Should we advocate for an end to nuclear power?

Long a subject of heavy controversy, the recent meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant have brought the issue of nuclear safety to the forefront of public discussion around the globe. In Germany 250,000 protesters took to the streets 2 weeks after the disaster, demanding an end to their country's nuclear plants. Two months later, in an abrupt reversal in policy, chancellor Angela Merkel vowed to accomplish this goal by 2022.

Concerns over the safety of nuclear power have likewise led a number of physicians to speak out and advocate for its abandonment. They argue that nuclear catastrophes are unavoidable and send radioactive materials across the planet and through food chains, making any such accident "local." Frequently cited as a standard for comparison, the 1986 meltdown at Chernobyl is said to have directly resulted in over a million deaths, according to a 2010 report by the New York Academy of Sciences.

One prominent critic is Dr. Helen Caldicott, an Australian-born physician and co-founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, a group advocating an end to nuclear weapons and nuclear power.

Please take 10 minutes to read some of her arguments here:

http://www.helencaldicott.com/2011/05/unsafe-at-any-dose/#more-285

However, despite advocacy from physicians worldwide, many proponents of nuclear power are skeptical of the true long-term effects of radiation from nuclear accidents. Furthermore they argue that nuclear is in fact the safest form of energy, citing statistics on deaths associated with other means of energy production for comparison. Dr. Barry Brook, a professor of Earth and Environment Sciences at the University of Adelaide, argues that opposition to nuclear power on safety grounds is irrational. He favors comparing accidents such as that at Fukushima to high-speed rail accidents, asking why we are not, by the same logic, crying out for an end to high-speed rail.

His views can be found on his blog, BraveNewClimate.com. This site contains detailed info on numerous pro-nuclear power arguments. If you're short on time, the basic idea of the relative safety of nuclear energy can be had from this article:

http://transitionvoice.com/2011/03/nukes-are-scary-but-dont-forget-coal/

As physicians should we advocate against nuclear power? Have we considered all of the evidence? What evidence can we trust and how do we access it? Even if nuclear is dangerous, are there less dangerous options that can realistically meet global energy demands?

Join us for an open discussion of these and related issues on Wednesday, November 30 at 7 PM in the Haynes Hall seminar room.