Nuclear energy is the safest energy source

The myth

"Nuclear energy is deadly dangerous. Chernobyl and Fukushima caused thousands of deaths. A nuclear power plant can explode. The radiation causes cancer in the surrounding area." Anti-nuclear organisations present nuclear energy as an existential threat to public health. WISE Netherlands published an article in March 2026 about a Harvard study (Alwadi et al., 2025) that allegedly demonstrated higher cancer mortality near nuclear power plants. When e-Lise founder Jan Rhebergen dissected that study on LinkedIn, Paul Dorfman — a well-known British anti-nuclear lobbyist — responded with the same claims. His response was refuted point by point, after which Dorfman conceded: "No causal relationship is assumed."

Anyone who looks at the data discovers the opposite: nuclear energy is the safest large-scale energy source known to humanity.

The facts

Deaths per energy source: the figures

Our World in Data — based on Markandya & Wilkinson (2007, The Lancet) and additional sources — compares all energy sources by the number of deaths per terawatt-hour (TWh) produced. The results are unequivocal:

!Death rates per energy source per TWh (Our World in Data)

Nuclear and solar energy are comparably safe. Both are hundreds of times safer than fossil fuels. Coal kills over 800 times more people per unit of electricity generated than nuclear energy — not through spectacular disasters, but through daily air pollution causing chronic lung and heart disease.

These are not estimates from the nuclear industry. These are peer-reviewed figures published in The Lancet, one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world.

Fukushima: zero radiation deaths, two thousand evacuation deaths

!Deaths per energy disaster

On 11 March 2011, the most severe earthquake in Japanese history struck the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Three reactors simultaneously underwent a core meltdown. It was the second-worst nuclear accident in history.

What were the consequences?

The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) concluded in reports from 2013 and 2021:

• Zero deaths from radiation exposure among the public
• No observable increase in cancer incidence expected
• Zero cases of radiation sickness among the plant workers
• The maximum radiation dose for local residents was far below the levels at which health effects are measurable

What did cause deaths was the panicked evacuation. Approximately 2,000 people — predominantly elderly — died as a result of the chaotic relocation from hospitals and care homes. Patients were ripped from intensive care units. Elderly people died of hypothermia, dehydration and stress. Not from radiation, but from fear of radiation.

The RIVM in the Netherlands has taken this lesson to heart. Current Dutch recommendations for nuclear emergencies advise against large-scale evacuation, because the health damage from evacuation exceeds the radiation dose that would be avoided.

The only lethal factor at Fukushima was the irrational fear that organisations such as WISE have been fuelling for decades.

Chernobyl: the only fatal civil reactor accident

Chernobyl (1986) is the only accident involving a civil nuclear reactor that caused direct radiation deaths. This requires context.

The reactor type: The RBMK reactor had a positive void coefficient — a design flaw that allowed a chain reaction to amplify itself. This reactor type would never have been licensed in any Western country. It existed solely in the Soviet Union and was originally designed for plutonium production, not for civilian electricity generation. It lacked a proper containment structure. The safety test that led to the accident violated the plant's own operating procedures.

(What is a void coefficient? When cooling water in a reactor begins to boil, steam bubbles form. With a negative void coefficient — standard in all Western reactors — this slows the nuclear reaction: a built-in safety mechanism. In the RBMK, it was the opposite: steam formation accelerated the reaction, allowing the system to run away.)

The actual death toll: UNSCEAR documents:

• 2 immediate deaths from the explosion
• 28 rescue workers died of acute radiation sickness in the months following the accident
• Approximately 20 additional deaths among rescue workers in the years thereafter
• Approximately 5,000 cases of thyroid cancer, the vast majority of which were successfully treated (survival rate >99%)
• No measurable increase in leukaemia or other cancers in the general population — despite significantly increased screening in the affected areas

The total death toll from Chernobyl, according to UNSCEAR, is below 100. That is a tragedy. It is also fewer than the number of deaths from the Bhopal chemical disaster (1984, 3,800+ immediate deaths), the Banqiao Dam failure (1975, 26,000-240,000 deaths), or the Piper Alpha oil disaster (1988, 167 deaths).

!Nuclear safety infographic

None of these disasters led to calls to ban the chemical industry, hydropower or the oil industry. In the case of nuclear energy, that is precisely what happened — based on fewer deaths.

Professor Geraldine Thomas: from opponent to advocate

Professor Geraldine Thomas of Imperial College London, one of the leading experts on radiation effects, declared under oath before the Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission:

"I was anti-nuclear until I started working on Chernobyl and I was forced to look at the results. Everyone had expected that we would see much more cancers."

Thomas studied the health effects of radiation exposure for three decades. Her conclusion: the actual health damage from nuclear accidents is a fraction of what the public believes, and the fear of radiation causes more harm than the radiation itself.

The WISE cancer claim: their own source refutes them

In March 2026, WISE Netherlands published an article about a Harvard study that allegedly demonstrated higher cancer mortality near nuclear power plants in the United States. What WISE failed to emphasise — but their own article does mention — is the crucial sentence:

"Insufficient to establish a causal relationship."

This is a correlation study, not a causation study. It is the equivalent of observing that there are more ice cream parlours in cities with more drownings, and concluding that eating ice cream is dangerous. The study does not correct for confounders such as socioeconomic status, industrial proximity, smoking, or the fact that nuclear power plants are often located near existing industrial areas.

WISE presents a study whose authors themselves state that they cannot establish a causal relationship, as evidence that nuclear energy causes cancer. That is not science — that is propaganda.

Modern safety: from good to unassailable

!Health/environment/climate/economy comparison

Today's and tomorrow's nuclear power plants are fundamentally safer than their predecessors:

The Borssele nuclear power plant in Zeeland — fifty years old — is consistently rated internationally as one of the best-maintained and safest plants in the world. If a plant from 1973 achieves that score, what does that say about modern designs?

Conclusion

Nuclear energy, together with solar, is the safest energy source in the world — measured in deaths per terawatt-hour produced. In the only serious Western-type reactor accident (Fukushima), zero radiation deaths occurred. In the only accident with radiation deaths (Chernobyl), a reactor type was involved that would never have been licensed in the West, and the total death toll was below 100 — fewer than in dozens of fossil energy disasters that nobody remembers.

The threat to public health is not nuclear energy — it is the gas and coal plants that were built in its place. Every nuclear power plant that was not built due to unfounded fear was replaced by fossil generation that kills more people annually than all nuclear accidents in history combined. The fear campaigns of WISE and similar organisations have cost more human lives than the technology they oppose.

Sources

1. Our World in Data, "What are the safest sources of energy?" (link)
2. Markandya, A. & Wilkinson, P. (2007), "Electricity generation and health," The Lancet, 370(9591), 979-990 (link)
3. UNSCEAR (2013), Report on the levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East-Japan earthquake and tsunami (link)
4. UNSCEAR (2021), Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Power Station update report (link)
5. UNSCEAR, Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation — Chernobyl assessments (link)
6. Geraldine Thomas, testimony before the Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission (2015) (video)
7. RIVM, Recommendations for protective measures in nuclear emergencies (link)
8. Alwadi, Y. et al. (2025), "Residential proximity to nuclear power plants and cancer incidence in Massachusetts," Environmental Health 24:92 (link)
9. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (January 2026), critique of Alwadi et al. (link)
10. WISE Netherlands (March 2026), article on Harvard study on cancer mortality near nuclear power plants