Register for an account


Enter your name and email address below.

Your email address is used to log in and will not be shared or sold. Read our privacy policy.


Website access code

Enter your access code into the form field below.

If you are a Zinio, Nook, Kindle, Apple, or Google Play subscriber, you can enter your website access code to gain subscriber access. Your website access code is located in the upper right corner of the Table of Contents page of your digital edition.


Study: Nuke Power Has Saved Millions of Lives. Media Yawns.

Collide-a-ScapeBy Keith KloorApril 4, 2013 3:54 PM


Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news

When James Hansen, the newly-retired NASA scientist talks, people who care deeply about energy and climate change pay attention. For example, when Hansen says "game over" for the climate if Canada's oil sands get developed, people take to the streets. When he publishes a study that says global warming has caused recent heat waves and droughts, it's big news. So what are we to make of the marginal notice paid this week to the results of an eye-popping paper just published by Hansen and a co-author in the journal Environmental Science & Technology? It finds that nuclear power

has prevented about 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes (Gt) CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning.

Generally speaking, such a finding (from a world-renowned scientist, no less) is headline bait, as proved to be the case at 

Scientific American and 


 at Discover.

But other than that, I'm not seeing much media coverage (as of Thursday morning). How can that be? After all, as Andy Revkin notes, this is "a significant new peer-reviewed study on nuclear power, public health and greenhouse gases." (You can read a nice overview of it by Mark Schrope at Chemical & Engineering News.)

How does mainstream media not jump all over the news that nuclear power has apparently saved millions of lives? Then there's the climate change angle, the massive amount of carbon emissions that seems to have been prevented. This strikes me as big! I'm not suggesting the Hansen paper should be taken at face value, but I think it's reasonable to expect it to be reported on, given his stature and the study's startling claim. Millions of people saved is a lot of people.  I really don't know why this study has been ignored. I'm especially surprised it's not warranting mention in the environmental media. (Or maybe I shouldn't be? I'm guessing places like Grist would be playing it up if Hansen found, instead, that nuclear power had killed millions of people.) True, there's been tons of coverage on Hansen's retirement this week from NASA. Did that announcement trump news of his nuclear paper?

3 Free Articles Left

Want it all? Get unlimited access when you subscribe.


Already a subscriber? Register or Log In

Want unlimited access?

Subscribe today and save 70%


Already a subscriber? Register or Log In