Leans Right
Nuclear power as a safe, clean energy source for fighting climate change
Nuclear power has one of the lowest death rates of any energy source and a real cost-and-build-time problem, and people weigh those facts very differently.
Video by PragerU, presented by Michael Shellenberger (founder of Environmental Progress)·watch·June 25, 2026
In short
Nuclear power makes electricity by splitting atoms. It gives off almost no carbon, so many people say it can help fight climate change. The video says nuclear is very safe, and a lot of its facts check out. Counting accidents and pollution, nuclear has one of the lowest death rates of any energy source, far below coal and gas. At Three Mile Island, people nearby got less radiation than a chest x-ray. At Fukushima, the tsunami caused the deaths, not radiation at the plant. And all U.S. nuclear waste so far would fit on one football field, only yards deep. But the fuller picture has more. The same WHO report the video quotes also says up to about 4,000 people could eventually die from Chernobyl cancers over time. The Fukushima evacuation was linked to many indirect deaths among sick and older people. And the video leaves out nuclear's biggest real problem today: new plants often cost a lot and take many years. The newest U.S. plant ran years late and cost about double. So nuclear looks safe and clean, while cost and time are the hard parts.
What the video claims, and where the numbers come from
| What the video says | Where the number comes from | How it holds up | Fuller context |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fewer than 200 people have died from nuclear power in the whole history of the industry, and the WHO said 'fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation' from Chernobyl. | The Chernobyl figure traces to the 2005 WHO/IAEA-led Chernobyl Forum report 'Chernobyl's Legacy,' which states fewer than 50 deaths were directly attributed to radiation as of 2005. That SAME report also projects up to ~4,000 eventual cancer deaths among the most exposed groups (a figure the video does not mention). The 'under 200 industry deaths' framing matches low death-rate estimates like Our World in Data's deaths-per-terawatt-hour work. Reliable trace to a real, named source. source | checks out | The exact WHO quote is real. But the same WHO report ALSO projects up to about 4,000 eventual cancer deaths among the most exposed people, and other groups estimate higher. The video gives the low number and leaves out the projection from the same report. |
| At Fukushima (2011) not one person at the power plant died from radiation leaks; the deaths were from the tsunami. At Three Mile Island (1979) the radiation released was no more than a chest x-ray. | Fukushima: matches the World Nuclear Association and Japanese government findings that no deaths came from radiation sickness at the plant; the earthquake and tsunami killed ~18,000. Three Mile Island: the NRC estimates the ~2 million people nearby got about 1 millirem on average, less than a chest x-ray (~6 millirem). Both trace to real official sources. source | checks out | Largely accurate. Two added facts: in 2018 Japan recognized one plant worker's lung-cancer death as radiation-linked, and the evacuation itself was tied to ~2,000+ indirect deaths (mostly sick and elderly people). So 'zero plant deaths' is nearly right; the wider disaster toll is more complex. |
| All U.S. nuclear waste ever made could fit on one football field under 70 feet high, and countries already lean on nuclear: France ~70%, Sweden ~40%, Switzerland ~36%, U.S. ~20%. | The waste image traces to the U.S. Department of Energy: ~90,000 metric tons of used fuel over ~60 years would fit on a football field about 10 yards (30 feet) deep — note DOE says under ~30 feet, not 70. The country shares trace to IEA/World Nuclear data: France was ~67-70% nuclear in 2020; the U.S. ~20%. source | checks out | The country shares are close to IEA figures. The waste image is real but the depth varies by source (DOE says about 30 feet; some versions say less). One thing left out: nuclear's main real-world hurdle today is high cost and slow build times, not waste volume. |
The sources, left to right
CenterWorld Health Organization / IAEA Chernobyl Forum — 'Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident'backs the video’s point
Fewer than 50 deaths were directly tied to Chernobyl radiation by 2005. But the same report says up to about 4,000 people could eventually die from radiation-linked cancers.
CenterOur World in Data — 'What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?'backs the video’s point
Counting accidents and air pollution, nuclear is among the safest energy sources, with about 0.07 deaths per terawatt-hour, far below coal, oil, and gas.
CenterU.S. Department of Energy — '5 Fast Facts about Spent Nuclear Fuel'backs the video’s point
All used nuclear fuel made in the U.S. over 60 years would fit on a football field about 10 yards deep. The waste is stored safely and is small in volume.
CenterU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission — Backgrounder on the Three Mile Island Accidentbacks the video’s point
The average person near Three Mile Island got about 1 millirem of extra radiation, less than a chest x-ray. The NRC found no detectable health effects.
CenterOur World in Data — 'What was the death toll from Chernobyl and Fukushima?'
Direct radiation deaths were low, but estimates of eventual cancer deaths range widely (hundreds to thousands), and the Fukushima evacuation itself caused many indirect deaths.
CenterWikipedia — 'Effects of the Chernobyl disaster' (summarizing WHO, Greenpeace, and others)
Long-term Chernobyl death estimates differ a lot: the WHO projects up to ~4,000, while some groups like Greenpeace estimate tens of thousands.
CenterU.S. Energy Information Administration — 'Plant Vogtle Unit 4 begins commercial operation'
The newest U.S. nuclear plant, Vogtle 3 and 4, ran years late and cost about $36 billion, roughly double the first estimate. Cost and build time are nuclear's big challenges.
CenterWorld Nuclear Association — Fukushima Daiichi Accidentbacks the video’s point
No one died from radiation sickness at Fukushima; the deaths came from the earthquake and tsunami. The industry group sees this as proof nuclear is relatively safe.
Leans LeftGreenpeace — 'The Chernobyl Catastrophe: Consequences on Human Health' (2006)
Greenpeace, an environmental group, estimated far more eventual deaths from Chernobyl — on the order of tens of thousands — much higher than the WHO projection. This is the high end of the debate.
The data
Deaths per terawatt-hour of electricity, by source
Counting accidents and air pollution, nuclear is among the safest. Lower is safer. · source
Chernobyl deaths: the video's number vs. the same report's projection
The WHO quote the video uses is real, but the same report also projects far more eventual deaths. · source
Newest U.S. nuclear plant: estimate vs. final cost
Plant Vogtle 3 and 4 shows nuclear's main hurdle today: cost and build time. · source