Skip to main content

Nuclear Energy Grabs Top Spot on Reddit ... On Earth Day

We've been recognizing Earth Day all day long here on all of our social media platforms, but I wanted to share one image that warmed my heart today like no other. If you pop over to the home page at Reddit, the link that's currently ranked #1 is a story that originally appeared at Scientific American on James Hansen's conclusion that the use of nuclear energy has saved millions of lives all around the world.
Click to enlarge.
For those of you who haven't read the paper from NASA's Godard Institute, here's the nut graph:
The authors come up with the striking figure of 1.8 million as the number of lives saved by replacing fossil fuel sources with nuclear.

They also estimate the saving of up to 7 million lives in the next four decades, along with substantial reductions in carbon emissions, were nuclear power to replace fossil fuel usage on a large scale.
Impressive. It's indeed a happy Earth Day.


jimwg said…
Happy to see such good nuclear publicity -- if it ever gets out to the masses to read and get enlightened! I still believe those estimates are gross undercounts tho'. Billions of lungs worldwide are daily exposed to fossil-fired air pollution/disease for generations, so that 1.8 million figure just logically alone is absurdly low.

James Greenidge
Queens NY
Anonymous said…
Live in Japan and cannot possibly see a positive in nuclear power. Had the tsunami in 2011 hit Aomori, just a small distance further north, where the spent fuel rods are being stored, there would not be much of the country left inhabitable, maybe worse. Nukes make little economic sense, considering the huge subsidies and how many never break even. When they go wrong they really really go wrong.
gmax137 said…
Anonymous - I have little hope of changing your opinions, but I have to try. At least with respect to the economics. Please consider that in many countries, nuclear power generation is TAXED, because it is so much cheaper than other forms of generation. And subsidies? The majority of government subsidies goes to renewables and coil/oil. Not to mention the indirect subsidy allowed to fossil generation by allowing them to dump their waste into our atmosphere, free of charge. Here's one link you might read through:

Thanks for listening
Anonymous said…
Japan suffered zero casualties from anything related to the Fukushima plants. They suffered over 20,000 casualities from the direct effects of the earthquake and tsunami. That is the real tragedy, not the Fukushima damage.

If the fuel storage facility was damaged, there likely would have been little impact beyond the facility site. Fuel storage pools have no active fission, and relatively low heat load compared to operating reactors. Spent fuel is often used by anti-nukes as a boogeyman. Once you understand what spent fuel is and the issues associated with managing it, the boogeyman vanishes.
Anonymous said…
As a university physics student and highly interested in this, I compared the risk of cancer from tobacco smoking to the recent background levels in Fukushima. About 8,3uSv/h is the radiation equivalent (according to LNT-estimates) of tobacco (20% lifetime risk), less than 8% of the evacuated zone is that radioactive. However, people living in Ramsar, Iran, does not have 20%+ cancer rates even though their background radiation can be as high as 29uSv/h, more than "any" area in Fukushima and Chernobyl.
Joris van Dorp said…
The health benefits of nuclear power are known also in Europe (in scientific literature), but this does not stop the media in Europe from portraying nuclear power as bad for our health. I heard about this study on a major news radio station a few weeks ago (BNR), but the report was disparaged quickly on the grounds that "James Hansen is not a radiation or nuclear engineering specialist." and because "James Hansen is passionate about global warming, which probably affected his judgement about nuclear power". So it seems that the media in my country (The Netherlands) will continue their policy of misinformation about - and demonization of - nuclear power.
trag said…
"but the report was disparaged quickly on the grounds that "James Hansen is not a radiation or nuclear engineering specialist.""

That's rich, given that they never use that criticism when an author is critical of the nuclear power industry. If one must be a radiation or nuclear engineering specialist for one's praise to be valid, then surely one must be such a specialist in order for one's criticism to be valid as well.

Feel free to send a letter to your local editors pointing out the double standard. Of course, it sounds like they won't print it....

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.


The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot., the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.

From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…