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.

Comments

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: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Energy-Subsidies-and-External-Costs/#.UXboDEp3uEU

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

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …