# Proof Narrative: Nuclear power is too dangerous to be a major part of any clean-energy future.

## Verdict

**Verdict: DISPROVED**

The evidence is clear: nuclear power is not more dangerous than the clean-energy alternatives it would stand alongside — and the data to prove this comes from some of the most rigorous sources in energy research.

## What was claimed?

The claim is that nuclear power poses too great a safety risk to play a major role in a clean-energy future. It's a familiar argument, often invoked after accidents like Chernobyl or Fukushima, and it shapes policy debates in countries deciding whether to extend, retire, or build new nuclear capacity. If true, it would mean nuclear should be sidelined in favor of solar and wind — not just for practical or economic reasons, but because it's genuinely too hazardous to accept.

## What did we find?

The most objective way to measure whether an energy source is "too dangerous" is to count how many deaths it causes per unit of electricity produced. This deaths-per-terawatt-hour metric is used in peer-reviewed literature, by public health researchers, and by major reference databases. It captures both accident fatalities and the chronic harm from air pollution, and it allows a direct comparison between nuclear and the alternatives.

By that measure, nuclear is not the outlier the claim assumes. Our World in Data, drawing on peer-reviewed mortality data, reports that nuclear causes roughly 0.03 deaths per terawatt-hour of electricity generated. Wind comes in at 0.04. Solar at 0.02. These numbers place nuclear squarely among the safest ways humans currently produce electricity — not at the dangerous end of the spectrum.

A 2013 peer-reviewed lifecycle study from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research reached the same conclusion independently: nuclear's safety risks are "more in line with lifecycle impacts from renewable energy technologies, and significantly lower than for coal and natural gas." This wasn't a nuclear industry finding — the Tyndall Centre is an independent academic institution.

What about Chernobyl and Fukushima? These accidents are the strongest evidence anyone could offer for the claim, and they are worth examining directly. Chernobyl caused approximately 30 acute radiation deaths and the World Health Organization projects up to 4,000 eventual cancer deaths among the most exposed populations — a genuine tragedy. Fukushima caused 1 confirmed radiation death from radiation exposure. These numbers are already included in the deaths-per-terawatt-hour calculation. When distributed across 18,500+ cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear operation in 36 countries, even the worst accidents in nuclear history do not push nuclear's mortality rate above that of wind.

The International Energy Agency describes nuclear as "a source of low emissions electricity that is available on demand to complement the leading role of renewables." The IPCC's most recent major climate report includes nuclear in multiple clean-energy decarbonization scenarios. No major intergovernmental body has concluded that nuclear is too dangerous for a significant role in a clean-energy future.

## What should you keep in mind?

This proof addresses one specific question: is nuclear more dangerous than accepted clean-energy alternatives, measured by mortality per unit of electricity? It does not address every concern people have about nuclear power, and those concerns are real.

Nuclear waste remains highly radioactive for thousands of years and requires careful long-term management. Proliferation risk — the connection between civilian nuclear programs and weapons development — is a genuine security concern. Nuclear plants in conflict zones face risks that peacetime statistics don't capture. Construction costs and timelines are substantially higher than for solar or wind, which raises legitimate questions about nuclear's strategic role in decarbonization even if its safety record is good. These are serious policy considerations, and reasonable people weigh them differently.

What this evidence does not support is the specific claim that nuclear is *too dangerous* — meaning more hazardous than the alternatives. On the most objective available measure, it isn't.

## How was this verified?

Four citations from three independent institutions were retrieved live and verified against source pages. The verification process checked whether anti-nuclear sources — including Greenpeace's published position — disputed the comparative mortality statistics, and found they do not. Full details are available in [the structured proof report](proof.md) and [the full verification audit](proof_audit.md), and the methodology can be inspected or re-executed in [re-run the proof yourself](proof.py).