Fossil fuels are far deadlier than nuclear power 23 March 2011 by Phil McKenna
Magazine issue 2805. Subscribe and save
For similar stories, visit the Energy and Fuels and The Nuclear Age Topic Guides


IN THE wake of the nuclear crisis in Japan, Germany has temporarily shut down seven of its reactors and China, which is building more nuclear power plants than the rest of the world combined, has suspended approval for all new facilities. But this reaction may be more motivated by politics than by fear of a catastrophic death toll. It may be little consolation to those living around Fukushima, but nuclear power kills far fewer people than other energy sources, according to a review by the International Energy Agency (IAE).

"There is no question," says Joseph Romm, an energy expert at the Center for American Progress in Washington DC. "Nothing is worse than fossil fuels for killing people."

A 2002 review by the IAE put together existing studies to compare fatalities per unit of power produced for several leading energy sources. The agency examined the life cycle of each fuel from extraction to post-use and included deaths from accidents as well as long-term exposure to emissions or radiation. Nuclear came out best, and coal was the deadliest energy source.

The explanation lies in the large number of deaths caused by pollution. "It's the whole life cycle that leads to a trail of injuries, illness and death," says Paul Epstein, associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School. Fine particles from coal power plants kill an estimated 13,200 people each year in the US alone, according to the Boston-based Clean Air Task Force (The Toll from Coal, 2010). Additional fatalities come from mining and transporting coal, and other forms of pollution associated with coal. In contrast, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UN estimate that the death toll from cancer following the 1986 meltdown at Chernobyl will reach around 9000.

In fact, the numbers show that catastrophic events are not the leading cause of deaths associated with nuclear power. More than half of all deaths stem from uranium mining, says the IEA. But even when this is included, the overall toll remains significantly lower than for all other fuel sources.

So why do people fixate on nuclear power? "From coal we have a steady progression of deaths year after year that are invisible to us, things like heart attacks, whereas a large-scale nuclear release is a catastrophic event that we are rightly scared about," says James Hammitt of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis in Boston.

Yet again, popular perceptions are wrong. When, in 1975, about 30 dams in central China failed in short succession due to severe flooding, an estimated 230,000 people died. Include the toll from this single event, and fatalities from hydropower far exceed the number of deaths from all other energy sources

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power.html?full=true&print=true

Risk expert: Why radiation fears are often exaggerated 24 March 2011 by Alison George
Magazine issue 2805. Subscribe and save
For similar stories, visit the Interviews and The Nuclear Age Topic Guides

David Spiegelhalter is Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge. He studies risk and uncertainty in the lives of individuals and society, and helps run the Understanding Uncertainty website (Image: Kate Bull)
Fear of radiation from Japan's stricken nuclear power plant must not blind us to the risks attached to the alternatives, says David Spiegelhalter

What is it about nuclear energy that makes people particularly fearful?
There has been a lot of research on this. Nuclear radiation ticks all the boxes for increasing the fear factor. It is invisible, an unknowable quantity. People don't feel in control of it, and they don't understand it. They feel it is imposed upon them and that it is unnatural. It has the dread quality of causing cancer and birth defects.

Nuclear power has been staggeringly safe, but that doesn't stop people being anxious about it, just as airplanes and trains are an amazingly safe way to travel but people still worry far more about plane crashes than car crashes.

People are calling the release of radiation from the Fukushima nuclear power station in Japan a "catastrophe". Is this justified?
This is indeed a really serious event, but it has to be put in the context of the earthquake and tsunami which led to it - and which has been the direct cause of massive suffering, which is still continuing. Obviously there are threats from the nuclear power station, but they are limited and they are quantifiable. It's not a Chernobyl. Though the 1986 explosion at Chernobyl was a terrible event for many people, the lasting effects were nothing like as bad as expected.

Many governments are suspending their nuclear power projects in response to the events in Japan. Is it sensible to make these decisions in the aftermath of a disaster?
This is a tricky one. The Fukushima power station was hit by an unimaginable force. One is always surprised by these events, but one of the things you learn when you study risk is that surprising things happen. We have to expect the unexpected.

Of course, political decisions are made on the basis of how people feel. That's a politician's job perhaps, not just to respond to objective measurements of risk but to what people want. But it's good to try and keep a perspective on what the risks are for all viable alternatives, including the risk of relying on unsavoury regimes for our sources of energy.

Does this mean that fear itself is part of the problem?
One of the biggest risks from radiation is the psychological damage it causes. After events like the 1979 partial meltdown at Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, and the Chernobyl accident, there was substantial psychological trauma, even among people who were not affected, because there is such a fear of radiation and its long-term consequences.

Would you be happy to live next to a nuclear power station?
I have been trying to think how I would feel if I were in Japan right now. Would I be rushing out of Tokyo or not? I would love to say that I would be a plucky Brit and sit there with my stiff upper lip. But it is very difficult to know how you would react, especially as people respond to the feelings of those around them. But yes, I would be happy to live next to a nuclear power station, if only they weren't such big ugly things.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power.html