PreprintPDF Available
Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.

Abstract

The world's demonic fear of nuclear energy dates from the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan 75 years ago this month. Today this clouds judgement at a critical point. The threats to world order are climate change and the coronavirus, not nuclear fission. The fear of nuclear energy should be exorcised and its unique ability to mitigate climate change recognised worldwide. The need is for confidence built on education in natural science.
Hiroshima reconsidered
Wade Allison MA DPhil,
Emeritus Professor of Physics and Fellow of Keble College, Oxford
wade.allison@physics.ox.ac.uk 4 August 2020
The world’s demonic fear of nuclear energy dates from the nuclear bombs dropped on
Japan 75 years ago this month. Today this clouds judgement at a critical point. The
threats to world order are climate change and the coronavirus, not nuclear fission. The
fear of nuclear energy should be exorcised and its unique ability to mitigate climate
change recognised worldwide. The need is for confidence built on education in natural
science.
My mother was neither scientific nor political, not a hoarder either, but this newspaper lay in
her drawer until she died in 2016. Evidently the news of the nuclear bombs left a deep
impression. She was not alone. The news dramatically changed society’s perception of the
world of science. Should our children and grandchildren inherit this view, or should they re-
examine the story with a scientific eye to the future of the world that they themselves face
today?
The inhuman consequences of war do not hang on any particular technology. The levelling of
Syria since 2011, the destruction of Dresden, Tokyo, Berlin and Hamburg in World War Two
these used the blast and fire of conventional bombs. The nuclear bombs of 1945 killed similar
numbers by blast and fire, yet their political impact was greater and persists today.
What happened that August day in 1945 commanded instant awe. It was seemingly way above
everyone’s educational pay grade, but being impressed is not a step towards understanding. An
essential part of natural science became sealed off in the public mind and labelled to be feared
and avoided, as if unnatural and intrinsically malign. It was not the first time in human history
that the forces of nature had been deployed and demonised for military and political purposes.
But mankind makes advances by exorcising apparent demons in nature, in nuclear energy as in
fire or thunder and lightning.
During the Cold War the threat of a global nuclear holocaust haunted the public imagination.
To the possible destruction of many cities was added the ghoulish horror of radiation, thought
to cause widespread cancer and, worse, genetic abnormalities inheritable by later generations.
These sincerely held beliefs were cloaked in apparent scientific respectability. Born in a period
of espionage, secrets and fake news, this horror story sustained its own excitement, undeterred
by all evidence to the contrary. Today any global threat from nuclear weapons depends on this
public fear of radiation and those concerned to perpetuate it for ideological reasons.
For some three billion years life has survived moderate levels of environmental nuclear
radiation, from rocks, from space, from within living cells themselves. If it had not learnt how
to overcome this, we should not be here. Unlike a virus radiation does not change. Once biology
had established a protective strategy a combination of replacement, cellular design, active
response and an ability to adapt moderate doses of radiation no longer threatened.
The medical health of more than 86,000 survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and their
descendents has been followed ever since and compared to others not exposed. No evidence
for excess genetic abnormalities has been found, and for half a century the records show less
than twelve excess annual deaths from cancer. Many other studies confirm that the evolved
protection works well despite the large energy disparity between radiation and the weak
molecules of life. Less than fifty deaths from radiation at Chernobyl, and none at all at
Fukushima, tell a similar story. But the most unequivocal accounts of the effects of radiation
concern people and animals who are not predisposed to fear it. For example, quite large
radiation exposures occur in diagnostic scans and even greater ones in cancer therapy. These
have successfully prolonged lives since the work of Marie Curie a century ago.
Nevertheless, society genuinely needs drama and excitement, and enjoys Star Wars, murder
mysteries and dramatized disasters, whether true or not. But in the real world how does nuclear
compare to the global threats of the coronavirus and climate change?
A virus is contagious and can multiply rapidly by infection, but radioactive contamination
cannot. Sadly, the public is not told that radiation is not contagious, and at Fukushima evacuees
from the contaminated region were shunned. Although nuclear energy is not a physical global
threat, fear of nuclear has gone viral and become an endemic social condition. If the world is
to reach zero carbon, this virus has to be suppressed. We have the vaccine, a short dose of
basic science, but administering it effectively is challenging.
Before the Industrial Revolution mankinds needs were provided by the power of sun, wind
and water, courtesy of the seasons and intermittent weather. The population remained small,
and life was short and miserable. The arrival of the reliable and concentrated energy from fossil
fuels enabled a vast leap in living standards. For two centuries world affairs were a question of
who had access to these fuels, and who did not.
But no longer. The accelerating process of climate change is evidently already advanced and
irreversible. But at least we should mitigate it by forgoing the use of carbon fuels within twenty
or thirty years, as now seems widely accepted.
But reverting to weather-driven renewablesis not a viable option, in theory or in practice.
They are so weak that, to harvest enough energy, huge areas are appropriated at the expense of
nature flooded river valleys, solar and wind plants. Their description as farms camouflages
the extent of their destructive impact. But more significantly, their output fluctuates randomly,
with capacity between 22% and 37% in the case of wind. The only future for the fossil fuel
industry is short term, covering for the unreliability of “renewables”. This is witnessed by the
enthusiastic advertisements of oil and gas interests in support of renewables”. But following
fossil fuels cannot lead to zero carbon, obviously.
The traditional view of Hiroshima throws a negative light on the wholescale international
adoption of nuclear energy. And the self interest of the powerful fossil fuel industry and the
misguided idealism of many environmentalists agree. Yet nuclear fuel has a million times the
energy density, a 24/7 availability, a safety record second to none and a negligible
environmental footprint. The science is beyond doubt; only the “virus” of radiophobia obstructs
the public image. We should ensure that our grandchildren appreciate the real message of
Hiroshima for today, the opportunity to mitigate climate change using nuclear energy
worldwide. Those nations that invest in nuclear know how and public understanding in the next
twenty years will be masters of the next industrial revolution, provided that their technical
choices are based on sound natural science.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.