Understanding the Stigma of Nuclear Energy

By Joaquin Magno

The image of nuclear power often evokes uncomfortable images. Whether through the notorious nuclear disasters at Three Mile Island in the United States, Chernobyl in Ukraine, or Fukushima in Japan, or policymaker’s concerns surrounding the proliferation of hazardous materials into the environment, there is a well-founded reluctance surrounding the prospect of widespread nuclear technology.

Despite this, increasing dialogues surrounding the efficacy of nuclear energy in a world impacted by fossil fuels have also been put forward. With greater regards for the sustainability of carbon emissions on the environment and communities, many see the high output and low waste energy production processes of nuclear energy as more environmentally viable in a world reliant on energy and electricity.

This article, through investigating the stigma surrounding nuclear energy, seeks to deconstruct the various claims regarding this potential threat or opportunity. In doing so, this article hopes to outline the potential applications that nuclear energy can have in stabilizing the climate, and helping the world transition to more sustainable practices.

From the outset, the widespread perception of nuclear technology has been affected by its history. In the 1940s, nuclear fission technology had an explicitly military application. Most notably, the American Manhattan Project paved the way for contemporary understandings of nuclear technology, for the primary purposes of developing the atomic bomb. [source] And understandably, following the mass death and horror caused by the detonations at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the perception of nuclear technology had begun poorly. Never in the history of mankind had over 200,000 people been killed so rapidly. [source] With the severity of the bombings, perceptions could not have been worse. Beyond this, the political aftermath of the Second World War centered around nuclear energy’s application as a weapon of mass destruction, alongside worldwide concerns over the environmental consequences of the radioactive by-products of fission, the very notion of nuclear power was always tied to elements of concern. [source]

As is the case with any discourse, there were also positive perceptions surrounding what could have become a widespread, high yield source of energy. In the ‘Atomic Age’, painted by the optimism of technological progression in the 1950s, perceptions of nuclear technology began to shift. As household energy consumption skyrocketed, with the advent of mass-produced consumer electronics, there was massive interest in expanding the scope of nuclear power. [source] Highlighting these positive perceptions, there were credible interests not only in increasing the reliance countries had on nuclear energy, but also in integrating nuclear technology within consumer products. From nuclear medicine to nuclear cars, the optimism of the Atomic Age saw calls for nuclear power to revolutionize the ways in which energy was produced and consumed.

This optimism surrounding nuclear energy’s civilian applications would later become challenged by widespread environmental catastrophes caused by accidents. In the United States, the most notorious incident occurred at the Three Mile Island power plant (1979). Here, a nuclear meltdown due to insufficient safety measures led to the release of radioactive gasses and toxic iodine into the environment. Beyond the radioactive contamination of the environment, local experts noted the statistically significant increase in the rates of cancer and other genetic diseases amidst the nearby location, in light of the power plant’s construction. This went on to further tarnish the reputation of nuclear energy. [source] Indeed, briefly after the accident broke the news, a protest of 200,000 people marched in New York City against the use of nuclear power. [source]

Abroad, nuclear accidents also became more prevalent, as did popular concern. Most notable among them is the Chernobyl disaster (1986) in the Soviet Union, wherein a nuclear meltdown led to the deaths of 31 people. According to UN estimates, alongside birth defects, higher rates of cancer, and other genetic disorders caused by radiation, a total of 4,000 fatalities can be tied to this incident. [source] This disaster, aside from further tarnishing the global perception of nuclear power, had real-world political consequences. After the Soviet press failed to contain the story from the wider public, legitimacy in the regime fell dramatically, alongside perceptions of nuclear power. [source] In 1986, the German government established the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection in direct response to the accident at Chernobyl, in order to govern the application of nuclear energy. [source] After a 1987 referendum, Italians opted to phase out nuclear energy, the voting behaviors of which were also affected by the Chernobyl incident. This process of phasing out nuclear energy lasted 21 years, ending in 2008. [source]

Contemporarily, the most significant nuclear incident that affects current discourse is the Fukushima disaster (2011) in Japan. Following the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami, the Fukushima power plant on the Eastern coast of Japan suffered a meltdown. Whilst only one lung cancer-related death is tied to the incident, the disaster led to a 30 kilometer exclusion zone around the nuclear power plant, and to the displacement of over 47,000 people. [source]

Perhaps counterintuitively to the previously outlined nuclear disasters, contemporary debates surrounding nuclear power appear to emphasize the opportunities that it can provide. With greater concerns about the consequences of fossil-fuel based energy production, many look towards the high yield and low emission processes behind nuclear energy production as a suitable alternative to natural gas or oil. [source] In 2022, where supply chain disruptions and energy insecurity due to the war in Ukraine are impacting global energy markets, there is a renewed interest in nuclear energy. When compounded by the developments in nuclear technology, safety mechanisms, and waste management systems, many advocates for the responsible transition towards nuclear energy have been gaining more ground in policy circles. [source] France seems to be leading the way here: in 2021, nuclear power comprised 69% of the country’s total energy generation. With France importing approximately 27% of its natural gas from Russia, the country has made great efforts to revitalize its nuclear industry for the winter of 2022-2023. [source]

Does this mean that nuclear energy will lead the way forward in resolving our current energy crisis? With the instability we see in current energy markets and supply chains, there is only one aspect that is certain: states and regional organizations like the European Union must create a comprehensive solution to the problems of energy and sustainable development, and nuclear power is likely make up a large part of that.