Fissioning perceptions: Overcoming Nuclear Energy’s Stigma and Embracing the Unseen Potential. (Copy)

On July 20th, the fateful dual release of Barbenhiemer, the world once again witnessed how a singular man could devastate the lives of millions … twice. Both movies explore how ideas initiated from historical events and continuously perpetuated across generations can lead to a fundamental alteration in our worldview, with Oppenhiemer compelling a ruminative reconsideration on nuclear energy and the reasons for its incessant negative stigma in post-WW2 political climates. Following the horrific bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons and energy have seldom left the conversation of global defence and energy production, and have shifted the discussion from a scientific to political one. The stark dichotomy between the energy production benefits of nuclear power and the downfalls of its heavily publicised ‘freak accidents’, have polarised public opinion on nuclear power and its global commercialisation. 

Mass media, as a powerful influencer of the public perception of social and political events, plays a pivotal role in moulding the population’s consensus, which can sway major economic decisions and public policy. Sporadic nuclear accidents are mass-distributed in news articles, who profit from any form of publicity and further disseminate research funded by major energy firms that see nuclear energy as a major risk to non-renewables market share. News articles from mere weeks ago, headlining ‘As world remembers Nagasaki, O'Brien floats idea of nuclear power’ and ‘Nuclear Power Plants as Targets of War - A New Worry?’ sway public opinion through referring to past accidents and employing outrageous, fear-mongering buzzwords. The meticulously phrased titles are strategically designed to ingrain into the minds of society the ‘problems’ and ‘dangers’ of nuclear power. This, in turn, triggers a barrage of likes, comments and shares. 

Fear fuels clicks. 

Reporters and news outlets scramble for the story that will maximise engagement, with a complete disregard for how rattled public confidence could affect scientific developments and the world’s capacity to produce low-carbon energy. The spectacle of a nuclear accident attracts more attention than the more consistent and normalised losses expected from other forms of energy production. The reference to these stories in the months and years following the events further snowballs the panic by asserting that this impact is still plausible and applicable to modern nuclear processes. Due to increased research and tighter regulations, the possibility of a nuclear energy accident involving poorly designed experiments, such as in the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and major mechanical failure as in the 1979 Three Mile Island, are almost eradicated. 

The widespread defamation of nuclear energy is further enforced as the stigma transcends news headlines and into other forms of broadcast and print media. The incriminating portrayal of nuclear waste as a ‘green goop’ and nuclear energy as weaponised by the likes of Spiderman’s Doc Ock, indoctrinates different demographics and enforces an intergenerational presumption and aversion from nuclear energy. The fear has compounded to the extent that even in 2023, the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster with no directly attributable deaths receives greater publicity than the 15,000 global mining and quarrying fatalities in 2019 (International Labour Organisation, 2019). It seems the fiery blast of nuclear energy is more marketable than the slow poison of coal and gas. 

Let’s backtrack to 2011. 

I was folding paper cranes, pushing the back of my nail against the creases again and again to satisfy myself that mine would be perfect, just like the one my Japanese teacher had made minutes earlier. Her name was Hiromi. I was in grade one. 

Hiromi held this annual origami day every year. As she demonstrated how to fold paper cranes, she explained why doing so was of such significance. Naively, I began playing with the carpet under me, slowly drowning out her voice until it eventually fused with background noise. 

In grade three, Hiromi recounted the story of the paper crane; for the third year in a row, we were to learn and pay our respects to the story of Sadako Sasaki, a twelve year old girl who tragically passed away from Leukaemia as a direct effect of exposure to radioactive matter as an infant after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. This time, I didn’t drown her voice out. I listened.

‘She was a girl who brought Japan together, she was determined to fold 1000 paper cranes to be granted a wish but didn’t make it before she could fulfil her dream,’ Hiromi said. 

I was shattered. 

It was at this moment that a tragic series of events which had taken place almost 70 years ago had sculpted my understanding of ‘nuclear power’. 

Like grade three me, you too probably have a tainted view on nuclear energy. 

If I said what happened to nuclear energy? You would probably say that it’s been proven to be unsafe, reinforcing the stance with the cases of the ‘Chernobyl’, ‘Fukushima’ reactor meltdowns and the ‘Hiroshima and Nagasaki’ bombings. Yes. These were tragedies that will be grieved by many and the trauma and loss cannot be restored.

But the reality is, it is the psychological effects in conjunction with journalists’ takes that are obstructing the cold hard evidence produced. 

Nuclear stands second to last between solar and wind at 0.03 deaths per terawatt-hour. And yet, when people think of ‘nuclear’, they think of danger. The stigma surrounding the use of nuclear power is preventing the population to even consider the technology as an option to generate electricity. 

(Markandya & Wilkinson, 2021)

And the technology is there. It isn’t just some intangible myth.  

One of the numerous practices is the closed nuclear fuel cycle. To put it simply, it is a process that partially reuses and recycles nuclear waste, essentially creating more energy while simultaneously reducing its radioactive life, and, a technology that Japan has implemented. Japan, a nation that suffered utter devastation and trauma has responded with complete grace, continuing funding research to prevent similar disasters and better their consumption of non-renewable fuels. 

Sadly, the stark separation of people who believe in nuclear power and those who don’t, is likely a consequence of what’s been reported rather than what’s not. Take car crashes and plane crashes for instance. Car crashes are common, much more so than plane crashes yet the general consensus is that planes are more dangerous. 

Bluntly, people are afraid of sporadic shock. 

The fear that is ingrained into society incapacitates us to view differently the current and emerging technology, which is astronomical in this era of making the transition from fossil fuels to more environmentally friendly alternatives.

We are not denying the psychological distress that these past incidents have brought upon individuals, rather, highlighting that it is also that that has been hindering advancements which could potentially bring about an environmental and scientific revolution. 

References: 

Markandya, A., & Wilkinson, P. (2021). Death rates per unit of electricity production. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh?tab=table

Joyce Ong | National Affairs Officer & Kritika Allath | Sponsorship Officer