Of all the hazards facing humankind, climate change is the single greatest threat we have ever faced. In a few short decades, we have altered the climate more than we ever thought possible and now, in the midst of the greatest heatwave recorded in decades in the hottest year on record, we are finally beginning to countenance the scale of problem before us.

The poorest of the poor have been the first to suffer – droughts and food shortages are already imperilling the lives of countless millions, with ensuing conflicts threatening even more. We have rendered some areas uninhabitable, and the number of climate refugees will only increase. Even we privileged folk in the western world are no longer immune, with the dangers steadily encroaching.

The vast majority of the carbon and greenhouse gases we spew into the atmosphere are generated by our need for energy, prompting the late Prof Sir David MacKay to observe that “the climate problem is mostly an energy problem”. Clearly then, we must reduce our carbon emissions drastically, and it is likely that nuclear power will play a substantial role in this endeavour. Yet despite the pressing nature of the problem, there are few topics as consistently contentious as the one of nuclear power, and the long history of opposition to it cannot be ignored.

How colour-changing cats might warn future humans of radioactive waste Read more

Fears about nuclear energy run deep: the 1986 Chernobyl disaster remains a towering linchpin in anti-nuclear narratives, presented as an irrefutable case that nuclear energy is inherently unsafe. These claims are so profoundly entrenched that it is almost accepted as common knowledge that the Chernobyl disaster killed thousands.

Yet, as I’ve written here before, these claims do not stand up to scrutiny and persist in the face of report after report to the contrary. Years of subsequent investigation place the death toll of the disaster at approximately 43 people, with deleterious health effects failing to materialise at any appreciable rate. That this information is surprising to many is indicative of quite how polarised the discussion on such a vital topic has been.

Much of the reason for this is ideological – Greenpeace is but one organisation that has been criticised for releasing misleading anti-nuclear information, claiming that up to 200,000 deaths are attributable to Chernobyl. This figure has been roundly debunked, but predictably strikes fear into the public conscience, encouraging panic in place of reason.

The more recent 2011 Fukushima disaster has been become a similar focus for nuclear panic, despite the fact that no one has died nor is ever likely to from this event. The spectre of the plant looms so large in the public consciousness that we have seemingly forgotten that the cause of the meltdown was a massive tsunami that claimed about 16,000 lives, itself potentially exacerbated by climate change. There is a dark irony then in the fact that the ensuing kneejerk reaction led to the closure of Germany’s nuclear plants and their replacement with heavily polluting coal plants.

Some of this is undoubtedly due to the legacy of the cold war, where the US and the USSR built nuclear weapons of unimaginable destruction, aiming them at one another and edging the entire world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon. Indeed, the list of close calls shows just how close we came to mass destruction, and makes for terrifying reading. That the spectre of the cold war still haunts our discussions on the topic is completely understandable, even though nuclear energy and nuclear weapons operate on entirely different principles.

Yet simply dismissing concerns about nuclear energy as unfounded is not productive, nor is it honest. Nuclear energy may be the most efficient and clean source we have, but it is complicated and like any energy source, it is not devoid of complications. Nuclear waste is one aspect of this – nuclear byproducts and legacy waste can remain radioactive for centuries, and have to be carefully stored and managed to avoid any potential contamination. And while the risk to human health is generally low to nonexistent, safely storing such materials is a challenging engineering problem and legitimate concern. These challenges are not insurmountable, but nor should they be glossed over.

Nor should we ignore that due to the complexities of nuclear power, precautions must be taken to avoid detrimental impacts in the event of an accident or issue. As a precaution after the Chernobyl disaster, 115,000 people were evacuated from their homes. Quite aside from the psychological trauma of such an exodus, their continued use as pawns in emotive narratives continues to do damage – the WHO in 2005 noted that “designation of the affected population as ‘victims’ rather than ‘survivors’ has led them to perceive themselves as helpless, weak and lacking control over their future. This ... has led either to overcautious behaviour and exaggerated health concerns, or to reckless conduct.”

Cost is another factor that must be considered, and while supremely efficient and clean, building nuclear plants is an expensive and difficult undertaking, and a variety of different technologies exist with different advantages and disadvantages.



Who'd want to dump Australia's nuclear waste here? Well, this guy Read more

Clearly then, we urgently need a nuanced discussion on our energy future to stave off the worst ravages of climate change. Yet too often this falls at the first hurdle; with old battle-lines long drawn, nuclear advocates and opponents hold their own courts, talking only to their own side and dismissing the criticism and concerns of the other.

These echo chambers may be comforting, but they are ultimately detrimental to our collective wellbeing. With the chaos of climate change on our doorstep, it has never been more imperative that we make informed decisions about how best to power our world. For progress to occur, both sides need to heed each other and have an honest conversation about the advantages and risks of all forms of energy production.

More than this, access to impartial information is vital. Misunderstandings are frequent, and confound discussion. It is a sad reality that hyper-partisan sources have come to dominate our social media spheres. As flattering as these might be to our ideological preconceptions, the reality is that they are damaging to our understanding and poison productive discussion. Unbiased information is of paramount importance – this is why the newest guide by Sense About Science, Making Sense of Nuclear (full disclaimer: I contributed feedback to the guide in question) is an extremely useful addition to navigating the controversy and confusion surrounding the issue.

In the words of Sense About Science: “This guide is not about promoting nuclear as the route to a low-carbon energy system. It isn’t the broad look at energy generation that would help you decide if nuclear power is suitable in any given situation. But none of us wants to make decisions based on outdated information. So it is an exploration of what seems to have changed and to have changed minds.”

This is a laudable goal, and this conversation has never been more important. Whatever options we choose must be rooted in best evidence, and appropriate for our needs, whether they be renewables, nuclear energy or a combination of both. Despite the critical threat posed by climate change, it is still under-discussed but ignored at our peril. If we are to avert disaster, we need to have an honest and informed discussion about how to power our world and save our environment – before it’s too late.