientist James Hansen, “Despite the three major nuclear accidents the world has experienced, nuclear power prevented an average of over 1.8 million net deaths worldwide between 1971-2009.” Meanwhile, 8 million lives are lost annually to air pollution alone, according to an article by UNICEF.
If, after all this, we still haven’t convinced you to rethink nuclear power, then consider this: think of nuclear power as a child - one bred for war, raised under the public’s fear, manipulated, and wrongfully blamed for others’ faults. Now, she’s all grown up, more technologically matured, with people trying to reshape her identity because of her immense potential. She’s the only power source known to humanity that can offer clean, large-scale, reliable energy - so urgently needed for a successful global energy transition. Would you then, give her another chance? (This character could be a hero in a children’s comic book, allowing the next generation to rid themselves of outdated radiophobia). Speaking of heroes!
