How Many People Did Nuclear Energy Kill? Nuclear Death Toll

nuclear energy creates an uneasy feeling of danger for many people ancient and dangerous minerals are concentrated to awaken seemingly unnatural powers creating horribly toxic elements that if they escape can and have killed people in horrible ways how many people has nuclear energy killed and how [Music] nuclear energy has been a thing since 1951 and since then there have been around 30 reported accidents globally most of them were pretty minor compared to the two disasters everybody is familiar with fukushima and chernobyl chernobyl is undoubtedly the worst nuclear accident in history for a number of reasons the reactor technology was old and ill-prepared for emergencies and the government response was slow and more concerned about image than damage control still only 31 people died directly in the accident but what makes nuclear energy scary is not reactors blowing up but the radiation they release so the real question is how many deaths through cancer and other diseases will chernobyl cause here things get really complicated because you dip right into controversy and just discussing the different estimates and how they were calculated deserves a video of its own the most pessimistic estimate comes from a study commissioned by the european green party and projects up to 60 000 premature deaths by the year 2065. most scientific studies come up with numbers much lower than this the who has estimated that in total the long-term death toll will be around four thousand while the un scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiation concluded that even this figure could be too high for more details on this check our research document the second big nuclear accident was fukushima daiichi in 2011. fukushima did not only operate with much better technology that was less dangerous in the first place much better security measures were in place and the official response was fast and decisive and so the current death toll is only 573. the major difference here is that these deaths were not a consequence of radiation they were indirect deaths from the stress of the evacuation of the areas around the reactors and occurred almost entirely in older populations estimates of the possible long-term deaths from radiation vary widely from none at all to about one thousand in terms of the other long-term consequences an increase in thyroid cancer in children has been observed but according to the who this is related to the increased screening rate by 2018 there had been only one confirmed death among workers as a result of radiation-induced lung cancer now let's compare this to renewable energy solar wind and geothermal energy basically only cause deaths as a result of construction and maintenance accidents unfortunately their current share of global energy is pretty low the major player in renewable energy is hydropower which mostly means building dams and letting water flow through turbines from a higher elevation to a lower elevation in total hydro has been the most fatal in terms of accidents with hundreds of thousands of deaths in the last half century one accident clearly stands out the 1975 bangko hydroelectric dam failure in china which has striking similarities to chernobyl old technology poor design and poor management by authoritarian governments concerned about appearances in a nutshell a massive typhoon triggered intense flooding that destroyed the dam and subsequently a number of smaller dams in a chain reaction unleashing a flood of over 15 billion cubic meters of water in total kilometer wide waves as high as buildings devastated thousands of square kilometers of countryside and countless communities all in all the death toll from just this one accident and its direct consequences is estimated to lie between 85 000 to 240 000 but all of these deaths caused by nuclear and renewable energy are actually negligible in comparison to the real killer energy source fossil fuel the most widely used source of energy and electricity when we burn fossil fuels to heat up water and make turbines spin or to cause mini explosions to move cars with internal combustion engines gases like ozone sulfur dioxide carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide are released into the atmosphere breathing in these gases disrupts lung function which aggravates chronic conditions like asthma and bronchitis and causes a wide range of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases but even more dangerous is the fine particle pollution burning fossil fuels causes a mixture of solid and liquid droplets of poisonous substances as small as 2.5 microns in diameter they easily find their way deep into your lungs and increase the risk of deadly diseases like lung cancer stroke and heart disease fossil fuel related air pollution is the number one cause of environmental related deaths in the world according to the who it accounts for 29 of all cases of lung cancer 17 percent of deaths from acute lower respiratory infection 24 from stroke 25 from ischemic heart disease and 43 from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease all in all outside air pollution adds up to the deaths of 4 million people each year what makes air pollution especially problematic and sinister is the fact that the damage it causes happens very gradually which makes it hard for our brains that didn't evolve with subtle dangers in mind to realize the scope of the problem collectively air pollution from fossil fuels is estimated to have killed around 100 million people in the past 50 years but wait is that really fair fossil fuels also provide over 80 percent of global energy so it makes sense that they cause the most deaths so let's compare deaths per energy unit deaths per energy unit produce a few studies have compared the death rates from different energy sources per one terawatt hour that's about the annual energy consumption of 27 000 eu citizens or 12 600 u.s citizens to produce that much energy for one year coal causes 25 deaths oil causes 18 and natural gas 3. renewable energy causes one death every few decades and nuclear in the worst case nuclear energy would cause one death every 14 years one study even found that nuclear energy actually saved 2 million lives between 1971 and 2009 by displacing fossil fuels from the global energy mix the numbers are clear even when using wildly pessimistic numbers nuclear energy is among the safest forms of energy generation and at a time when we're struggling to slow down rapid climate change it's a really valuable low carbon option however all these facts still leave one major argument that is fielded against nuclear power opponents of nuclear energy argue that nuclear waste and its lack of long-term storage solutions is an unacceptable problem and risk while proponents of nuclear energy say that until renewable energies are able to cover the complete energy demands of mankind it's arguably safer to store nuclear waste for the time being than to inhale poisonous gases and promote rapid climate change but a detailed discussion about nuclear waste would go too far here more about it in our sources let us know if you'd like a whole video about it so looking at the comparative death rates it's a bit concerning that some countries are replacing nuclear energy with fossil fuels mostly coal especially germany and japan have been the most active in dismantling their nuclear fleet in a ploy to appease the public the german government shut down 11 of its 17 nuclear facilities and plans to close the remaining reactors in 2022 the immediate gap in energy production was filled by temporarily increasing coal production the energy source with the largest health impacts and the worst consequences for climate change a 2019 analysis concluded that as a consequence the nuclear phase-out has led to 1 100 avoidable deaths per year in germany due to the increased air pollution in the years after 2010 so in conclusion nuclear energy feels way more dangerous than it actually is no matter how you look at it the one thing we should strive to get rid of as quickly as possible of fossil fuels to prevent the deaths they cause each year and to slow down climate change regardless of how much you personally care about climate change issues or which energy source you favor saving millions of lives should be something we can all agree on maybe you've actually made some kind of resolution to try and be more sustainable this year or maybe your goals are more about you as a person and you'd like to pick up some new skills still being stuck mostly inside is the perfect time to work on that plan we've partnered with skillshare an online learning community that offers thousands of classes for all skill levels in tons of creative skills like illustration animation or film and video but you could also dive into classes about productivity growing houseplants or interior design all perfect for making your time at home more enjoyable and learning something new you get unlimited access to all classes for less than ten dollars a month with an annual premium membership and the first one thousand quotes viewers to click the link in the description will get a free trial and if you can't decide which class to take maybe get started with something super practical like learning how to best approach your creative process we liked productivity for creatives build a system that brings out your best by thomas frank but whatever makes you feel good and gives you new ideas is worth a try if you want to get creative with new skills and support klutzkazak give it a go [Music] you

Channel: Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell

Views: 5,493,793

Rating: 4.935586 out of 5

Keywords:

Id: Jzfpyo-q-RM

Length: 10min 39sec (639 seconds)

Published: Tue Feb 02 2021

Reddit Comments

[u/PlzzDontSpamMe]

Happy to see an objective video on nuclear vs fossil fuel deaths. Hopefully the general perception on the matter will gradually return to support of nuclear power.

[u/ADX321SHUTTHEFUCKUP]

If I slowly poison 1,000 babies over the course of several years undetected, no one will bat an eye. But if I eat a baby alive in the middle of Time's square, well, I've got a PR problem on my hands.

[u/omanilovereddit]

People always cite the storage of waste as a huge issue of going nuclear. Just wondering, will the waste always be considered waste? As we inevitably progress with technology will today's waste ever become tomorrow's fuel?

[u/flavioramos]

Wow, Germany really sucks at preventing global warming.

[u/NunaDeezNuts]

And this glosses over how Fukushima was one of the oldest and most out of date reactors in usage at the time of the earthquake and tsunami.

Modern reactors are another step above it in safety... if we would actually build them...

[u/Dooder39]

Does the "Deaths per Energy Unit" for wind and solar energy include the deaths from construction accidents? If so, does the deaths for nuclear energy also include death from construction accidents?

I don't mean to shit on nuclear energy, but it's kind of odd that he named construction accidents for renewables, but not for nuclear nor fossil fuels.

Edit: Another thing that could've been added is "lives saved by renewables" like with nuclear. Also "nuclear medicine" IIRC a byproduct from creating nuclear energy (again IIRC), so that could've also be used to talk about "nuclear saving lives".

[u/[deleted]]

[removed]

[u/EnviroSeattle]

One settled death at Fukushima Daiichi is based on a legalistic "if not but for" hypothesis rather than repeatable scientific evidence. This means that TEPCO is responsible for the worker's family support rather than their medical insurance.

This standard of legal evidence discounts proximate causes and contributory factors such as the worker's health choices and quality of care. The "if not but for" standard makes radiation the bad guy no matter how much the worker smoked or how little care was paid to their health.

Of course requiring scientific certainty in order to compensate this person's family would be cruel and out of the ordinary. Industrial workers deserve all the support we can give them.

[u/AliveRich40]

I'm wondering if these statistics are cradle-to-grave figures (so, starting with the collection of raw materials to, say, build the wind turbines, as opposed to going from the factor to the build site) since I have a hard time believing there's no environmental fallout from mining quartz and copper.

These figures also glaze over the fact that green energy is wholly dependent on fossil fuels to even exist- there's an awful lot of machinery, and transport vehicles which would fundamentally need to be gas or diesel powered.