POWER June 2021 - 40

COMMENTARY
End the War on
Nuclear Power-
Start with Radiation
Mary Lou Dunzik-Gougar, PhD
G
overnments and non-governmental organizations worldwide
are clamoring for reduction in human-generated
CO2
emissions. Yet, America's largest carbon-free energy
source is regulated and demonized to the point of criminalization.
It's time to end the war on nuclear energy; starting with
how we think about radiation.
Nuclear energy is the cleanest, safest, densest, and most
reliable energy source. The value proposition for nuclear energy
is unparalleled; it's the only commercially proven, dispatchable
clean energy technology that can be scaled up fast enough to
meet the demand for electricity in a decarbonizing scenario.
In contrast to intermittent renewables, nuclear power
plants provide the reliable electricity that Americans depend
on 24/7/365. Recent rolling blackouts across the country underscore
the value in having reliable and fuel-secured energy
sources that do not require favorable weather conditions or
just-in-time refueling. Unfortunately, nuclear energy is also
the most regulated, thanks, in part, to unfounded fear of radiation
and resulting regulation based on the linear no-threshold
(LNT) hypothesis.
The LNT Model
Crafted in the early days of the Cold War, the outdated LNT
model supposes that all radiation has deadly risk and, thus,
any radiation dose is harmful. However, this claim is scientifically
unsubstantiated at all but very high doses. Instead, as
explained by radiation oncologist Tony Brooks, " Low-dose responses
are non-linear at all levels of biological organization
(molecular, cellular, tissue, organism) and suggest that LNT
overestimates risk. "
Under LNT, the regulated dose limit to the public from nuclear
power must be less than 100 millirem/year. However,
according to the National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements, the average American receives a radiation
dose of 620 millirem/year. Natural environment and medical
procedures contribute 98% of this annual dosage. Nuclear
power contributes less than 0.1%.
Despite remaining unsubstantiated, LNT still forms the
basis for all nuclear-related regulation. Under LNT, significant
resources go into getting doses lower than the surrounding
natural background. This adds considerable expense to nuclear
operations without any added benefits.
Anti-nuclear activists endorse LNT-based regulation because
it increases capital and operating costs of nuclear power
plants. " Our campaign stressing the hazards of nuclear power
will supply a rationale for increasing regulation ... and add to
the cost of the industry, " wrote Sierra Club's former Executive
Director Michael McCloskey.
Much of LNT's regulatory burden is due to misinterpretation
of the ALARA principle, which urges us to make doses " As Low
As Reasonably Achievable. " Rather than optimizing safety as
40
originally intended by ALARA, LNT-based regulation focuses on
minimizing exposure.
Critics namedrop Fukushima as proof that nuclear energy
is dangerous, even though it took a 9.1-magnitude earthquake
and 49-foot-high tsunami waves to trigger the only nuclear accident
of the past 35 years. Even so, no deaths or discernible
cancer rate increases can be attributed to radiation released
from Japan's 2011 accident, according to the United Nations
Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.
Benefits of Nuclear Power
Humans flourish when they have access to plentiful, safe, and
reliable energy. Nuclear excels at all of these.
Anti-nuclear activists' animosity stems from their belief in
the premise that unimpacted nature is ideal and, thus, any
human activity that impacts nature is " bad. " This is a fallacy
because humans are natural, and ionizing radiation is no less
natural than cancer-causing sunshine. Except for localized cases
of habitat destruction and point sources of toxic effluents
not yet under successful management, the environment in
which we live has improved dramatically over the decades.
In reality, nuclear energy has had a far lower negative impact
on the environment than any other energy source, while
at the same time enabling more humans to flourish within a
limited space. A typical 1,000-MW nuclear plant needs roughly
a square mile of land. Wind turbines would require 360 times
more land to produce the same amount of electricity.
Finally, nuclear produces less waste than any other energy
source. Nuclear generation is emissions-free and avoids more
pollution per megawatt-hour than other sources thanks to its
energy density and superior capacity factor. Nuclear energy
also has the lowest lifecycle emissions among all energy sources,
including renewables, which require more energy usage for
mining, component production, and transport.
According to Danish economist Bjørn Lomborg, atmospherconcentrations
increased from about 305 parts per milic
CO2
lion to more than 400 ppm from 1920 to 2017, while global
average temperatures increased by about 1C. Yet, worldwide
the individual risk of dying from climate-related disasters declined
by 99%, mostly in countries with increasingly adequate
supplies of electricity, much of which is nuclear-generated. So,
rather than focusing on a proxy goal of eliminating CO2
emissions
with the hope of eliminating variations in a geophysically
dynamic climate, perhaps the focus should be on decriminalizing
nuclear and getting sufficient power to those who need it. ■
-Mary Lou Dunzik-Gougar, PhD is the 2020-2021
president of the American Nuclear Society. She is also
the associate dean of the Idaho State University (ISU)
College of Science and Engineering, associate professor of
nuclear engineering, and a senior reactor operator
at ISU's Aerojet-General Nucleonics nuclear
reactor, commonly known as AGN-201.
www.powermag.com
POWER | June 2021
http://www.powermag.com
POWER June 2021

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of POWER June 2021
