For journalists and science communicators, a major challenge has been to accurately convey the risks inherent in nuclear technology, and comparing them to other sources of power. Both the Columbia Journalism Review and the Earth Journalism Network offered briefing materials on how to communicate risks responsibly. Bloggers for ProPublica, Discover, and DeSmog Blog all emphasized the limited reach of Fukushima’s impacts so far. David Ropeik in Scientific American and Gregg Easterbrook in Reuters warned that fears of nuclear disaster are generally overblown. Taking the opposite position were Amory Lovins in The Huffington Post and Jonathan Schell in Yes, who argued that the risks of meltdowns are simply too great.
There was plenty of irresponsible reporting, too, an interview carried out by Nancy Grace of CNN Headline News serving as a particularly egregious example of a journalist raising alarms without seeming to understand the science. Ropeik worried that poor risk communication by the Japanese authorities has stoked mistrust, fear, and anger toward nuclear power.
What seems clear, however, is that even taking Chernobyl into account, nuclear power has caused far fewer deaths than coal. “Some studies indicate that on a per-kilowatt-hour basis, the electricity from coal-fired generation is 4,000 times more deadly than electricity from nuclear generation, primarily because of harmful emissions and premature deaths,” noted Richard Caperton, an energy policy analyst at the Center for American Progress.
The problem is that nuclear disasters, although rarer than those in the coal industry, tend to be more highly publicized. This is one of the reasons why nuclear power has a high “dread to risk” ratio, a subject ably explored by Andrew Revkin at his New York Times blog, Dot Earth.
Looming over this whole debate like a dark cloud is the threat of climate change. One of the reasons for nuclear power’s increasing popularity in recent years is that, as a low emitter of greenhouse gases, its development can become one of the “wedges” used to mitigate global warming. As with the threat of a nuclear meltdown, humans find it difficult to assess the risk of climate change because it presents a low probability of a catastrophic disaster—although that probability increases with each year we fail to act against it. What’s more, effective regulation of both nuclear power and fossil fuels in the U.S. have been stymied by “regulatory capture”—when regulators are controlled by the industry they’re supposed to oversee—of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and (while under the George W. Bush Administration) the EPA, respectively.
But it is the divergences between nuclear power and climate change that have been least remarked upon by the press. Despite the global debate surrounding it, nuclear power is ultimately a local issue. Yes, plumes of radiation and contamination of food and water can potentially travel long distances, but the threat posed is mostly confined to a certain radius. Climate change, on the other hand, is the ultimate global issue, “the disaster that we refuse to see coming,” as Ezra Klein of The Washington Post puts it, although he asserts that “in a rough way” it is “easier to predict.”
Journalists and most other commentators are used to depicting these debates as pitting “environment vs. development.” But with nuclear power touted as one of the energy alternatives to prevent climate change, that dichotomy is becoming out-dated, increasingly replaced by a public discourse of “global vs. local.” What is good for the planet may not be good for local people, and vice versa.
We face the same conundrum with—and the media have provided far less attention to—the issue of large dams. They, too, have a renewed popularity among policymakers because they’re seen as a climate-friendly energy source (although decaying plant matter in reservoirs do release methane, a powerful greenhouse gas). What’s more, in a world facing increasing water stress, dams are a crucial means for storing and providing fresh water. And yet they are incredibly destructive to local communities and ecosystems, and thus fiercely opposed by local people.
It's not just an issue of radiation release. We still haven't figured out what to do with the radioactive waste. Not only is the waste dangerous in it's own right, there is also the issue of the waste available to be stolen and being used in bombs.
#1 Posted by Ron R., CJR on Tue 5 Apr 2011 at 04:41 PM
James,
You write: "But it is the divergences between nuclear power and climate change that have been least remarked upon by the press. Despite the global debate surrounding it, nuclear power is ultimately a local issue."
That is a very interesting point, especially in light of the recent string of pro-nuclear columns that George Monbiot has written for the Guardian. All of them, including his latest, where he directly challenges Caldicott and the anti-nuclear movement, imply that opposition to nuclear power remains very much ideological. Or do you mean that the problems related to nuclear power, such as waste disposal and fears of contamination, are mostly local in nature?
BTW, over at Climate Central, I take stock of Monbiot's recent columns, and whether his increasingly assertive case for nuclear power will have staying power:
http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/the-nuclear-option/
#2 Posted by Keith kloor, CJR on Tue 5 Apr 2011 at 09:22 PM
Keith, interesting discussion you've got going on at your blog over Monbiot's views.
I do mean that most of the problems from nuclear power, such as radiation contamination, are local in nature. That applies to nuclear waste sites, as well (as Ron says, that's a problem which hasn't adequately been solved -- or it's been "solved" by sending it as far away as possible, to the Canadian shield and perhaps one day Yucca Mountain). Of course there are global implications, whether positive or negative, such as the security threats posed by proliferation, or the benefits in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
Yes, I agree that a lot of the opposition is ideological in nature, but I don't think we can dismiss all of it as being unreasonable. Nuclear power plants are still expensive to build and decommission, especially when you add in additional safety factors. And quite simply, no one wants to live near a nuclear plant or waste disposal site (unless you materially benefit from it, ie, you or someone in your family has a job there).
Those are going to be the two most fundamental obstacles to developing nuclear power going forward, particularly in democratic countries. In more authoritarian countries, or rapidly industrializing countries that still have sizable poor populations, I think it will soon be full steam ahead again.
What we in the media need to do a better job of is exploring the local implications of global issues like climate change -- both in terms of impacts and adaptation, and how, even when society musters the will to address climate change, the solutions are generating huge environmental (not just economic) controversies.
#3 Posted by James Fahn, CJR on Wed 6 Apr 2011 at 10:11 AM
When you say, "What seems clear, however, is that even taking Chernobyl into account, nuclear power has caused far fewer deaths than coal,' you've expressed the industry spin on the subject. They want to compare nuclear with coal to avoid the comparison of both nuclear and coal (19th and 20th century technologies) with renewable, clean, green energy solutions like solar and wind (21st century technology), which would obviously kill far fewer than either and protect against global warming too.
Nuclear power is potentially deadly to whole cities, and the world for that matter. It's time to adopt the "precautionary principle" and phase it out.
#4 Posted by Laurie Menard, CJR on Wed 6 Apr 2011 at 03:50 PM
This article is completely disingenuous swill that might well have been written by one of the nuclear industry's numerous public relations outfits. You're trying to present a highly biased argument as a balanced viewpoint. Your assertion about the number of deaths caused by nuclear power is absurd. Are you aware that competent scientific authorities in Russia and Eastern Europe have calculated that as many as 1 million people may have died and many more suffered rare, horrible genetic illnesses as a result of the Chernobyl accident? How about the deaths and illnesses caused by uranium mining and processing which are incurred largely by indigenous people in third-world countries or poor minorities such as Navajos in the United States or aborigines in Australia?
If nuclear energy is so safe then why, of all of the energy technologies, is it the only one with its own act of Congress that specifically limits the liability of its plant owners and operators in case of accidents (at ridiculously low levels I should add)? If advocates of nuclear energy and the nuclear industry really want to convince us that their technology is safe then they should ask for repeal of the Price-Anderson Act. In other words, put up or STFU.
As for this incredibly shoddy piece of "journalism" it's a disgrace for it to appear in the CRJ. I thought there were higher standards here. If I want to read this kind of crap I can go back to the WaPo which published essentially the same propaganda piece several days ago.
#5 Posted by roadrider, CJR on Wed 6 Apr 2011 at 10:29 PM
Correction to my previous post. It should read "and others have suffered suffered rare, horrible genetic illnesses"
#6 Posted by roadrider, CJR on Wed 6 Apr 2011 at 10:32 PM
You say in the article that nuclear power has caused far fewer deaths than coal. However, i wonder if this conclusion considered the big investment in nuclear securities. What if we pay the same big money on the security in coal mining as that in nuclear generations.
#7 Posted by Scully Meng, CJR on Thu 7 Apr 2011 at 11:18 PM
Thanks for your comments. If you have alternative studies comparing the safety of various power sources, please do share them.
Here's a WHO study which found that air pollution (not just from power sources) causes 2 million deaths per year: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/index.html
Another study puts the estimate at 3 million deaths per year, and that's from pollution in the form of smoke and chemicals, not factoring in climate change: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070813162438.htm . The mercury emitted by coal-fired power plants also causes genetic diseases.
Global mortality numbers for air pollution specifically from power plants are harder to come by, but in the US alone it's estimated at 24,000 per year: http://www.environmentnevada.org/reports/clean-air/clean-air-program-reports/dirty-air-dirty-power---mortality-and-health-damage-due-to-air-pollution-from-power-plants . That's compared to a total of 41,200 air pollution deaths per year.
In China and India, annual air pollution deaths are estimated at 656,000 and 527,700, respectively, with the combustion of fossil fuels and the burning of charcoal and coal being considered primary sources: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070709-china-pollution.html
There are of course many policy alternatives to supporting nuclear power or coal. This article was not intended to explore them all.
#8 Posted by James Fahn, CJR on Fri 8 Apr 2011 at 12:09 AM
Good reporting, James.
The energy policy of the USA has way too much short term thjnking (corn based ethanol and shale gas) and too little reliance on market signals. A Big Fat Energy Tax would bring it into line, but Congress will never buy that.
Duncan
#9 Posted by Duncan Brown, CJR on Sat 9 Apr 2011 at 02:08 PM