Daniel and Kelly’s Extraordinary Universe - Is nuclear power good for the environment? (ft. Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow)

Episode Date: April 10, 2025

Daniel and Kelly talk to Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow, author of "Atomic Dreams", a new book that tracks the complex relationship between environmentalism and nuclear power.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Hi, it's Honey German, and I'm back with season two of my podcast. Grazias, come again. We got you when it comes to the latest in music and entertainment with interviews with some of your favorite Latin artists and celebrities. You didn't have to audition? No, I didn't audition. I haven't audition in, like, over 25 years.

Oh, wow. That's a real G-talk right there. Oh, yeah. We'll talk about all that's viral and trending, with a little bit of cheesement and a whole lot of laughs. And of course, the great bevras you've come to expect. Listen to the new season of Grasias Come Again on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. Let's start with a quick puzzle.

The answer is Ken Jennings' appearance on The Puzzler with A.J. Jacobs. The question is, what is the most entertaining listening experience in podcast land? Jeopardy Truthers believe in, I guess they would be conspiracy theorists. That's right. To give you the answers and you still blew it. The Puzzler. Listen on the IHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Do we really need another podcast with a condescending finance brof trying to tell us how to spend our own money? No thank you. Instead, check out Brown Ambition. Each week, I, your host, Mandy Money, gives you real talk, real advice with a heavy dose of I feel you. uses. Like on Fridays, when I take your questions for the BAQA, whether you're trying to invest for your future, navigate a toxic workplace, I got you. Listen to Brown Ambition on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. Every case that is a cold case that has DNA. Right now in a backlog will be identified in our lifetime. On the new podcast, America's Crime Lab, every case has a story to tell. And the DNA holds the truth. He never thought he was going to get caught.

And I just looked at my computer screen. I was just like, ah, gotcha. This technology is already solving so many cases. Listen to America's Crime Lab on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Today, we're going to be talking about a pretty divisive technology, one that produces stable power without emitting greenhouse gases, but also produces. is waste that's toxic for thousands of years. It contributes to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. But over 50 years, it may have actually saved millions of lives. It's dangerous and poses a threat to nearby communities, but it also generates electricity for decades from

a few small rocks. These are all true statements about nuclear energy. It has incredible unique benefits to offer and terrifying toxic dangers. Where does that all shake out? Should nuclear power be a part of our energy portfolio, or should we shut it all down? Today we'll be asking that question, is nuclear power good for the environment? And talking to Becca Tohus de Brow, author of a fantastic new book, Atomic Dreams, on the rise of the pro-nuclear environmental movement. Welcome to Daniel and Kelly's extraordinary complicated universe. Hello, I'm Kelly Weiner-Smith.

I study parasites and space, and I grew up pretty close to a nuclear power plant, and I still only have two eyes. Hi, I'm Daniel. I'm a particle physicist, and I grew up at the home of atomic power at Los Alamos, New Mexico, and I won't comment about whether I glow in the dark. Oh, interesting. So what is the closest you've ever lived? to a nuclear power plant. Does Los Alamos have one? Los Alamos doesn't have an operating nuclear power plant, but we have an operating nuclear power plant in the basement of the chemistry building next door. It's about 200 feet from me right now as we speak. Really? Yeah, it's super cool. You can get a tour of it. You can see the blue glowing water from the Turenkoff radiation. It's super awesome. Oh, that is super cool. I didn't know that. I would totally want that tour. When am I coming to

visit, Daniel? I don't know. Come visit. I will hook you up with a tour. I've actually used it for science because it's a nice source of certain kinds of radiation if you need to calibrate things. So it's pretty awesome. It's sort of like a teaching reactor for nuclear engineers, for chemical engineers to learn how it works and this kind of stuff. Pretty cool, right? Yeah, that's awesome. I grew up in Ohio, sort of near the Davis Bessie power plant and I thought I was going to win. But no, no, you win and congratulations. May it never melt down. Wow, now I'm worried about it. I wasn't until you said that. Thanks, Kelly. It's fun spending time with a catastrophizer.

But nuclear power is amazing, both scientifically and socially, you know, to evoke such strong feelings among people about how dangerous it is, but how it reflects the hubris of science, or how it's going to usher in a new era of humanity. And there is a fantastic new book that talks about the social and political issues around nuclear power called Atomic Dreams, and we had the pleasure of interviewing the author. He certainly did. It's a fascinating tale about how environmentalists were for nuclear power and then they were against it, and now some of them are back to being for it, including a wonderful

group called Mothers for Nuclear. Boy, the stunts they pull are interested. And so we're going to have a chat with Becca in a moment, all about the history of the environmental movement's complicated relationship with nuclear power. But first, I was wondering what listeners thought, whether they saw nuclear power as something that was good or bad for the environment. As usual, it's not possible to boil down a super complex topic into five-second sound bites, but that's what I asked our listeners to do, and they stepped up.

So yes, nuclear power is environmentally responsible, at least until we get cold fusion. While some people might think it is better for the environment than fossil fuels, it is still not really good for the environment. Do things like coal? Nuclear power is better for the environment. environment. I wouldn't say good. On the whole, avoiding the CO2 release is worth it. Nuclear power is amazing for the environment, Intel, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima. Nuclear power, on average, is going to be a lot better for the environment than fossil fuels.

The mining and extraction of nuclear fissile materials are actually what concern me the most, especially given how much processing. But compared to the immediate damage from petroleum-based fuels, I would always lean towards nuclear. I think it's one of the better alternatives. I think that's worth it in order to cut down on the amount of carbon we're putting into our environment. Nuclear power plants are not good for the environment. They have contaminated our groundwater. They have contaminated our land.

It will continue that way for thousands and thousands of years. Would you put your farm on a piece of land before the nuclear reactor was there or after the nuclear reactor was there? There is no better way to produce enormous amounts of electricity without carbon emissions or other toxic pollutants than nuclear power. I say no, because of the radioactive waste product that has to be stored somewhere, and it's usually in the ground, and the threat of nuclear meltdowns, that would affect our air, water, and everything else. As long as they're well designed and the waste materials are properly handled, but I think we need to push for fusion. On net, I think it's good because current reductions in emissions will pay dividends in the future, whereas problems like nuclear waste can probably be solved. Until we can find a way to convert or reuse spent nuclear fuel, I would say that the overall answer is no. I think if something goes wrong, then it can be really bad for a long, long time.

We should all be choosing nuclear power and believing in science. If it can be properly managed, the benefits are greater than the loss. There's no such thing as clean oil, so yeah, I'd say let's go nuclear power. One of these days, I think we should have a discussion about cold fusion, because I see it many, mentioned a lot and I'm under the impression that it is a bit silly. But I would love to hear you give me all the science behind it. But this was a really nice set of answers that covered, you know, the risks and the promises of nuclear. Way to go. D.K.E. You folks. Yeah, I think you hear a lot of folks saying that obviously it's not perfect, but it's better than the alternatives. And some people still being scared of it. So I think that really nicely sets the stage for our conversation with about whether we should be excited or scared of nuclear power or both. Let's jump right in. All right.

So it's my pleasure to welcome to the podcast, Becca Toohus de Brough. She's a journalist based in Southern California, and her articles have appeared in illustrious places like The New Yorker, the New York Review of Books, The Nation, and the Washington Post. She's also my neighbor here in Irvine and a friend. So I'm very glad to have her on the podcast. Becca, welcome to the podcast. Thank you so much for having me. We're so excited to have you on the show. I absolutely loved Atomic Dreams.

It was really well written, really informative. I laughed out loud a couple times. It was fantastic. Thank you. I think we should start by discussing a bit the history of the anti-nuclear movement. Is that sort of just how the general public felt about nuclear power from the beginning? Or was it in response to some particular event? Great question.

Yeah, I think we might tend to assume that the public, public was always primed to lean anti-nuclear because it was always associated with the atomic bomb, but that's actually not the case. It was more complicated. So, of course, the first time the public learned about atomic science in general was after the atomic bomb were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. And that led to a lot of fear and horror and disorientation. But the prospect of civilian nuclear plants, that was actually presented as almost redeeming the destruction of the bomb. It was like, this is clearly an incredibly promising new area of science and what can we do to use it for beneficial purposes rather than destructive purposes. And among conservationists, that's what environmentalists were called at the time in the 50s and early 60s.

they actually were particularly receptive to nuclear power, at least a lot of them were, largely because it promised an alternative to dams, which may be surprising. Because now I think dams, hydro, you know, seems relatively innocuous to us. It seems like one of the more preferable forms of energy generation. But at the time when conservationists were really focused on preserving natural landscapes, wilderness, scenery, dams were anathema, and so nuclear power seemed to present the opportunity to generate electricity in a different way. So yeah, at the beginning, attitudes were actually generally more favorable. When did we start worrying about carbon and climate change?

So there were a few isolated scientists who sort of realized what the effects of carbon dioxide might be pretty early, going back to, I think, even the 1800s. And in the 60s, it started to be known among some scientists and government. But in general, it wasn't an issue back then. The public wasn't generally aware of the risk of climate change until the late 80s. So nuclear power was good before it was bad before it's good again. It's like, how many times can this thing switch sides? To simplify it, yes.

So it was considered good by a lot of people, but there were concerns that started to emerge. There was the fallout controversy in the early 50s when Americans learned that because of nuclear atmospheric weapons testing, radioactive debris was basically getting spewed through the air and getting into the food system and getting into our teeth and bones, which obviously is a really disturbing idea. and I think that did raise concerns about radiation and nuclear power plants also emit radiation. Low levels, workers and the public can be exposed to quite low levels during routine operations. And then there's the creation of highly radioactive waste, which is something else I'm sure we'll talk about. And then there's also the risk of accidents, which can be catastrophic and expose people to higher levels of radiation. So I think during the 60s, there were a few sort of dissident scientists who started to raise the alarm about some of this. And there were two scientists in particular, John Gothman and Arthur Tamplin, who in 1963 were asked by the Atomic Energy Commission.

That was the agency, the entity that was responsible for kind of overseeing both weapons and. civilian uses of nuclear power and that agency doesn't exist anymore but at the time they asked these two very well-respected scientists to basically look into the risks of power plants nuclear power plants and they did and they basically said actually this is super dangerous this is much more dangerous than you've been telling the public and they wrote a book the aEC tried to suppress their findings, but they went public, and they were basically these courageous scientists who didn't really seem to have any interest other than protecting public health. And they wrote a book published in 1971 called Poisoned Power, the case against nuclear power plants. And that was

very influential. Wow. So it only took like 15, 20 years for the shine to come off of nuclear energy. I mean, I'm not young enough to remember this, obviously, but I have a sense that nuclear energy and, of course, nuclear weapons are connected to this feeling of like a modern era. the atomic age when we're entering a time when science and technology are going to transform the way we live and like, yay, frozen meals and microwave ovens and, you know, all this cool stuff and we're excited about the future. And so that must be something like a big letdown socially or culturally to feel like, oh, actually, maybe we're poisoning ourselves and science has overstepped. You know, how long does it take to go from that book you mentioned to like

the 90s where the Simpsons, for example, portray nuclear powers is like insanely dangerous, staffed by idiots, you know, three-eyed fish in the river. You know, to me, the Simpsons is like a measure of the average Joe's sense of what nuclear power can do. What happened between the publication of that book and then like the 90s to give nuclear power this like pretty terrible PR status? Yeah, well, I think you mentioned the sort of excitement about modern life. I think that started to sour for a lot of reasons, and the counterculture in the 60s, a big part of that was, of course, you know, questioning authority and just basically being

against the system and the man and going back to the land and small was beautiful and starting to question nuclear power, which was sort of the quintessential sort of establishment technology and it was complex and it was hard to understand. and it wasn't something that you could sort of be individually empowered to do, you know, to make your own, like, on your commune like you could with a solar panel. I mean, the professor made a nuclear reactor with just a couple of coconuts on the island and isn't that true, right? Was that Gilligan's Gilligan's Island reference, yes.

Oh, man. I found something really fascinating in your book, which is sort of echoes of what we're seeing today with, like, skepticism about science and the scientific establishment. There's this quote from your book that really struck me. It said, the nuclear industry had been aggressively promoted and massively subsidized by the government. And in its early years, those working in nuclear science had acquired a reputation for secrecy

and condescension. So basically, those smug nuclear scientists thought they knew how to organize our world, but they hadn't really thought it through. Is that the sense we had already, like back in the 70s? Yeah. And what's super interesting, I think, is that, A lot of that skepticism was on the political left back then. And now we see it more on the right.

So that has a lot of implications. But the politics of nuclear power in general tend to be quite complex and not as straightforward as you might think. But yeah, I think one thing that happened was that nuclear power, it sort of became a symbol of everything that was wrong with modern society. so there were all of these different segments of the anti-nuclear movement that agreed that nuclear power was terrible but they had sort of different angles on it there was like a feminist aspect there were some feminist groups that sort of saw it as this very masculine dominating impulse you know and there were anti-war groups that basically saw nuclear power and nuclear weapons as part of the same monster. And Ralph Nader was a big anti-nuclear advocate.

He was, you know, a consumer, a health advocate. And at the time, it just seemed like this symbol of a society gone wrong. So let me know if this question is too far afield, because I don't think you dealt with it in the book. But I have this vague memory of Project Plowshares, where scientists were using nuclear weapons to bomb harbors. into existence. And I wonder if part of the condescension is I remember there being like local communities saying, no, we don't want this. And a scientist being like, it's cool, yo. And so I'm

wondering to what extent did things like Project Plowshares play into this sense that scientists are secretive and condescending about nuclear power and its promises. Yeah. I know that there were plans and that some scientists thought this was a great idea to use basically bombs for peaceful purposes. I don't know to what extent that actually happened. But yeah, I mean, I think it's very easy to relate to this sense of indignation and anger that people felt, I mean, even just from fallout, for example, just, you know, the idea that this radioactive material that had never existed in nature before was now drifting through the air and getting into our bodies. And And that's like a real invasion.

And it's not as salient for us now, but we think more about microplastics and there are a lot of other sort of contaminants now that we're aware of. But I think at the time it was pretty shocking to people and kind of filled them with this sense of dread and that like what are we doing to our world. I've heard sort of a pop history accounting that Hollywood is also to blame. You know, this movie, the China syndrome came out like just before the Three Mile Island disaster and sort of preparing the public. priming them to think that nuclear power is out of control and probably going to kill you and make your children have 12 fingers and stuff like this. Is that oversold or is that really a big part of the story? Yeah, that's a good question. Because when I finally did watch that movie, I was like, this actually is pretty tame. Like there isn't even a major disaster that happens.

It's just set largely at this fictional nuclear plant in California. And there's sort of of an incident where there's some shaking, but it's not anything that dramatic. And the message is like, yes, nuclear power is a little sketchy. There were some people at the plans who were trying to cover up safety issues and you can't really trust them. It wasn't nearly as just dramatic as I was expecting. That said, it was this major Hollywood movie that came out just two weeks before the accident at Three Mile Island. So I'm sure it did have some effect. Do you tell us a bit more about the Three Mile Island incident and how big of a deal that was and when it happened? That was in March of 1979. And there was a partial meltdown at one

of the two reactors at this plant in Pennsylvania. And it was really scary because it wasn't even clear to the authorities quite what was going on. And so there were these sort of inconsistent messages to the public and eventually well over 100,000 people ended up evacuating. And in the end, a very small amount of radiation escaped. There are definitely people who say that it was more than the authorities claimed. But basically, from what I can tell, it seems like disaster was averted, and there have been epidemiological studies that have mostly not found any public health effects other than the public health effects of nuclear accidents actually tend to be largely psychological effects. It's extremely stressful, and it's tricky to talk about because

that makes it sound like it's all in your head, don't worry about it. That is what a lot of pro-nuclear advocates believe that the dangers of radiation have been. really exaggerated and we do a disservice to people when we exaggerate the dangers and cause people to live in fear about exposure they might have experienced even if that exposure is unlikely to lead to physical health effects. So radiation science is very contentious still and I didn't come out of all my research with a strong opinion one way or the other, but I did come to understand the way that advocates on both sides see it. I thought it was really fascinating how you track sort of the progression of the discussion

inside the Sierra Club, you know, this is like one of the nation's preeminent conservationist movements, can you give us a snapshot of what those arguments were? Why was the Sierra Club against nuclear power? What were they arguing about? Yeah, well, initially a lot of them were for it, for the reasons I mentioned earlier that it could be an alternative to dams, essentially. And David Brower was the leader of the Sierra Club, starting in late 1952. He was the first paid executive director.

And the Sierra Club was the preeminent conservation group in the country. And it was at the time still a relatively small California-based organization. And they were mainly focused on outings and rock climbing, these 10-day camping trips in the Sierra Nevada. Sounds awesome. Yeah. But they were sort of forced to become more political, I guess, in the 50s because of all of these changes in the country, population growth, economic growth, which led to lots of plans for logging and development that would encroach on the wilderness they love so much. And dams, of course. And David Brower was just this incredibly passionate, eloquent defender of wilderness.

and he really was kind of monomaniacal about it. When he was fighting specific dams, like one that was proposed for the Grand Canyon, they defeated that plan. But he said, well, instead of this dam, why don't we build a nuclear power plant instead? Oh, wow. Yeah, which is really interesting.

But over time, some members of the club really turned against nuclear and some remained relatively favorable. One of the latter was a guy named William Siri. who was actually a nuclear physicist himself, I believe, and he had worked on Manhattan Project. And he has a really striking quote that I came across in the archives a little bit related to what we were just saying about nuclear accidents. He said, you know, I think eventually we will have nuclear accidents, but we'll kind of get

used to it and eventually we'll just see on the news, oh, there was a nuclear accident and then we'll just go back to watching baseball or whatever. Wow. So that gives you a sense of, yeah, the range of use. But David Brower eventually became very anti-nuclear. And that was partly because he learned more about the risks at every stage of the fuel cycle, from mining to waste disposal. Also, he had a very classic environmentalist worldview.

He wanted to limit our use of resources. He wanted to limit growth, limit population growth. You know, it's a very 60s and 70s era view. But he saw nuclear power as kind of. kind of wrapped up in this ethos of endless growth. So he didn't think it was a good thing to have virtually unlimited energy because it would just kind of feed into all our other sort of desires for expansion and end up wreaking havoc on the planet.

All right. So we've heard about the origins of nuclear power. How it was very exciting initially for the public to think about limitless nuclear power in our modern age and how very quickly the shine came off of it. and environmentalists went from being in favor of nuclear power to being against nuclear power because of all of its dangers. And we're going to take a break. And when we come back, we're going to hear about how some environmentalists are now pro-nuclear again.

I'm Dr. Joy Harden-Brandt Bradford. And in session 421 of therapy for black girls, I sit down with Dr. Ophia and Billy Shaka to explore how our hair. connects to our identity, mental health, and the ways we heal. Because I think hair is a complex language system, right? In terms of it can tell how old you are, your marital status, where you're from, you're a spiritual belief. But I think with social media, there's like a hyper fixation and observation of our hair, right?

That this is sometimes the first thing someone sees when we make a post or a reel is how our hair is styled. You talk about the important role hairstylists play in our community. the pressure to always look put together and how breaking up with perfection can actually free us. Plus, if you're someone who gets anxious about flying, don't miss session 418 with Dr. Angela Neal-Barnett

where we dive into managing flight anxiety. Listen to therapy for black girls on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Get fired up, y'all. Season two of Good Game with Sarah Spain is underway. We just welcomed one of my favorite people and an incomparable soccer icon

Megan Rapino to the show and we had a blast. We talked about her recent 40th birthday celebrations co-hosting a podcast with her fiance Sue Bird, watching former teammates retire and more. Never a dull moment with Pino. Take a listen. What do you miss the most about being a pro athlete?

The final. The final. And the locker room. I really, really like you just can't replicate, you can't get back. Showing up to the locker room every morning just to shi-talk. We've got more incredible guests like the legendary Candice Parker and college superstar AZ Fudd.

I mean, seriously, y'all. The guest list is absolutely stacked for season two. And, you know, we're always going to keep you up to speed on all the news and happenings around the women's sports world as well. So make sure you listen to Good Game with Sarah Spain on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Presented by Capital One, founding partner of IHeart Women's Sports.

The OGs of Uncensored Motherhood are back and badder than ever. I'm Erica. And I'm Mila. And we're the host of the Good Mom's Bad Choices podcast, brought to you by the Black Effect Podcast Network every Wednesday. Historically, men talk too much. And women have quietly listened. And all that stops here. If you like witty women, then this is your tribes.

With guests like Corinne Steffens. I've never seen so many women protect predatory men. And then me too happened. And then everybody else wanted to get pissed off because the white said it was okay. Problem. My oldest daughter, her first day in ninth grade, and I called to ask how I was going. She was like, oh, dad, all they were doing was talking about your thing in class. I ruined my baby's first day of high school.

And slumflower. What turns me on is when a man sends me money. Like, I feel the moisture between my legs when a man sends me money. I'm like, oh, my God, it's go time. You actually sent it? Listen to the Good Mom's Bad Choices podcast every Wednesday on the Black Effect Podcast Network, The iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you go to find your podcast. I'm Dr. Scott Barry Kaufman, host of the Psychology Podcast.

Here's a clip from an upcoming conversation about exploring human potential. I was going to schools to try to teach kids these skills, and I get eye rolling from teachers or I get students who would be like, it's easier to punch someone in the face. When you think about emotion regulation, like you're not going to choose an adaptive strategy, which is more effortful to use unless you think there's a good outcome as a result of it, if it's going to be beneficial to you. Because it's easy to say, like, go you, go blank yourself, right? It's easy.

It's easy to just drink the extra beer. It's easy to ignore, to suppress, seeing a colleague who's bothering you and just, like, walk the other way. Avoidance is easier. Ignoring is easier. Denial is easier. Drinking is easier. Yelling, screaming is easy. Complex problem solving, meditating.

You know, takes effort. Listen to the psychology podcast on the iHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. All right, and we're back. We were talking about the rise of the anti-nuclear movement, but then at some point the pro-nuclear movement sort of came back with a vengeance. What drove the growth of the more recent pro-nuclear environmental movement? In a word, or two words, climate change. I think that was the biggest factor, because as that came to really take precedence on the environmentalist agenda, one feature of nuclear that had been kind of overlooked before was that it doesn't generate greenhouse gases directly. A caveat is that all energy sources, there's some greenhouse gas emission in the whole

life cycle, but if you look at, you know, mining and waste disposal, but nuclear power is a low carbon energy, like solar, like wind, like hydro. So that became much more salient when we started to be really worried about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. We've talked about how the anti-nuclear movement is concerned about, you know, human health effects, what to do with the waste, the creation of nuclear weapons. Yeah. What are the counter arguments that the pro-nuclear community uses?

Maybe let's just pick one of them to start with. So the waste, what are the counter-arguments to the problems associated with waste? The pro-nuclear view of waste is really counterintuitive. They will actually say nuclear waste is the best kind of waste. And the reasons are, one, it's really. really small volume that's generated, and that's because nuclear is very dense. Like, uranium is extremely energy dense, which is a really important thing to keep in minds that relates to a bunch of different arguments for nuclear.

But that also means that the volume of waste is very small, even though it's also highly radioactive. Do you know what kind of volumes we're talking about? Should people be imagining, like, you know, I can fit all of it in my pocket, or it's like a swimming pool, or it's like the Grand Canyon, who is small in this scale. So one image that you hear a lot is basically that if we consolidated all of the nuclear waste that has ever been generated from civilian plants in this country, it would all fit in a football field.

Wow. You would have to stack it to some degree. But yeah. And I feel like I should say I don't know if I can completely vouch for that. But that is something that you will hear a lot if you talk to pro-nuclear advocates. I think it's basically accurate. And another comparison I've heard, something like if all of the waste that generated from the electricity that, like, you as an individual would use throughout your lifetime would fit in a Coke cam is another image that I've heard. Wow.

So individuals really could carry around with them all of the nuclear waste that they personally generate. Yeah. Why don't we just do that? Yeah, exactly. Don't drink that Coke can, though. I think that is important for people to realize because they imagine this problem of nuclear waste and long-term storage, specifically, I know it's still an open question, but it's important to think about, like, how much we're actually talking about. You do not need to store, like, the Grand Canyon filled with waste or the amount of waste produced by other sources of fuel, for example. So it really is quite small, which changes the kind of technologies we need to think about.

the places we need to think about for storing it, right? Yeah. And in terms of storing it, so we do not have a permanent underground repository for storing it. We did have a plan to store it at Yucca Mountain, but that plan fell apart. The Obama administration basically killed that plan. Why? What happened to Yucca Mountain? I was talking to my kids about this book, and they were like, what happened to that plan?

Why don't we just store it underground? round. So I would say the biggest reason is that the plan was imposed on Nevada and they didn't have any say in the matter and they were very resistant. It became known as the screw Nevada bill. And that's why he had a great name. I'm not laughing at that. That's not funny. Nobody wants to screw Nevada. No. But I guess the idea is find the place with like a lot of land and fewer votes in Congress. Yeah. That was the plan basically. Right. And what's his name? Harry Reid. Harry Reid, yeah. He was this very powerful, long-serving senator, and he was an ally of Obama's, and it was basically seen as a favor to him to kill this project. And there were, I think, debates about how suitable the site actually was, but I would say the fundamental reason was they hadn't really consulted Nevada. And now the buzzword is consent-based siting. So, getting the buy-in of whatever community and state you want to place the repository in.

But that, of course, is challenging. Yeah, who's going to say yes to that, right? Yeah, well, you'd be surprised. There have been communities that do say yes or that actually are interested if the deal is right, but often states step in and block it because it's sort of seen as stigmatized. So the Yucca Mountain Plan fell through, but that doesn't make the waste disappear. So where is the waste right now? It is being stored securely at sites around the country.

Think about 80 different sites, mostly retired and operational nuclear plant sites. So when it comes out of the reactor, it's first stored in cooling pools for several years, and then it's moved to what's called dry cask storage. So it's in these steel casks, and then within these congress. concrete enclosures that blocks radiation from escaping. So basically, it hasn't, even though we fear it so much, and it is really dangerous. Like, if you were in the same room as nuclear waste straight out of the reactor, you would get a lethal dose of radiation very quickly.

So it's not like our fear that is irrational, but precisely because it's so hazardous, we've developed these systems to store it very securely. And it really, as far as I can tell, there are no documented cases of, you know, deaths or harm associated with it, which is really astonishing, actually, when you think about it in contrast to other forms of waste and all the harms they cause

because we don't treat them in the same way, especially obviously fossil fuel waste, emissions, pollution, which causes millions of deaths from air pollution every year. and climate change. So that I think is one very interesting way of looking at the comparison of different kinds of waste. Yeah, so we're storing the waste on site, basically where we're making it, which also limits the transport, right? You're not putting it in a truck driving it across the country. It just has to go like across the plant. And it's not high volume, so you have space. It's not like you're creating a vast new facility. Why don't we just keep it there forever?

Why ever drive it around? What's unsuitable about storing it on site? Yeah. I think there is an argument that it's actually okay as it is. But another argument is, you know, these communities where it's stored didn't sign up for that. The federal government does legally have the responsibility to deal with it and to bury it in the repository. And over time, the casks they're in don't last forever. And there's also the question of reprocessing or recycling. waste, which is rather complicated. And I don't know if we want to get into that now. But that is another possibility, but it's very controversial. Another argument I've heard for why nuclear waste is the best kind of waste is that it does decay away over time. We're used to thinking that as a negative, like, oh, my God, it takes a thousand years before

this becomes not dangerous. But the toxins produced by coal and whatever are literally forever, right? Like infinitely deadly. And so it's actually a benefit that after 5,000 years or something, they just don't longer dangerous. It's amazing to me how much of this is political or how much of this is like how you sell it, you know, how much of this depends on your perspective. I was struck by this quote in your book by Lovelock who said that opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood style fiction, the green lobbies, and the media. Do you feel like

that's fair? Do you feel like we have a balanced view of these dangers or that we've been sold a bill by the environmental movement against nuclear waste, and we don't see it clearly? I don't think the fear is irrational, exactly. I think it's understandable. I do think it tends to be more visceral than I think of this a lot because we see, unfortunately, so many disasters these days, and the Los Angeles fires that happened just a couple months ago, there were not only the absolutely devastating effects. People lost their homes and people died. But the toxins in the air from all of the plastic and all of this other material that burned, I don't know, and I'm not sure anyone knows right now what the long-term public health effects will be. I know there's

at least one study ongoing that's going to look at that. But I do think even though we know there are these toxins that have gotten into the air and into the soil, nobody would ever suggestive evacuating L.A. because of that. And, you know, there are arguments about whether evacuations are warranted in the aftermath of nuclear accidents. I just think that we do have a more visceral reaction to, you know, a nuclear accident, like radiation than to other toxins, even though it's not always clear that the other toxins are less of a threat to public health. So there's three mile island, there's Chernobyl, Fukushima. Is there an estimate for how many lives have been lost due to all the nuclear accidents that have happened so far that could be like compared to

estimates for coal-powered power plants, for example? Yeah. The official estimates are very low. So for a three-mile island zero, for Chernobyl, there's a range, but the high end of the range from the sort of official sources like the WHO is in the thousands that people might eventually die of cancers that could have been related to the accident. Due to like the cloud of radioactivity that drifted over Europe? So the WHO estimated that 4,000 people, at least in the most affected areas, could eventually die of cancers that were related to exposure. Some people think that estimate is actually much too high and some think it's much too

low, but the estimate of people who actually have died so far as a result of Grenoble is several hundred. And Fukushima, there was one worker who died of lung cancer in 2018, and that may or may not have been a direct result of the accident. But according to the official account, that there were no other deaths that were related to radiation exposure. There were a couple of thousand deaths related to the evacuation. And there are debates over whether the evacuation should have happened and should have happened in the way it did. A lot of the people who died were elderly people living in hospitals who were hospitalized or living in nursing homes. So sort of a hasty evacuation to unsuitable sites. It was just a terrible situation. Again, I'm not as confident as some

people that we can know exactly how many people died or had adverse health effects as the result of this dispersal of radiation. And, you know, something you hear from anti-nuclear advocates or scientists is like just because we can't measure it for sure doesn't mean there weren't effects. Like a lot of things can increase the risk of cancer and cancer is very common. So it can be really hard to tell for sure. But the official numbers are actually shockingly low. A lot of people hear those numbers, they're very surprised and it can be hard to believe.

Okay, let's take a break. And when we get back, we'll talk a little bit more about the groups that are advocating for nuclear power. I'm Dr. Joy Harden-Bradford. And in session 421 of Therapy for Black Girls, I sit down with Dr. Ophia and Billy Shaka to explore how our hair connects to our identity, mental health, and the ways we heal. Because I think hair is a complex language system, right, in terms of it can tell how old you are, your marital status, where you're from, you're a spiritual belief. But I think with social media, there's like a hyperfixation and observation of our hair, right? That this is sometimes the first thing someone sees when we make a post or a reel is how our hair is styled.

We talk about the important role hairstylists play in our community, the pressure to always look put together, and how breaking up with perfection can actually free us. Plus, if you're someone who gets anxious about flying, don't miss Session 418 with Dr. Angela Neil Barnett, where we dive into managing flight anxiety.

Listen to therapy for black girls on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Get fired up, y'all. Season two of Good Game with Sarah Spain is underway. We just welcomed one of my favorite people and an incomparable soccer icon.

Megan Rapino to the show, and we had a blast. We talked about her recent 40th birthday celebrations, co-hosting a podcast with her fiancé Sue Bird, watching former teammates retire and more. Never a dull moment with Pino. Take a listen. What do you miss the most about being a pro athlete? The final. The final.

And the locker room. I really, really, like, you just, you can't replicate, you can't get back. Showing up to locker room every morning just to shit talk. We've got more. incredible guests like the legendary Candace Parker and college superstar AZ Fudd. I mean, seriously, y'all. The guest list is absolutely stacked for season two.

And, you know, we're always going to keep you up to speed on all the news and happenings around the women's sports world as well. So make sure you listen to Good Game with Sarah Spain on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Presented by Capital One, founding partner of IHeart Women's Sports. The OGs of Uncensored Motherhood are back and badder than ever. I'm Erica. And I'm Mila.

And we're the host of the Good Mom's Bad Choices podcast, brought to you by the Black Effect Podcast Network every Wednesday. Historically, men talk too much. And women have quietly listened. And all that stops here. If you like witty women, then this is your tribes. With guests like Corinne Steffens. I'd never seen so many women protect predatory men. And then me too happened.

And then everybody else wanted to get pissed off because the white said it was okay. Problem. My oldest daughter, her first day in ninth grade, and I called to ask how I was going. She was like, oh, dad, all they were doing was talking. about your thing in class. I ruined my baby's first day of high school. And slumflower. What turns me on is when a man sends me money.

Like, I feel the moisture between my legs when a man sends me money. I'm like, oh my God, it's go time. You actually sent it? Listen to the Good Mom's Bad Choices podcast every Wednesday on the Black Effect Podcast Network. The I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you go to find your podcast. I'm Dr. Scott Barry Kaufman, host of the Psychology Podcast. Here's a clip from an upcoming conversation about exploring human potential.

I was going to schools to try to teach kids these skills, and I get eye rolling from teachers or I get students who would be like, it's easier to punch someone in the face. When you think about emotion regulation, like, you're not going to choose an adaptive strategy which is more effortful to use unless you think there's a good outcome as a result of it, if it's going to be beneficial to you. Because it's easy to say, like, go you go blank yourself, right? It's easy. It's easy to just strengthen.

extra beer. It's easy to ignore, to suppress, seeing a colleague who's bothering you and just like walk the other way. Avoidance is easier. Ignoring is easier. Denials is easier. Drinking is easier. Yelling, screaming is easy. Complex problem solving, meditating, you know, takes effort. Listen to the psychology podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. All right, and we're back. So one of the interesting groups that you talked about in the book is Moms for Nuclear. And I actually can't remember if this example was a person from Moms for Nuclear,

but you talked about a woman who was pregnant and had pressed her belly up against one of the waist casks, which I can't say I would do myself, but it was an interesting way to prove how committed she was. But can you tell us a little bit about the Moms for Nuclear group? Yeah, technically mothers for nuclear is the name. And yeah, that young woman who pressed her baby bump against a waistcast was not part of that group, but the pro-nuclear community scene is very small and kind of incestuous and everyone knows each other. So she definitely knows them. But yeah, Mothers for Nuclear was founded on Earth Day, 2016, by two women who both work. and still work at Diablo Canyon power plants, which is the last nuclear plant that's operating in California. It's on the central coast, and it's kind of the through line, the narrative arc of my book follows the story of that particular plant. And Heather Hoff and Kristen Zates, they were the founders. They both were sort of very classic environmentalist tree hugger types. Heather grew up in a

trailer in Arizona and would find clamber on rocks near the trailer and her dad would sprinkle her and her sister with a watering can instead of showering and she was always just very acutely aware of resource use and she kind of ended up working at Diablo Canyon by accident because she was looking for a good job and it was basically the main option that she was aware of in San Luis Obispo, where she was living at the time after college. And she thought, if nothing else, she'd be a spy, he kind of like the Aaron Brockovich of nuclear energy. And Kristen Zates had a pretty similar background.

She grew up in California, and she would go camping and sleep under the stars. And she was really into breastfeeding and very kind of crunchy type. And basically, we would expect them to be anti-nobes. Everything else in their biography would have led them to be anti-nuclear, and they were. I mean, they weren't anti-nuclear activists, but they were definitely very skeptical of nuclear power, but both ended up working at Diablo Canyon. In Kristen's case, she was a civil engineer and got an internship there, even though, like, Heather, she was kind of dubious about it, but she was like, well, I'll just do this internship to learn about civil engineering, and then I'll leave and do something else.

But they both ended up staying and learning more about it and basically becoming really true believers, really passionate supporters of nuclear because they decided that it was actually consistent with their environmentalist values. And is that because they understood the greenhouse gas situation or because they changed their views on the dangers and the waste, you know, from like the Simpsons' Three Mile Island view to more sort of balanced, nuanced understanding of the risks? Yeah, I'd say both. They were both very concerned about climate and learns that this was a low-carbon energy source and that it had, because of its energy density, it had a very small footprint. So we haven't really talked about what its advantages might be over renewables. But whereas renewables, like wind and solar, they're just not as energy dense. So you just need more of them and you need more space to generate the same amount of energy. And so... for them because they really loved, like, hiking and camping, and so they thought that, you know, the energy density was a big virtue for them. And they also started to think that the risks had been overstated. If we can dig into that for a minute, I know that there's a debate in the environmental community about whether we need something beyond renewables, like are wind and solar enough? And some people, as you say in the book, like Friends of the Earth, the vision for

the California's future is both nuclear-free and fossil-free, just like wind and solar. But then I to folks like Steve Davis, who a friend of both of ours, is a professor of Earth System Science, and he says that it's totally impractical to have just wind and solar because they don't run all the time, right? If you don't have wind and if you don't have sun, then batteries are just not practical. He told me once it's possible to do it, but it's ridiculously expensive. And the best case scenario is like 80, 90 percent renewables with some baseline from something you can turn off and on quickly to provide power when you don't otherwise have it. Is that the crux of the debate within the environmental community?

Yeah. There are people who think that we can do it all with renewables. There are people who think we can't. Then there are also people who think maybe we technically can, but because of some of these issues I've mentioned about land use and in terms of batteries, batteries are a really interesting part of the debate because, yeah, there's actually been incredible progress with battery technology. recently and batteries have been really spreading just in the past year or two and doing a lot more work of backing up renewables. There's still challenges, I think, with longer-term storage more than a few hours, and so that is a real challenge. There's also, though, environmental issues with all of these technologies, mining lithium for batteries. And there was actually a fire

recently that you may have heard about, I think in central California, actually not far from Diablo Canyon, there was this kind of devastating fire and apparently when all these batteries pop fire and you don't put it out, I guess there's no way to put it out, you just have to let it run its course. And so all these toxins were released and similar to the fires in LA, you know, all these toxins in the air and in the soil. So I guess I just learned more that these technologies that environmentalists like me, you know, tend to like and just think sounds more. sort of natural and gentle. It's not just sun and it's not just wind. It's material infrastructure and they all have their issues and their environmental issues. So yeah, there's a range of views,

of course, on the ideal portfolio. And also, I should add that technology is advancing all the time, although, of course, we haven't talked about how dramatically this whole landscape has changed just recently because of the Trump administration. It's been actually really shocking and you know all this progress that was occurring has now really stalled at least on renewables there's actually bipartisan agreement to some extent on nuclear which is something else we can talk about but anyway i would just say there's always progress that can happen and there may be more progress with batteries and renewables but i guess i came to think that nuclear because of its energy density and because it is what they call clean firm power it's not variable or intermittent

like wind and solar, it doesn't depend on weather conditions, that it kind of makes sense to have that as part of the mix and have these different energy forms that have different pluses and minuses. I'd be very interested in digging into the more recent political climate. So, you know, the book does an amazing job of sort of tracking how opinions have changed over time and how political interest in this topic has changed over time. What has changed since the beginning of this year when the Trump administration took over? Well, Trump is Trump. trying to reverse and succeeding, I guess, at least to some extent, he's blocking billions of dollars in grants that were already, you know, contracts were already signed as part of Biden's

landmark climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act. The purpose of that law was to encourage basically building all this clean energy infrastructure. And a lot of that has been blocked, at least for now, and Trump basically wants us to burn fossil fuels and he's making it harder to deploy wind and solar. He and his administration are relatively supportive of nuclear, which I guess could be sort of area of potential progress for building more low-carbon energy because in the past 10 years or so, I'd say Democrats have also people. become very pro-nuclear at the level of elected officials. You know, Democrats in Congress have been very supportive

and there have actually been a series of bipartisan laws to kind of nurture nuclear and revive the industry. Talk about how progress is sort of being made in terms of keeping nuclear power plants going and discussing starting up some new ones. You feel like that momentum could continue over the next four years, even if it's not so good for wind or solar? It could, but there are also some warning signs. Basically, certainty is really good for, you know, business in general and for investments, and especially in a major infrastructure projects like a nuclear plant.

So the chaos and uncertainty that have been introduced to the past couple of months are probably not good for seeing a nuclear revival. but I do think there is interest and even just today there was an announcement from some of the major tech companies, you know, committing to try to, I think, triple nuclear power by 2050, which is a goal that the Biden administration sort of established that goal. So these tech giants are voicing their support for that and they're, of course, very influential. So, yeah, I think the momentum for nuclear could definitely continue, whereas the momentum for renewables, there's a lot of questions about that now. I saw a discussion that Microsoft was going to turn three-mile island back on in order to power their data centers, you know, as our society gets more technological and we have more data-intensive computing. It uses a lot of energy, and so our thirst for energy just grows and grows and grows. and grows, and nuclear power seems well suited to that. At the same time, I see a huge revival in the nuclear industry itself. Their development of like small modular reactors, which could be

easier to produce, easier to license, easier to transport. What do you see as the future of nuclear technology itself? Is it going to change these discussions? Yeah, it's still an open question. There's definitely a whole bunch of startups working on different technologies and there's particular enthusiasm for the idea of small modular reactors, as you mentioned. So I think it's just too soon to know what's going to pan out because there's one startup called Oaklo that was founded by this young charismatic couple. They met as MIT graduate students and they founded this company largely out of climate concerns. And I visited their offices in Silicon Valley a few years ago. And their approach is very different in a bunch of ways. I don't know how much into the weeds we should get, but basically

they are doing small modular reactors. And the timelines are just really long. And that's one criticism of nuclear from some climate activists is that, you know, we won't even have them in time to meet the deadlines that we need to meet to make a difference. And I think obviously the hope is that once we get some of the first of a kind built, then the timeline will accelerate for getting more built. But I think we're at a period now where we'll probably learn pretty soon whether that's going to happen or whether what the critics say is right. And it's just not, you know, going to be feasible to build these projects, you know, on time and on budget. And then maybe it will kind of fizzle. But I think that's something we'll probably find out more answers to in the next

few years. And my question is about how we make these decisions politically and socially. Obviously, see the technology is changing, and our understanding of the situation, scientifically is changing. But fundamentally, it's a political decision, and politics should be informed by science, at least we hope so. But so much of it seems to be informed by scare tactics and misinformation, what do you think about the sort of state of scientific discourse in our country? Do you think our leaders have the information they need to make sort of unbiased, balanced decisions about these very important, very dangerous technologies that could potentially kill millions

or save millions, is your book a part of trying to get people on board understanding how these things have changed? What do you think we should do to make sure people understand the facts on the ground? I hope my book will contribute to just kind of laying out the questions and the issues and why people feel so strongly on both sides. And, yeah, the state of scientific discourse, that's a big question. And I'm sure you guys knew more about it than I do. I have a lot of concerns about it, especially, again, because of these early days of the Trump administration.

And I think in general, just the state of the sort of information ecosystem is not very healthy. But another way of thinking about it is, yeah, just trust in sort of authority and expertise, I would say, is the big theme of my book and how that's changed over the decades and how in recent years. The right has become very distrustful of institutions and authority, and the left of these mainstream liberals have become much more trusting. And we saw this, of course, during COVID. It probably helps to explain why Democrats have come to be more open to nuclear, because I would say that among experts and among sort of institutions like the International Energy Agency and the intergovernmental panel on climate change, these sort of major authoritative institutions,

they are all saying, you know, nuclear should be on the table, at least. And so I think as someone myself, I guess I'm more inclined to trust expertise, which grows out of, you know, being really worried about climate change and feeling like the scientists were the ones that were speaking out and telling the truth. And so I trusted them on that. And then when I learned that a lot of scientists were saying that nuclear has to be part of the solution, that kind of caught my attention. And I thought, well, maybe I should at least cheer them out on this as well. So I don't know if that answers your question, but those are some of my thoughts on the subject.

Sort of an unanswerable question, but thanks for your thoughts. Yeah. So one of the things I really appreciated about your book is how nuanced it was. and how you tried to dig into everybody's claims and see how valid they were. And so you've sort of hinted at the answer a little bit in the answer to your last question. But after doing all of this research, where do you stand on nuclear power and where nuclear power fits into solving our current issues with global climate change? Yeah. So I would just reiterate that the main contribution I hope I'm making is to kind of explain the range of perspectives and, you know, write a story.

that I hope it's fun to read. You know, there are a lot of people with very strong opinions on this, and I am not really one of them. Just temperamentally, I tend to be more of a person who sees both sides. And I guess I came to think that largely because this is what a lot of the experts I trusted were saying that it does need to be considered. It's not a panacea, but it can play an important role in our energy system because of certain distinctive characteristics that it has, and that could change as we have

technological progress in other areas. Even geothermal, you know, there may be a major breakthrough in geothermal that could make that a much bigger part of our portfolio than it has been until now. So I am definitely not someone who thinks we need all nuclear and, you know, it's by far the most viable low-carbon energy source. I think we have a range of options. I never thought like that it was something we should completely abandon. I thought that it had some really important strengths. I mean, I tend to be ambivalent because I'm sort of a classic environmentalist at heart myself. And part of me just thinks, like, why can't we just live in cabins and use much less energy

and just live humbly and, you know, not have all these data centers and not have AI? So that is kind of how I feel at heart. But first of all, I realized that that's not realistic, that that's not going to happen. So how can we meet our energy demands in a way that's not going to completely destroy the climate? So, yeah, I ended up feeling like nuclear was one viable option among others. Well, we should all live in cabins, but we should still have enough energy to produce and distribute podcasts about science, of course. Of course. That's priority number one in any society.

And published books. That's right. Priority number two is for everyone to order their version of Atomic Dreams. Oh, thank you. It's a fantastic book. It's a story well told. I laughed. I didn't cry, but I had a good time.

I learned a lot. Congratulations. And thank you very much for coming on the podcast to answer all of our tough questions about it. Thank you so much. It's a lot of fun. Daniel and Kelly's Extraordinary Universe is produced by IHeart Radio. We would love to hear from you. We really would.

We want to know what questions you have about this extraordinary universe. We want to know your thoughts on recent shows, suggestions for future shows. If you contact us, we will get back to you. We really mean it. We answer every message. Email us at questions at danielandkelly.org. Or you can find us on social media. We have accounts on.

X, Instagram, Blue Sky, and on all of those platforms, you can find us at D and K Universe. Don't be shy. Write to us. Let's start with a quick puzzle. The answer is Ken Jennings' appearance on The Puzzler with A.J. Jacobs. The question is, what is the most entertaining listening experience in podcast land? Jeopardy-truthers believe in... I guess they would be conspiracy theorists.

That's right. To give you the answers, and you still blew it. The Puzzler. Listen on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Every case that is a cold case that has DNA. Right now in a backlog will be identified in our lifetime. On the new podcast, America's Crime Lab, every case has a story to tell. And the DNA holds the truth.

He never thought he was going to get caught. And I just looked at my computer screen. I was just like, ah, got you. This technology's already solving so many cases. Listen to America's Crime Lab on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, it's Honey German, and I'm back with season two of my podcast. Grazias, come again. We got you when it comes to the latest in music and entertainment with interviews with some of your favorite Latin artists and celebrities.

You didn't have to audition? No, I didn't audition. I haven't auditioned in like over 25 years. Oh, wow. That's a real G-talk right there. Oh, yeah. We'll talk about all that's viral and trending with a little bit of cheesement and a whole lot of laughs. And of course, the great vivras you've come to expect.

Listen to the new season of Dresses Come Again on the I-Heart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. I'm Dr. Scott Barry Kaufman, host of the psychology podcast. Here's a clip from an upcoming conversation about. about how to be a better you. When you think about emotion regulation, you're not going to choose an adaptive strategy which is more effortful to use unless you think there's a good outcome.

Avoidance is easier. Ignoring is easier. Denials easier. Complex problem solving. Takes effort. Listen to the psychology podcast on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This is an IHeart podcast.