Nuclear Power: Actuarial versus Perceived Risks
Scientists, engineers, and power policy specialists have been advocating for nuclear power for decades. But despite their efforts, and the evidence backing their stance, the majority of the public remains either ambivalent or opposed to nuclear power. Why doesn’t the public like nuclear power?
Like most real world problems, the answer is complicated. We can unpack it here, but first we need to understand the difference between actuarial and perceived risks.
Actuarial and Perceived Risks
A risk is anything that could go wrong and then have a negative impact on safety and wellbeing. This includes personal and public health (mental and physical), damage to the environment, or economic loss. An actuarial risk is any risk that can be numerically or statistically quantified. Engineers are pretty good at assessing actuarial risks. We run the calculations, look at the studies, and design accordingly.
Perceived risks can be trickier. A perceived risk is a risk the public feels when they interact with a product or design. Perceived risks are also influenced by dread - a feeling invoked in a person when the outcome of a risk is catastrophic, fatal, or involuntary [1]. Catastrophic and fatal risks have to do with the severeness of the result. A risk is involuntary when the public has little to no control over their exposure to this risk. For high dread topics, people are more likely to either oppose the topic, or do nothing to change its current state.
To get an idea of how these risks work, consider car crashes and road accidents. Every year, 1.35 million people die on roadways worldwide [2]. But in spite of the significant actuarial risk associated with roadways and car crashes, car crashes are not a high dread topic. Even though car crashes are often fatal or catastrophic, consumers have a large amount of control over the risks associated with using a car. People choose to use cars as a mode of transportation, whether or not to wear a seat belt, and if they will drive alert and defensively. Having control over risks, and being able to personally mitigate them, makes car crashes a low dread topic.
Why don’t people like Nuclear Power?
Nuclear power is a high dread topic and has a very high perceived risk. Many people consider nuclear power a high dread topic because they have no control over the risks associated with nuclear power. In the United States, the two greatest risks associated with nuclear power are fall out (release of radioactive material into the environment and exposure to the public) and waste storage [3]. These risks were confirmed to the public when nuclear accidents have happened, such as the nuclear accidents in Chernobyl, Ukraine (1986), and Fukushima Daiichi, Japan (2012).
Adding to the dread and perceived risk of nuclear power, many people around the world were first introduced to nuclear technology when two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan during World War II. The unconscious association of nuclear technology with nuclear weapons is a difficult bias that anyone in the nuclear industry (e.g. nuclear medicine, nuclear power, and nuclear technology in manufacturing) needs to overcome when working with the public.
Quantifying and Comparing the Risk of Nuclear Power
Nuclear power may have a high perceived risk because of its current status as a high dread topic, but when we go to calculate its perceived risks they are quite low. In the past 60 years of nuclear power production, across 36 countries, and with 18,500 operating, there have been 3 significant accidents at Chernobyl, 3 mile Island, and Fukushima. Of these accidents, 30 people died, all during the Chernobyl accident [4].
However, fossil fuel emissions from electricity generation (combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas to produce electric power) cause 3.36 million deaths every year [5].
We can also calculate the safety of different energy sources by analyzing their death per terawatt hour count. This figure considers every fatality associated with mining the material, transportation, workplace accidents, and deaths from pollution. Nuclear Power proves to be the safest power source. And while these statistics only compare death counts, living close to a nuclear power plant also does not prove any significant risks [4].
A terawatt hour is a unit of energy used over time. Expressing deaths as a rate (deaths per amount of energy produced) accounts for differences in the amount of power used across different energy sources [6].
Nuclear power is the safest of our existing energy sources. Yet its perceived risk and poor public image have prevented its widespread implementation, forcing us to rely on fuel sources with much higher actuarial risks.
How Nuclear Power Works
The largest factor in predicting whether or not a person will support nuclear power is how educated they are on nuclear power and energy issues [3]. This sounds like a circular argument- the more you know the more you like it - but really, this is significant. For instance, people who know more about the risks of smoking (doctors) don’t recommend smoking. Educating people on nuclear power and the safety measures in place could lower its associated dread and change the tide in support for nuclear power.
Whenever I talk about nuclear power with my friends (a case study on why engineering students aren’t cool to hang out with at parties), I try to introduce it as simply as possible. I’ll generally say something like, “radioactive materials generate heat. In a nuclear power plant, this heat turns water to steam which is pushed through a turbine-generator to make electricity.”
An introduction to how a nuclear power plant works [7].
One of a nuclear power plant’s most important safety features is the containment structure. The containment structure is a large concrete structure inside the nuclear power plant that, in the event of a nuclear meltdown, prevents nuclear materials from being released into the atmosphere. Any water that comes into contact with the reactor core is kept in a separate circuit from the cooling water. This way, any cooling water that gets released into the environment as steam has never been contaminated by radioactive materials in the core.
Why push nuclear power so hard when other renewable energies could be used to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels? Not only is it the safest energy source, it also can produce the amount of power, and provide it consistently enough, for our current infrastructure. Energies like wind and solar have important roles to play in our transition off of fossil fuels, but are dependent on the weather (a problem if you want to run a heater on a cold, windless night). A nuclear power plant can run 24/7.
Comparing Nuclear Power with other energy sources. From left to right, the Huntington Coal plant in Utah, the Columbia Generating Station in Washington State, and a wind farm in Utah. Figure made by the author.
Lessons Learned on Actuarial and Perceived Risks
If we want to be serious about transitioning off of fossil fuels in our efforts to fight climate change and improve the quality of living worldwide, then we should seriously consider nuclear power in our energy portfolio. Even though public opinion and risk perception are heavy obstacles in getting nuclear energy on the power grid, educating people on the benefits of nuclear power could sway public opinion for the better.
As you walk away from this article, think about the role perceived risks play in design projects you are currently working on. Nuclear power also serves as a potent case study on how perceived risks affect design. Engineers and technical designers are very good at diagnosing and mitigating actuarial risks, but often forget the human element of their designs. Remember that it’s important to design for how people perceive your product or system. Consider these questions as you begin mitigating perceived risks in your design work:
Does your product feel safe? What can you do to make your product feel more safe? Just because it is safe to use doesn’t mean that it feels safe to use. And I hate to break it to you, but something that doesn’t feel safe generally isn’t safe. You might have an actuarial risk on your hands instead of a perceived one.
Is your product easy to use? This does not mean, “once you know how to use it it’s easy to use.” Strive for products that are intuitive and can be picked up quickly.
Being safe and easy to use often won’t suffice - a product must feel safe and easy to use. Unfortunately, there is still work that needs to be done before the majority of the public feels that nuclear power is a safe and viable solution for modern day energy needs. Hopefully this article can open our minds to the benefits of nuclear power, and remind us all to be mindful of perceived risks in our design work.
References:
Jagiello, R. D., Hills, & T. T., (2018, October 01). Bad News Has Wings: Dread Risk Mediates Social Amplification in Risk Communication. Risk Analysis, 38(10), 2193-2207. https://doi-org.erl.lib.byu.edu/10.1111/risa.13117.
World Health Organization (WHO). Global Status Report on Road Safety 2018. December 2018. Available from URL: https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2018/en/
Stoutenborough, J. W., Sturgess, S. G., & Vedlitz, Arnold. (2013, November). Knowledge, risk, and policy support: Public perceptions of nuclear power. Energy Policy, 62(0301-4215). https://doi-org.erl.lib.byu.edu/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.098.
Safety of Nuclear Reactors. Safety of Nuclear Reactors - World Nuclear Association. (2022, March 22). Retrieved April 13, 2022, from https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx#:~:text=The%20safety%20of%20operating%20staff,areas%20with%20significant%20radiation%20levels.
Lelieveld, J., Klingmüller, K., Pozzer, A., Burnett, R. T., Haines, A., & Ramanathan, V. (2019). Effects of fossil fuel and total anthropogenic emission removal on public health and climate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(15), 7192–7197. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1819989116
Jaganmohan, M. (2021, January 29). Mortality rate globally by energy source 2012. Statista. Retrieved April 13, 2022, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/
U.S.NRC., Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
