Do Not Read This If You Are Anti-Nuclear Energy

There’s been a good bit of back-and-forthing on this blog about nuclear power, most notably regarding a Times Magazine column we wrote recently about the past and future of the nuclear industry.

In a nutshell, we posited that the U.S. anti-nuke revolt in the 1960s and 1970s may look misguided in retrospect since it helped thwart the proliferation of nuclear power (clean but risky) while encouraging coal-fired electricity (dirty and, with global warming in mind, perhaps even riskier).

There is by now a pretty long list of environmentalists who used to be anti-nuke and are now in favor of it. They include Stewart Brand, James Lovelock, and Patrick Moore. If a new book called Power to Save the World is half as good as this Wall Street Journal review says it is, expect that list to get much, much longer.

It is written by Gwyneth Cravens, a “novelist and former New Yorker magazine fiction editor … a sometime antinuclear activist … and a determined organic vegetable gardener who spent her childhood in 1950s New Mexico having atom-bomb nightmares.” Dr. Richard “Rip” Anderson is “another lifelong greenie, a man with a doctorate in organic chemistry who grew up on an Idaho ranch without electricity and whose day job, over the course of a long career, has included pioneering something called probabilistic risk assessment (the underpinnings of climate-change analysis, but that’s another story).”

Together they set off on “a grand tour of the nuclear-power world, from dust-blown uranium mines to the depths of a pilot facility for Uncle Sam’s waste deposit at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain.” And they come back raving — in favor of nuclear power. The review’s author, Spencer Reiss, sums things up nicely here:

It’s hard not to read Ms. Cravens’s book as a 400-page indictment of the nuclear power industry’s tragicomic inability to tell its own story. Going all the way back to Three Mile Island (1979) and Chernobyl (1986) — disasters that look a lot less disastrous in retrospect, as Ms. Cravens discovers — the industry has swapped missionary zeal for a hair shirt and a defensive crouch.

In other words, even if you end up pro-nuke, you can still find something to blame on the nuclear industry. (I have always found this argument shaky, especially when put forth by journalists: that the nuclear industry didn’t tell its own story well. When a besieged industry does “tell its own story well,” it is said to be manipulating the media; and when it doesn’t, it’s not the media that’s at fault, but the industry itself.)

That said, it sure feels as if the tide is turning on nuclear power, at least in terms of the American public perception. And if you think public perception isn’t important, just think back to how severely the perception of the Three Mile Island accident changed nuclear power’s future.

Addendum: I received the following e-mail from Gwyneth Craven, correcting an error in the original post (now appended above) and offering some further insights:

I appreciate your good words about my book. I am wondering if you can fix one thing, though. Dr. Richard “Rip” Anderson, the chemist, oceanographer, and expert in risk assessment who took me on a tour of the nuclear world, is actually married to another environmental and community activist, Marcia Fernandez. She came along on the Nuclear America Tour. (Together they saved an airstrip in Albuquerque from development and turned it into a sanctuary for migrating birds and other wildlife.) I am married to Henry Beard, the humor writer.

Good point about the media’s tendency to blame industry, one way or another. I did not intend the book to be an indictment of the nuclear industry, although I do criticize it for handling some matters clumsily, a history of lame P.R., and its partnership, through utilities, with the fossil fuel industry.

To me the book is about prejudice based on wrong assumptions and what Richard Rhodes calls “secondhand ignorance.” In the book (p.184) there is a graph based on a study by Bernard Cohen, Prof. Emeritus, U. of Pittsburgh, about stories by the New York Times of different types of accidents between 1974-78 (prior to Three Mile Island). He compared their frequency with the annual fatalities caused by these accidents. Cohen writes:

On an average, there were 120 entries per year on motor vehicle accidents, which kill 50,000 Americans each year; 50 entries per year on industrial accidents, which kill 12,000; and 20 entries per year on asphyxiation accidents, which kill 4,500; note that for these the number of entries, which represents roughly the amount of newspaper coverage, is approximately proportional to the death toll they cause. But for accidents involving radiation, there were something like 200 entries per year, in spite of there not having been a single fatality from a radiation accident for over a decade.

Another problem, especially in TV coverage, was use of inflammatory language. We often heard about “deadly radiation” or “lethal radioactivity,” referring to a hazard that hadn’t claimed a single victim for over a decade, and had caused less than five deaths in American history. But we never heard about “lethal electricity,” although 1,200 Americans were dying each year from electrocution; or about “lethal natural gas,” which was killing 500 annually with asphyxiation accidents. (Bernard Cohen, “The Nuclear Energy Option,” pp. 58-59.)

People may have skewed risk perceptions, as you have pointed out in your writings, but the media helps that process.

Oscar M.

Check out to compare the CO2 emmissions of nuclear vs ocal plants.


"That said, it sure feels as if the tide is turning on nuclear power, at least in terms of the American public perception. And if you think public perception isn't important, just think back to how severely the perception of the Three Mile Island accident changed nuclear power's future." - last paragraph of the post

And the empirical evidence for this statement is where? Do you have a Zogby poll perhaps? A Rasmussen? A Pew? Something? Other than two self described environmentalists changing their minds on one particular policy of the United States energy industry?

Mr. Dubner seems to be insinuating that anti-nuke (or how about Pro-Radiationless?) people will not like this column. Funny, how narrow minded the "pro-nuke" people are... never any mention of Tokamak's success.

Or the next generation of fusion reactors- Iter.

Oh, and don't forget to do your part to consume less energy. Because you know, lowering demand is one of the tools in our toolbox- like that protractor you never picked up and instead tried to eyeball the angles.


Mathieu F

How about the fact that coal-fired electric plants generates MORE radioactivity than nuclear plants...


Well, let's hope the tide will turn. It's definitely time to look for realistic alternatives. Given the improvement of technology since the last issues arose anywhere, it seems like a workable solution to an pressing problem.


"Do Not Read This If You Are Anti-Nuclear Energy" is the exact wrong title for this post. Anyone who is already pro-nuclear energy doesn't need any more convincing that it's a good idea. Those against it may change their minds if they see enough evidence to do so.

Paul O.

Dear Dubner,

You should be blogging for the WSJ! You have an high proportion of blog entries from their pages.


golly - i'm all for studying data and making common sense decisions, but if we had any idea of the true effects of Chernobyl and other disasters, there's no way anyone would be considering nuclear.

and this line is great:

"disasters that look a lot less disastrous in retrospect"

I guess Vietnam looks a lot less disastrous in retrospect, too - especially if you're not one of the millions of murdered civilians around to tell _your_ story anymore.

plus, lamenting an entire industry's inability to sell itself? does that not strike anyone as a bit, what's the word i'm looking for, unbalanced? self-serving? crooked?

and, to be at all useful, any discussion of this subject has to include the fact that these people and other flip-floppers are choosing the lesser of two evils - with an explicit recognition that the U.S. is in no meaningful sense, a democracy - that the oil/gas/coal industries (a few major companies) control U.S. energy policy, and the citizens of this country have no real say in energy policy.

what these nuclear-heads are arguing for, in effect, is that only taking a 30% chance that millions of (poor) people will suffer and die as a result of nuclear experiments gone awry is a much preferable alternative to the 80% chance that global energy companies (ExxonMobileDieselWhatever, etc.) will plunge the nations of the world into an Orwellian never-ending war of resources for profit, and that in such a case, a few non-poor people might die - they were able to prevent the nuclear sites from being built in their backyards, but global war doesn't discriminate.

But, I'll read the book. After seeing 'Who Killed the Electric Car?', I suspect the oil and car companies might have had something to do with the demise of nuclear.

Oh yeah - Band of Horses.


Michael D

So there is a silver lining to the global warming scam!


Maybe one day we will read that global warming was overhyped and that the gw 'deniers' did't tell their story well either. I don't know, anything is possible.

KC Brian

Not to come off as a Socialist but state run nukes in France have been successful and without incident. I believe part of the problem with Nukes in America is that they are run for profit, presumably at the expense of safety. Remove the emphasis on profit and focus efforts on continued safety and I'm confident Americans will once again warm up to Nukes.


Please no more about profit being achieved at the expense of safety. An argument used extensively to justify public ownership of airlines in the UK before privatisation, but surely with zero credibility now.


Good Article.


Of course nuclear is now the cleanest option we have that can be deployed everywhere at the capacity required - it is not a perfect option as accidents can and will happen but no alternative is perfect either
Nuclear is no pipe dream, France which is not a tiny country produces 75% of their power with nuclear and the country does not glow in the dark nor people have 8 toes
At the same time we should of course use public transport and save as much energy as possible and explore other methods - it is not one or other as some posts say but all of them
I personally would rather produce what we need with nuclear and hydro and stop using coal and gas and oil whihc has the added effect of making us less dependent on corrupt mid-east governments


Maybe Dubner titled the post the way he did hoping to keep away the people who will take one sentence out of context and beat it to death. Clearly he failed.

Coal is not "safe". Nuclear is not safe. If we treat the waste responsibly, it will remedy the fossil fuel crunch and slow greenhouse gas production. It's a net-positive, that's all there is to it.


Any thoughts on the economics of nuclear power in a free market without government subsidy?


RE:#16 - Comparatively better than all other baseload energy alternatives.


First off, I would rather live near a nuclear plant than a coal one. But "How about the fact that coal-fired electric plants generates MORE radioactivity than nuclear plants…" is not true. What the article said is that people living near coal fired plants are exposed to more radiation than those living near nuclear plants which meet government regulations. This is kind of an important distinction, because, as Lawrence H Oswald posted, we need to know where the waste is going to go before we start a nuclear building binge.

As for Steve's comment about government subsidy, nuclear power is far and away the most heavily subsidized in the U.S. Nuclear plants are very expensive to build and maintain. And in this era of global terrorist threats, who really thinks this is going to change?

One of the things that has always struck me about those who still call global warming a hoax or scam is the utter hostility to efficiency, conservation and alternative energy sources other than nuclear. Whether you believe in global warming or not, the world is facing a significant economic problem: demand for energy is increasing far more rapidly than is our ability to obtain more fossil fuels to supply that energy. The measures that we need to take if global warming is in fact happening are essentially the same ones we need to take in order not to have our economy decimated by lack of an increasingly scarce but essential resource.



Safe so far does not mean safe forever.
And it's only going to take one accident at a nuclear power plant with a major city or any city downwind for public opinion to swing hard the other way.

Perhaps after that accident the proponents of nuclear power should have to live in the contaminated area.

At the very least they should have to visit the relatives of the dead and dying.


I wonder what would have happened if the "pilots" of the highjacked planes on 9-11 would have chosen Three Mile Island as their target.

Centralized power, whether coal, nuke, whatever - has other issues - transmission distances, NIMBY syndrome, etc. Perhaps for the next generation of energy sources, we should be looking to a more distributed network of small-scale, community-based power generation.


You're right, 40 years ago if we factored in global warming, the nuclear vs. coal argument might have been different. But now it's not just nuclear vs. coal -- it's nuclear vs. coal vs. solar vs. wind vs. tidal vs. biomass. I'm not anti-nuclear, I'm just pro-renewables.