Risk in review: Nuclear energy in the context of climate change

Environmental Quality Management / DOI 10.1002/tqem / Summer 2009 / 45

© 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).DOI: 10.1002/tqem.20224

Nuclear power

plants can reliably

generate electricity

while emitting virtu-

ally no greenhouse

gases. These plants

have operated safely

for decades in many

countries. Yet any

proposal to ramp up nuclear energy as an alter-

native to carbon-emitting fossil fuels is likely to

bring loud protests.

To understand this reaction, we need to grasp

how hazards are perceived and risks are evaluated

in today’s environment.

Changing Attitudes Toward RiskMore and more, we appear to be moving

toward a zero-risk society. By contrast, in past

generations, expectations tended to be pragmatic

and modest.

In pre-twentieth-century societies, people were

routinely confronted with risks. In an era epito-

mized by poverty and scarce resources, idealists

who held fanciful or impractical ideas were apt to

perish in a world governed by life-and-death deci-

sions. Assessment of risks and strategies for dealing

with hazards were routine aspects of daily life, and

indeed were essential to everyday survival.

Moreover, ac-

ceptance of risk was

the norm. People

did not grow up

with the expecta-

tion of living to a

ripe old age, span-

ning perhaps a cen-

tury. Death from

disease or other causes was accepted as common-

place. In many societies, people were fortunate to

live into their 40s or 50s.

But today—at least in industrial countries, and

particularly in Western democracies—advances

in health care, safety measures, technology, and

general welfare have exceeded anything that

our ancestors could have imagined. Westerners

are generally protected from starvation, disease,

extreme poverty, and a multitude of other dan-

gers that can easily be life-threatening in less-

developed nations.

Wealth and prosperity have grown rapidly as

a result of technological, social, and economic

advances. Art and culture have flourished. West-

erners are encouraged to seek individual growth

and self-expression. In our modern society,

Charles H. Eccleston

Risk in Review: Nuclear Energy in the Context of Climate Change

Understanding the trade-offs

involved in energy decisions

Charles H. Eccleston46 / Summer 2009 / Environmental Quality Management / DOI 10.1002/tqem

even if all reasonable and feasible safety measures

are in place to prevent them.

To be sure, we can always add additional

safety features to airplanes and impose new re-

quirements in delivery rooms. At some point,

though, the costs become prohibitive.

It might be possible to reduce air crashes

by, say, 90 percent from today’s rate. But what

if the safety measures needed to do so caused

airfares to double, or even quadruple? The in-

creased cost might mean that only 10 percent

of today’s air travelers could afford to fly in the

future.

Likewise, we could probably greatly increase

the safety of delivery. But what if that drove the

cost up to $100,000 per birth?

Some might argue that no cost is too high

to pay if it allows us to avoid plane crashes and

infant deaths. But this argument ignores the fact

that higher costs can create new risks at the same

time they resolve older ones.

Raising the cost of hospital delivery may

force some expectant mothers into homebirths.

Already, the threat of lawsuits and the rising

cost of malpractice insurance have forced many

obstetricians out of the baby-delivering business.

We are starting to witness cases where expectant

mothers cannot even get adequate prenatal care.

Are mothers and babies now safer as a result of

these developments? In reality, they may be at

much greater risk.

Similarly, if enhanced safety measures were

to make air travel prohibitively expensive,

millions of travelers could be forced to drive

instead of flying. The result would likely be

a significant increase in the number of peo-

ple who die in traffic accidents—probably

many more than would have perished in plane

crashes. Moreover, increased automobile emis-

sions might lead to environmental and health

consequences that far exceed the harm created

by airplane accidents.

subjecting an individual to unnecessary risk or

psychological trauma is likely to be met with a

lawsuit.

Reactions to RiskPast societies tended to accept death as a nat-

ural (albeit sad) occurrence. Childhood mortality

was high, and life in general was precarious.

Now, however, due to factors such as better

nutrition, effective sanitation, and advances in

medicine, death increasingly is being delayed into

old age. Consequently, modern Western society

tends to see death as avoidable. Some might argue

that we are actually witnessing, for the first time

in history, a denial of

death and dying.

This trend has

spawned a climate of

risk aversion. When an

unnatural death or in-

jury occurs, the ques-

tion almost routinely

asked is, “Who or what

is to blame?” The an-

swers to this question

habitually trend toward the conclusion that there

must be a problem with the “system.”

This reaction is reinforced when those af-

fected by tragedy see the possibility of monetary

gain. Trial lawyers immediately begin searching

for an individual or organization (usually one

with deep pockets) that can be held responsible

for causing the misfortune.

Costs Versus BenefitsMany assume that adding new safety mea-

sures and imposing more legal liability are always

the wisest choices. So if an airplane crashes, or a

baby dies at birth, there will be pressure to hold

someone accountable.

Statistically, however, these incidents can be

expected to occur in a certain percentage of cases,

Some might argue that no cost is too high to pay if it allows us to avoid plane crashes and infant deaths. But this argument ignores the fact that higher costs can create new risks at the same time they resolve older ones.

Environmental Quality Management / DOI 10.1002/tqem / Summer 2009 / 47Risk in Review: Nuclear Energy in the Context of Climate Change

in daily life, two of which are discussed in the

following section. They highlight the disparity

in understanding that often exists between the

public and the scientific establishment, or even

within the scientific community itself—a gap

that can give rise to heated disagreements.

They also underscore the need for caution,

critical peer review, and public transparency if

the benefits of a new or controversial technology

are to be realized while the potential hazards are

minimized.

Things That Go ThumpThere is a small (but real) risk that bystand-

ers on the ground

may be killed when

an airplane crashes.

Although most people

are vaguely aware of

this risk, they do not

view it as particularly

significant. Almost no

one would suggest that we should ban airplanes

or require people to live underground to avoid

the risk.

So people are generally surprised to hear

that the risk of being hit by a crashing aircraft is

actually four times higher than the one-chance-

in-a-million risk threshold that the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) rou-

tinely employs when considering the issuance of

regulations to control toxic substances.1

This raises an intriguing and thought-pro-

voking question: Does it make sense to dismiss

the risk of being hit by a falling airplane, and yet

require a risk threshold four times as stringent

when assessing the danger of a toxic chemical?

Now consider a second and perhaps more

graphic example: Most geologists are now con-

vinced that an asteroid impact led to the extinc-

tion of the dinosaurs.2 We know that another

massive asteroid or comet (something on the

Putting Risk Into Perspective

The Inevitability of RiskModern society is simply unwilling to ac-

cept tragedies with the stoicism of our ancestors.

In many ways, this can be seen as a positive

development. But today’s “blame game” fails

to acknowledge that risk is inherent in almost

everything we do. For example, every drug on

the market—including that remedy of first resort,

aspirin—has some potentially risky side effects.

Often, these risks are greater than we might

imagine. Aspirin, for example, is widely perceived

as safe and can be found in almost any home

medicine cabinet. But it can cause a range of

side effects—including gastrointestinal bleeding,

which is sometimes fatal.

Difficulties in Assessing and Weighing RiskAs this discussion makes clear, we cannot

eliminate all risk. But how do we decide what

fears are justified and what level of risk should

be accepted? The risk/benefit balance will always

be assessed differently depending on the values,

education, and experience of the stakeholder.

The assessment can be particularly difficult when

some of the risks associated with a substance or a

technology remain unknown or ill defined. In the

past, the status quo has sometimes dismissed con-

cerns expressed by environmentalists or consumer

advocates—only to backtrack later when their fears

proved to be well founded. Clearly, society must be

cautious about accepting new technologies whose

potential hazards are not fully understood.

On the other hand, as noted above, incessant

caution carries its own set of risks—which may

rival or even exceed those associated with the

new and unproven technology.

Different Perceptions of RiskRisk analysts have offered some interesting

examples to illustrate the level of risk inherent

Clearly, society must be cautious about accepting new technologies

whose potential hazards are not fully understood.


to be sure, but certainly within the range of our

technological prowess.

Yet no resounding call has been made to ac-

tually develop and use an anti-asteroid defense

system. This seems odd indeed, given that the

American public seems willing to spend al-

most unlimited sums on disposing of high-level

nuclear waste, which carries an infinitesimally

smaller risk than a colliding asteroid.

It also raises serious issues about public per-

ceptions of risk—and how those perceptions

affect our priorities when it comes to allocating

resources.

Risky DecisionsThese issues lead us into another key ques-

tion: What standard should we rely on when

deciding whether to consider a technology or

substance safe to use? The answer is not always

apparent.

Presumptions and Standards Under the American judicial system, a crimi-

nal defendant is presumed innocent until proven

guilty. But this is not the standard we apply to

scientific or technological risk assessment. Fol-

lowing such an approach would require us to

conclude that a technology is safe if we have not

identified any specific risk associated with it.

Instead, when it comes to evaluating techno-

logical risk, we rightly assume that “absence of

evidence is not evidence of absence.” Experience

has demonstrated time and again that seemingly

harmless new substances and technologies are

not always benevolent. In the worst case, their

impacts may be calamitous. Chlorofluorocar-

bons, DDT, and a host of other chemicals and

pharmaceuticals were assumed to be safe at one

time based on existing evidence—until later re-

search began to raise red flags.

Given this reality, perhaps we should adopt

the reverse of the judicial presumption when

order of 2 kilometers or more in diameter) could

strike the Earth again. In fact, this assumption in-

volves more than simple statistical chance. Given

a sufficiently long time horizon, it is virtually

certain that an asteroid of this size will eventually

hit our planet.

Such an event would cause human deaths

and environmental destruction on a cataclysmic

scale. The risk of such a catastrophe is on the

order of about 1 in a million per year, or 1 in

20,000 per 50-year lifetime.3

To put the risk of a major asteroid strike into

perspective, this lifetime risk is 50 times greater

than the toxicity risk standard typically used

by US EPA and over 250 times larger than the

conservative risk stan-

dard employed by the

Agency.

If a human-made

environmental risk

were to rival that posed

by an asteroid strike,

it would be certain to

receive intense regula-

tory interest4 and media attention. The coverage

devoted to far less serious environmental dangers

created by industrial chemicals is typically exten-

sive (and often alarming and misleading).

The resulting public outrage toward those

who use or produce dangerous chemicals can be

unmerciful. Perhaps it should be. Yet the public

displays no sign of being particularly alarmed

at the much greater risk of being killed by rocks

tumbling down on our heads from outer space.

This discrepancy is particularly curious since

an extraterrestrial cataclysm might be avoidable.5

An astronomical survey system could be devel-

oped to provide early warning of wayward aster-

oids. Several technologies now on the drawing

board might allow us to “nudge” an oncoming

asteroid into a different trajectory that would

avoid collision with Earth. It would be expensive,

Under the American judicial system, a criminal defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. But this is not the standard we apply to scientific or technological risk assessment.


created by power lines caused cancer. Repeated

studies failed to find a causal connection—but

these findings just led to more demands for re-

search to uncover the dangers that some critics

were certain existed, but just had not been dis-

covered yet.

Eventually, many researchers simply concluded

that they had reached a dead end, even though

some members of the public were still worried

about the issue. A quote from Robert Park, a Uni-

versity of Maryland physicist who was serving as

spokesman for the American Physical Society, sum-

marized the limits that science ultimately faces:

“The number of

questions you can

ask is infinite. If

it’s not the inten-

sity of the electric

field, maybe it’s the

number of times

you turn the field

on and off. Maybe

it only causes cancer in conjunction with

eating bananas. You can keep asking ques-

tions forever.”

But, he said, at some point, it is time to

invest research money in other things.6

Considering Nuclear EnergyAs the foregoing discussion makes clear, risk

is inevitable. But evaluating risk—and deciding

how much to accept—can be difficult and con-

tentious. It is against this backdrop that nuclear

energy must be considered.

Critics make headlines when they call atten-

tion to the risk of accidents at nuclear power

plants. But few people stop to ask what benefits

nuclear power may offer. In today’s energy

environment, understanding those benefits is

evaluating technological risk. Maybe we should

assume that every new or unfamiliar technology

is guilty until proven innocent?

This approach may sound tempting, but it

can lead to significant problems as well. If new

innovations are assumed to be harmful until ab-

solutely proven otherwise, we risk depriving our-

selves of valuable new products. Had we used this

approach in the past, many of the most valuable

drugs, chemicals, materials, machines, and other

modern innovations we now take for granted

may never have reached the market.

The Limits of Scientific FindingsBut there is an even greater quandary: To

prove that something is harmless essentially re-

quires proving a negative—a challenging, if not

impossible, standard. No matter how much evi-

dence accumulates, we may never be certain that

we have covered all the possibilities.

Scientific conclusions are necessarily limited

by qualifiers. For example, a research study may

state, “to the extent that laboratory test animals

provide a reliable human model, we have found

no harmful aspects related to this technology.”

We might reasonably assume from this finding

that the technology is acceptably safe for humans

to use—but we cannot conclude that it poses no

danger at all.

In reality, when we declare something to be

“safe,” we are really just saying that the risk it

poses is below an agreed-upon threshold. Thus,

our decisions concerning safety are based on

negative evidence. Absolute pronouncements of

safety may lie beyond the state of the art. It may

be virtually impossible to “prove” that most

things are totally safe.

This quandary begs the question, “How much

negative evidence is required to safely discredit a

given risk?” The importance of this question was

highlighted a few years ago, when controversy

raged over whether the electromagnetic fields

If new innovations are assumed to be harmful until absolutely proven

otherwise, we risk depriving ourselves of valuable new

products.


increased deaths and lead to large-scale eco-

nomic losses.

Changing weather patterns could allow pests

and diseases to encroach into new areas. Entire

ecosystems could be altered or destroyed. Per-

haps most chillingly, climate change could wreak

havoc on Earth’s agricultural system, resulting in

famines on a devastating scale.

The long-term impact of climate change on

humanity and Earth’s ecosystems would almost

certainly far exceed any negative impacts that could

reasonably be anticipated from nuclear energy.

Nuclear Power: A Greener Alternative?Nuclear power is a well-understood and

proven technology. The latest generation of

nuclear reactors now coming on line are much

more sophisticated and safer than any previously

known.

Moreover, the impacts of even a worst-case

nuclear accident pale in comparison to the poten-

tial long-term consequences of global warming.

And modern engineering practices are certainly

sophisticated enough to safely manage the prob-

lems posed by nuclear waste.

Exaggerated FearsSo why does nuclear energy generate fear that

is so out of proportion to the risk involved? Many

explanations have been offered.

Perhaps some critics unconsciously link nu-

clear power with nuclear weapons—even though

it is impossible for a nuclear reactor to produce

an explosion like that of a nuclear bomb. Maybe

some people have an irrational phobia of ra-

diation (which is invisible and untouchable,

and thus mysterious), even though the levels of

radiation exposure associated with nuclear power

plants are carefully monitored and well within

established regulatory standards. Other people

may simply fear any technology that still seems

exotic or unfamiliar.

particularly critical, since nuclear power pre-

sents one of the few viable alternatives to fossil

fuels.

No other plausible options have as much

large-scale power-generating capacity as nuclear.

Little room exists for expanding hydropower.

Wind and solar have significant long-term poten-

tial but are unlikely to account for more than a

small fraction of our energy needs any time in the

foreseeable future. Large-scale use of hydrogen is

decades away.

Risks From Fossil FuelsIn the near term, the only other proven large-

scale power source is fossil fuels such as coal

and petroleum. But an

energy strategy based

on fossil fuels involves

risks of its own.

Oil is a finite re-

source that is being

rapidly depleted. Many

of the petroleum re-

serves that still exist

are located in politically unstable regions of the

world, making oil supplies potentially vulnerable

to political and social upheaval.7

Fossil fuels are also the largest contributor

to air pollution. Directly or indirectly, they are

responsible for increased cancer rates, respiratory

diseases, and tens of thousands of deaths around

the world each year. Moreover, fossil fuel com-

bustion is the world’s principal source of green-

house gas emissions.

Foregoing nuclear power will almost cer-

tainly lead to increased emissions of heat-trap-

ping gases into the atmosphere. The impacts

of these emissions are potentially catastrophic.

Rising sea levels caused by global warming could

displace millions of people in low-lying areas

of the world. Severe weather events (such as

storms, tornadoes, and hurricanes) could cause

The long-term impact of climate change on humanity and Earth’s ecosystems would almost certainly far exceed any negative impacts that could reasonably be anticipated from nuclear energy.


volved in choosing one technology or course

of action over another. This is particularly clear

in the debate about nuclear power. Few seem to

recognize that the risks posed by nuclear energy

are significantly less than those created by global

warming.

Rejecting nuclear power does not mean we

are saving ourselves from harm. It just means

that we are subjecting ourselves to a different sort

of harm—in this case, the far more serious harm

threatened by global warming.

Eventually society must come to grips with

the fact that technological advancement in-

volves inherent risks. We must perpetually bal-

ance the various trade-offs. In the end, the

riskiest course of all may be that of trying to

eliminate every risk.

Notes1. Goldstein, B. D., Demak, M., Northridge, M., & Warten-berg, D. (1992). Risk to groundlings of death due to airplane accidents: A risk communication tool. Risk Analysis, 12, 339–341.

2. Alvarez, L. W., Alvarez, W., Asaro, F., & Michel, H. V. (1980, June). Extraterrestrial cause for the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinc-tion. Science, 208(4448), 1095–1108.

3. Chapman, C. R., & Morrison, D. (1994, January). Impacts on the Earth by asteroids and comets: Assessing the hazard. Nature, 367(6458), 33–40.

4. Travis, C. C., Richter, S. A., Crouch, E. A. C., Wilson, R., & Klema, E. D. (1987). Cancer risk management: A review of 132 federal regulatory decisions. Environmental Science and Technology, 21, 415–420.

5. Morrison, D., & the Spaceguard Workshop. (1992). The Spaceguard survey: Report of the NASA international near-earth-object detection workshop. Pasadena, CA: Jet Propul-sion Laboratory/California Institute of Technology.

6. Kolata, G. (1997, July 3). Big study sees no evidence power lines cause leukemia. New York Times. Available online at http://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/03/us/big-study-sees-no-evidence-power-lines-cause-leukemia.html?scp=1&sq=power%20lines%20don’t%20cause%20leukemia&st=cse&pagewanted=all.

7. Eccleston, C. H. (2008, Spring). Climbing Hubbert’s peak: The looming world oil crisis. Environmental Quality Manage-ment, 17(3), 25–30.

Regardless of the reason, it is indeed strange

that so much fear and worry are focused on a

technology that offers relatively clean and abun-

dant energy and that, in terms of global warming,

is orders of magnitude safer than fossil fuels.

Critics, Choices, Correlations, and ConclusionsAs society grows more risk-averse, there is

increasing public pressure to ensure that every

chemical and technology we use is safe. But sci-

ence cannot provide the assurance of absolute

safety that sometimes seems to be required in the

political and legal arenas.

Even a long series of negative findings can-

not prove with finality that no significant risk

exists. There are always more studies that can

be performed, and we can never be sure that the

next one won’t reveal hitherto unknown hazards.

Moreover, even if we could conclusively identify

every risk, we could not eliminate all forms of

hazard. Almost every course we choose involves

some degree of risk.

Determining the threshold for sufficient evi-

dence and the level of acceptable risk are nor-

mally tasks for scientists and policymakers. But

large segments of the public frequently are dis-

satisfied with how these decisions are made—and

critical of those who make them.

Especially when dealing with subtle hazards,

it is very difficult to scientifically prove cause-

and-effect relationships. But in cases where harm

leads to a lawsuit that can be financially reward-

ing, there is an incentive to look for correlations

(even tenuous ones), and then suggest that they

prove causation. Even if this approach pays off

in only a small percentage of cases, the financial

incentive to pursue it is strong.

In many instances, both policymakers and

the public fail to understand the trade-offs in-


Charles H. Eccleston is a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and environmental policy consultant, and an elected member of the board of directors of the National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP). He also chairs the NAEP’s Environmental and Energy Policy Committee. Eccleston is listed in Who’s Who in America and Who’s Who in the World as a leading international expert on environmental policy. He is the author of five books and over 50 professional publications. His latest book, NEPA and Environmental Planning, was published by CRC Press in 2008. His upcoming book, Environmental Policy in the 21st Century, is slated for publication by CRC Press in 2010. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Documents

Risk in review: Nuclear energy in the context of climate change