Nuclear energy is the safest energy source

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).

"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

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