The Munk Debates Podcast - Be It Resolved: We Need More Nuclear Energy Now

Episode Date: July 21, 2022

The demand for electricity in the world is increasing rapidly and nuclear power is seen by many as a great option to meet those needs sustainably and safely. Building nuclear reactors is capital-intensive but a large project provides jobs for thousands of people and the reactors can last for more than 30 years. Many argue nuclear energy is safe, efficient and reliable and it will be much harder to fight climate change without it. Still, nuclear energy accounts for only 10 percent of global electricity generation and memories of Chernobyl and Fukushima are fresh in the minds of many. How and where to safely dispose of radioactive waste is a concern for many who also argue the environmental impacts like water security, mining, milling and enriching of uranium do not make nuclear power a sustainable energy source.  QUOTES:    “I believe the world needs more nuclear because it is a key part of the low carbon puzzle. It provides reliable, sustainable and predictable base load power generation that can compliment the variability of wind and solar.”  John Gorman  “The thing about nuclear is it's a zombie energy program. It died when it was invented. It served no purpose when it was invented. The reality of nuclear for all the greenwashing that goes on nowadays, the reality is it was a cover for producing uranium for nuclear weapons.” Dr Martin Cohen The host of the Munk Debates is Rudyard Griffiths - @rudyardg.     Tweet your comments about this episode to @munkdebate or comment on our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/munkdebates/   To sign up for a weekly email reminder for this podcast, send an email to [e-mail].     To support civil and substantive debate on the big questions of the day, consider becoming a Munk Member at https://munkdebates.com/membership Members receive access to our 10+ year library of great debates in HD video, a free Munk Debates book, newsletter and ticketing privileges at our live events. This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue - https://munkdebates.com/   Senior Producer: Kelly Linehan Editor: Adam Karch  Become a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and Munk Dialogues. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

These statues have to come down. It's always been a pandemic of the unvaccinated. The problem now is it's a pandemic of the willfully unvaccinated. Falling birth rates are good. They're good for our planet. They're good for our societies. We're not responsible for the escalation with Russia. We're not the ones who invaded Ukraine.

I don't think it's fair to portray people of color as victims. It is a very dangerous time in American politics. Welcome to the Monk Debates. Every episode we provide you with a civil and substantive debate on the big issue of the day to arm you with enough information to make up your own mind. Today's debate be resolved. We need more nuclear energy now. It's a technology that we've been using for decades that can really reduce global warming.

With climate, those who know the most are the most worried. With nuclear, those who know the most are the least worried. We're in the danger zone and we better. demonstrate today. New York's Indian Point nuclear power plan threatened with shutdown for lack of an approved evacuation plan. If we ever had a major problem at Indian Point, that might be a problem that we couldn't sound. Hello, I'm your moderator, Rudyard Griffith. The world is using more energy, specifically electricity every day and demand is set only to go up. The big question we're all asking ourselves is how do we power our world in a safe and sustainable way in an era of heightened

climate change? For many, the answer to this all-important question is more nuclear energy. Nuclear power is the only carbon-free energy source we have that can deliver large amounts of power day and night through every season, almost anywhere on Earth. These new nuclear ventures are saying that they can deliver power for five cents a kilowatt hour. They can deliver it for 100 gigawatts a year. They can demo it by 2025, and they can deliver it in scale by 2030. Nuclear reactors are currently running in 32 countries around the world,

according to the American Department of Commerce, which also estimates the global market for nuclear power generation at over 500 billion to 700, $150 billion in the next 10 years. Nuclear power is seen by many as an important fuel source to meet both our energy needs and our sustainability goals. Still, nuclear energy only accounts for about 10% of global electricity generation. And memories of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island in Fukushima are fresh in the minds of many

publics around the world. Japan has been hit by its biggest earthquake since records began. An explosion was heard and smoke seen at the power plant. The images of destruction and flooding coming out of Japan are simply heartbreaking. Those with concerns about nuclear energy say that while its technical advances have made the plants safer, it is still nonetheless a dangerous technology. Accidents can happen. And when they do, they have profound.

consequences for public safety and public health. Accidents aside, how can we safely store used radioactive nuclear fuel, millions of tons accumulated around the world that also represent an ongoing public health and safety risk? On this installment of the Monk Debates, we challenge the essence of these arguments by debating the motion be it resolved. We need more nuclear energy now. Arguing for the motion is John Gorman. He's the president's CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association. He was a founder of the Canadian Council on Renewable Energy and was designated a climate project ambassador by former US Vice President Al Gore. Arguing against the motion is Dr. Martin Cohen. He is a British social scientist

who writes regularly on issues related to the philosophy of science. He's the author of a number of bestselling books, including the Doomsday Machine, the world's most dangerous fuel. Martin, John, welcome to the Monk Debates. Hello. Nice to be here. Very much looking forward to today's conversation.

You know, the future of energy is a big, big topic for, as you know, a host of reasons. We're facing an energy crisis of, of sorts brought about by the war in Ukraine, but even before that, surging hydrocarbon prices, challenging a lot of green energy mandates and ambitions on the part of government. We all know that in the background, this big thing called climate change is happening, and humanity needs to figure out a response, an effective response. And then when it comes to nuclear energy itself, we've obviously all had seared in

to our minds, those images of four-mile island, Fukushima, Chernobyl, but also an understanding of just how potentially transformative nuclear energy can be as a source of steady power supply that does not involve anywhere near the carbon emissions of so many of our other energy sources that we're dependent on today. So the opportunity to have a thoughtful debate with you both is a privilege indeed. Our resolution, simple to the point, be it resolved, we need more nuclear energy now. John, you're arguing in favor of the motion. I'm going to put two minutes on the clock and turn the program over to you. I will argue today that the world needs more nuclear power, though I'll focus mostly on Canada as that's my area of expertise. I believe the world needs more nuclear because it is a key

part of the low carbon puzzle. It provides reliable, sustainable, and predictable base load power generation that can complement the variability of wind and solar. It can also directly replace fossil fuels, not only in terms of baseload power, but also the production of high-temperature heat. But I will not be arguing today that nuclear is the only option. The world needs more power from every available energy technology, not only nuclear, but also hydro, renewables, and fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage. That's because without embracing every available clean energy technology will have no hope of meeting our climate goals in Canada, let alone around the world.

This is a view that is increasingly being embraced by a more pragmatic and realistic environmental movement that doesn't have the hang-ups of the previous generation. This generation views, nuclear, they're informed by science, facts, and climate change, of course. Unfortunately, the anti-nuclear movement has conflated this with environmentalism, and that's a mistake. Environmentalists are looking for the most realistic solutions to the greatest problems facing our planet today, greenhouse gas emissions. I'm an environmentalist. I started off in the renewables industry. This modern environmentalist sees climate change as a math problem. We have X number of years left in our carbon budget, with electricity growing by Y percent per year, and so we need to generate Z gigawatts of clean power. That equation simply doesn't work without nuclear. The clean energy transition is the greatest challenge,

our generation and solving it requires everyone working together. By excluding nuclear based on outdated ideology and a narrow definition of clean, the anti-nuclear movement threatens to stop progress in its tracks. This is a risk we can't afford to take. Thank you, John, for that opening statement. You're listening to our debate today on nuclear energy, nuclear power. What is its role in our future? Arguing against a big presence for nuclear power and nuclear energy is Martin. And Martin, your opportunity now for an opening statement. Thanks, Roger. I'll just say, I can't really believe that we're having this debate. And the reason is nuclear should have been shut down after Chernobyl.

If it wasn't shut down after Chernobyl, it should have been shut down after Fukushima. But that's just to say it shouldn't actually have started. The thing about nuclear is it's a zombie energy program. It died when it was invented. It served no purpose when it was invented. The reality of nuclear, for all the greenwashing that goes on nowadays, reality is it was a cover for producing uranium for nuclear weapons. And no one, you know, this wasn't a secret.

This was open. the governments needed the uranium. That's how they process the uranium, and they decided that it would be very good PR to say, and we can produce electricity while we're doing this, producing this plutonium. In fact, the electricity that it produces is incredibly expensive. It always has been too expensive.

It's of no rational purpose to pursue it as an energy source. worse than being expensive, as we all know, is that it produces waste, which you cannot get rid of. Just this week, there were stories in the British press about a new plan to deal with the waste. The plan is to take it out in boats and drop it in the Irish sea. And what they're doing at the moment, this is why it was in the papers, is they are doing very dangerous sonar research. it's dangerous tool, the sea life. So nuclear has so many faults that it just seems to be an incredible thing that we could still be trying to use it. But for me, and this is what I concentrated on when I wrote my book, The Doomsday Machine,

with my friend Andrew McKillop, for me, the bottom line is it is actually a waste of money. And so that's probably, when you understand it's about money, you can see why people keep pushing it. There's a huge industry. There's huge profits to be made from it, but we should step away. Thank you, Martin. Okay, chance for rebuttals here, gentlemen. John, your opportunity, two minutes on the clock. Which of Martin's points would you like to refute?

Thank you, Rediard. You know, this debate is being resolved that we need more nuclear now, but I can tell from Mr. Cohen's opening arguments that he's very focused on just continuing to promote a lot of misinformation. and catered to people's misplaced fears around nuclear. And he started by suggesting that he can't believe we're having this debate. So let's remind everybody why this debate is so important. We are facing an existential threat here with the climate crisis, right? And the key to averting global warming, catastrophic global warming,

the foundation, the building block of doing that is ensuring that we create as much clean electricity as possible in order to fuel shift away from fossil fuels. You know, an easy example of that, not easy accomplished, but one that's easily understandable, is our shift towards electric vehicles, right, and away from the internal combustion engine. We've got strict goals in place in many nations around the world. It's going to take a lot of electricity to do that. In fact, in the Canadian context, where I'm from, of course, we are going to have to double or triple the amount of clean electricity generation that we have in this province,

a generating system that has been built over more than 100 years. We're going to have to triple it in a mere 28 years. This is no small feat. The challenge is absolutely enormous. And so when I say that we are going to need every clean energy technology at our disposal, both the things that are proven now, like water and wind and solar and conventional nuclear, and everything that's under development like small modular reactors, which I hope we'll speak about or hydrogen production, for example,

we are going to need every single one of those things. Thanks, John. Okay, Martin, your chance not to react to what you've heard from John or his opening statement or both. Well, I'll take up this thing about climate change. As I say, it's a late argument. The original argument for nuclear was this will give us nuclear weapons. That was why they started nuclear energy.

Then following that for a number of years, the argument was we need nuclear because fossil fuels will run out. That was never true. Fossil fuels, well, literally it is true, but in effect, fossil fuels will be around for several hundred years. So that argument was also bogus. Then we got to the point where this thing called the IPCC, the International Panel on Climate Change, the UN, body appeared and claimed to represent the interest of the environment. It doesn't represent the interest of the environment at all. It actually always, right from the beginning, was dominated by people from the nuclear industry. It was dominated by a Swede called Bert Boland, whose background

was nuclear and hydro energy. And the second leader of the IPCC was Robert Watson, who was a banker, who made a lot of money out of selling nuclear power stations around the world. It's even more bogus when you look at how the world climate works, and there are so many variables within climate. The obvious one, most obvious one, is the movement of currents in the oceans, and there are vast amounts of heat generated in the oceans, which we have no control about from subterranean vents, and so things like this,

and just changes in the tides. At the moment, there's a lot of melting going on in the Arctic ice cap, but that's mainly to do with shifts in tides, currents. It's got nothing to do with the supposed production of carbon dioxide. But that argument was terribly convenient. It rescued the nuclear industry. The nuclear industry was really on its knees at that point. after it was just too expensive and too dangerous.

And then along comes, it presents itself as a white knight to save the world. This is something we've got to see through. Thank you, Martin. Well, let me join the conversation and think up some questions that are top of mind for our audience. And John, let me start with you. And I think one of the reasons we're having this debate is the safety of nuclear energy came to the fore again during this most recent and tragic war unfolding in the Ukraine when I believe it's the single largest nuclear power plant in Europe came under Russian artillery

shellfire and at the time international regulators were extremely concerned about the risk of a reactor breach this is the very same country that you know John better than anyone hosted the Chernobyl disaster in the 1980s. What is the argument for nuclear energy that deals with the safety concerns that the public understandably has when these events in different places of the world at different times seem to keep reoccurring? there seems to keep being a return to a moment of crises when it comes to specific nuclear reactors and specific places at specific times. Is there any way to address these safety concerns? Yes. You know, addressing addressing the perception of safety concerns in the nuclear industry rather than, you know, really examining the safety record of nuclear is the challenge here.

You know, for a number of decades now with a sort of conflation of nuclear power with previous wars, you know, there has been a concerted effort to promote this idea that nuclear is not safe. And, you know, this gets continued in conversations such as this one, with Mr. Cohen, right? And I think what has been demonstrated now over six decades of nuclear operation is that the nuclear industry is extraordinarily vigilant when it comes to the safe operations of its reactors

and that the numbers in fact bear that out. And now, Rudyard, you mentioned, you know, the three large industrial accidents that have occurred that people often look at, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima. You know, it's important, even though it's unpleasant to talk about fatalities in the sense that, you know, at Three Mile Island and Fukushima, there was not one fatality because of radiation exposure, right? In fact, the fatalities that did occur were because of fear and panic that has been sort of misconstrued

when it comes to nuclear safety. So the nuclear industry really has... a very strong record in terms of producing megawatts of electricity very safely. And when you compare us, and I'm talking here about, you know, World Health Organization and the United Nations studies about the safety of each technology, nuclear is among the very safest. It's as safe as wind technology when it comes to the amount of electricity produced versus, you know, harm or fatalities.

It's a surprising degree safer than solar. many, many times safer than coal-fired electricity generation, you know, the emissions from which the particulate matter from which is killing two million people a year through, you know, respirational diseases. Even if you look at water power, you know, there's been a hundred thousand deaths over the last hundred years. And again, it's not pleasant to talk about these things, but I think it's important to note that all industrial operations have a, have a, have a, an element of risk to them. But in nuclear's case, when you look at the actual fact, it is among the safest forms of electricity generation available. It doesn't produce emissions, of course,

and it produces vast amounts of clean electricity, which we desperately need right now. Thank you, John. So, Martin, let's have you come back on that. I mean, John's, I think, painting a picture here that's compelling to me. You have to look at nuclear up against all the other different energy sources in terms of the real risks to public health that they've historically presented. And when you take that broader perspective, the risks of nuclear energy look reasonable in comparison. I mean, John's painted a rosy picture, but there are lots of accidents, lots of nuclear accidents. I mean, we mentioned the biggest ones, there's ones, know in Britain, in the wind scale.

There's a couple more like Idaho Falls and Michigan in America, quite serious accidents. But let's look at Chernobyl, because that's such an incredible disaster. Half a million people were involved in cleaning up after that. They were called the liquidators. Half a million. Just think about that figure for a minute.

Now, it's estimated that about half, over half, 300,000 of these people received radiation doses that were 500 times the safe level. Right. Now, what is not known is what happened to that half a million people. Because what would we imagine happen is they got all sorts of nasty diseases and died. Unfortunately, people in the general population get nasty diseases and die. It becomes very difficult to say, you got it because of the radiation experience. and you got it just from something else.

And that is how the nuclear industry gets away with its accidents. That's the case in wind scale, for example, where the leukemia clusters that little children were dying from. It took a very long time. They had to have all sorts of scientific arguments because the industry denied that children were affected by the emissions from the plant. But statistically, it was clear that something was going on, and eventually they agreed,

all right, it is Earth, we'll stop, we'll reduce those emissions. But with Chernobyl, you have this huge cloud that went across Europe and across to the United States. Okay, Martin, I think I appreciate that line of argument. I think we understand your point. There's a number of other key issues I want to move on with both of you as we explore this debate. And John, the second is something that Martin raised at the beginning of this debate. It's the large nuclear war. waste byproducts of reactors around the world. This is an ongoing problem. Some companies and

countries are moving towards these so-called deep geological repositories, but in many, this has been a slow and halting and ultimately inconclusive process. And before we even get to the question of whether this waste can be stored safely, I'd be interesting to hear your view about what are the ethics of producing a byproduct, a waste product of energy generation that remains lethal to all forms of living life, not just human, for potentially millennia to come? How is that, or should it be, factored into our thinking about the consequences, the long-term consequences of energy power generation through nuclear? Thanks, right here. Well, you know, I'd begin by saying that, you know, we have to consider

the relative dangers we're facing here. And so, you know, you talk about waste that remains dangerous for long periods of time. But let's juxtapose that against what we're up against, which is a climate crisis in global warming and a trajectory for warming that we're on right now, which is endangering the lives and the ecosystems of this planet. And we'll do so if we don't drastically change the way that we are producing and using energy, among other things that we do as humans on this planet. right? When I look at the issue of nuclear byproducts or waste, and here, of course, people are talking specifically about the spent fuel, right? I'll start by saying that the risk around waste is very well managed. And in fact, spent fuel has never, anywhere in the world, caused a fatality, period. And there's a reason for that. The reason is that we're really good at managing it and doing it is pretty straightforward.

So the nuclear industry, you know, currently in most parts of the world, is storing the spent fuel in dry casks that are on site. And as I just mentioned, this approach is working very effectively. But to your point about future millennia, we also have an obligation here, especially as we're going to be using more nuclear going forward, to make sure that there is a permanent storage solution for that spent fuel. And those are the deep geological repositories that Finland has now built, and Sweden is underway doing that. And of course, Canada is down to the final site selection for its deep geological repository.

And the bottom line is we are really, really good at, you know, geological engineering and ways of storing this waste. Hi, Rudyard Griffiths here, your host and moderator. I have a favor to ask you, please consider becoming a monk member. Membership is free and you get access to a series of great benefits, including a 10-plus-year library of some of our best debates, dialogues, and podcasts. You also get a free monthly newsletter featuring the debates that we're watching around the world. And you get a specially curated Friday weekly monk members-only podcast that focuses on the big international

events and trends shaping our world. All of that, again, free at www.w.com. I hope you'll consider joining and becoming part of our community. Now, back to our program. Martin, I know the United Kingdom has struggled with its own DGR, deep geological repository and finding a way forward to deal with the large amounts of nuclear waste. You have stockpiled adjacent to your reactors. But, you know, John does raise a very good point that this is an industry that is innovating. It is continuing to make progress here in Canada and other jurisdictions on long-term storage solutions. And there's always new technology that comes along in terms of the reuse of existing fuel for more power generation in the future.

shouldn't we be a little more optimistic, Martin, that this is another problem. It's a technical problem. It's an engineering problem. We've certainly solved a lot of those over the last 2,000 years of human history. We can solve this one too. Yeah, if we treat it just as a practical problem and neglect the possibility that lots of people are going to be killed by stray radiation, the reality is it's incredibly expensive to deal with this waste. And I really, living in France at the moment, and that's very heavy user, significant reliance on nuclear energy in France. The company that does it is not really fully privatised. It's a sort of semi-private company called Arriva. And Arriva publicly describes, it splits the costs of nuclear energy up.

It says 70% of the costs of nuclear come from building the plants. Then it it says 20% comes from running costs. And then it says 10% comes from things like fuel. It doesn't make any provision for the waste. Now that's one of the big world companies in nuclear and they're saying they're commercial. They're half commercial half within the state. They don't make any provision for the waste because they leave that bill to the general public. And that is actually, John said that the companies were setting aside money for waste. No, they're not. That all these bills, the decommissioning of the plants. They're all falling on governments in the general public.

And they are absolutely, you know, endless bills. The things like the idea that you're going to stick it in a hole in the ground, that is a bill for several thousand years for future generations. Worse than that is that people should understand that nuclear fuel is a problem because it doesn't ever stop heating up. it continues to burn in its casks. And that's why under Fukushima, under Chernobyl now, there are spent fuel rods which are heating up,

and they may yet turn into dirty bombs. I want to correct the record here. Firstly, Mr. Cohen, we do save sufficient money, and we're regulated to save sufficient money to manage the spent fuel properly. And here in Canada, I can tell you that, all of the costs that are associated with building the permanent solution that we have in place. You note that it's unfair for, you know, the nuclear industry to not be talking about the cost

of waste, you know, even though we do pre-save for it. But I would, I would suggest to you that really what is unfair here is that none of the other technologies are properly preparing and planning for disposing and managing their waste. Yeah, I mean, I mean, Often it's one of these nuclear myths that nuclear power stations just run quietly and steadily away. In fact, they're often shut down. They operate at a fraction of their potential or nominal power. So it's a bit like a wind turbine, a wind turbine, a 10-gibite wind farm, is only going to operate at some paltry fraction like one gigabyte.

But nuclear is not a lot better. The nuclear operates, I think, is about one-third of its capacity. Mr. Cohen, solar and wind operate between 20 and 40% of the time, and nuclear operates at 90% capacity. That's a fact. That's a fact. Well, I'm not going to quibble about the figures. No, I'm not...

When I did my book, I had to go through all the figures very carefully, and you see a lot of misleading information. I mean, for example, the total proportion of nuclear... The total contribution of nuclear to the world energy is something like 2.5%. The whole nuclear industry, the plants worldwide, if we got rid of the lot of them, we'd only need to find another two and a half percent more energy. It's a negligible amount that we have. Mr. Cohen, look, the nuclear provides

10 percent of the electricity consumed worldwide. It provides 15 percent of the electricity consumed in Canada, and in the United States it produces 50 percent of all of the clean electricity that's consumed in the United States. It's a very, very significant. Yeah, but I was talking about our energy requirement, not electricity. Thank you for clarifying what you were saying, and I think it is an important clarification, which is that, you know, when we look at the overall energy picture, not just electricity, but the overall energy picture around the world, only 20% of that energy is actually electricity, and 80% is the burning of fossil fuels for other purposes. So the point here being that it supports what I'm saying, which is we need to vast.

to lastly expand the amount of electricity and make sure it's clean that we have as this overall energy component and actually accomplishing that, you know, eating away at that 80% fossil fuels that's driving our economy through fuel switching with clean electricity means that we have to double or triple the amount of clean electricity generation we have. And that's why we need all of these technologies, including nuclear, both conventional and small modular reactors, to allow that to happen. So, Martin, let me come back to you on one of John's key points here, which is, you know, if we're going to decarbonize energy production around the world, how do we do that in a way that provides the end user with a steady, reliable source of energy,

in this case, electricity? And how do you do that without nuclear? I mean, you have solar, yes, you have wind, but those are dependent on variables outside of our control many times, whether it's the weather, Is it a cloudy day or not? All that matters in terms of generating reliable energy through renewables. So why don't you just have to end up like it or not mixing lots of nuclear energy to get that steady supply with renewable and other sources.

Trouble with wind and solar is there are a lot of energy inputs at the beginning. It's not clear that you get a lot more energy out from them than you've actually been. put in at the beginning. And that is actually also the case with nuclear, that nuclear was always described as virtually carbon-free. But the great bulk of the energy inputs for nuclear in building these power stations and in mining the uranium. And these have to be, these are normally run with fossil fuels. You know, all of these things, the so-called renewables, the nuclear power stations, actually use an awful lot of fossil energy to get created. John, let's get you to address that point.

If you look at the life cycle of nuclear power, just how green is it? You know, when you factor in building these massive concrete, you know, containment tanks and fields, these huge nuclear power plants, then you've got all the mining of the uranium, the transportation of the uranium, the plants, the digging of these deep geological repositories, the storage of all the waste.

I mean, at the end of the day, how green is nuclear power? Well, according to the United Nations, nuclear is among the very lowest full life cycle carbon output of any electricity generation source. It's on par with wind. It's significantly below. solar and its many magnitudes below fossil fossil fuel. And there's a reason for this, a number of reasons. Of course, it's non-emitting.

But the other reason is because the power density of uranium is so great, to put it in perspective, it's about a million times more power dense than coal-fired electricity generation, for example, that the amount of fuel that's actually required to run these clean, nuclear reactors is relatively small. And that means that the mining operations that are used to mine uranium and the inputs, as Mr. Cohen was referring to, for other technologies, are also very small.

When you combine that with a very small footprint that the nuclear stations take and that small modular reactors take, you note that nuclear really touches the earth very lightly. I don't know Mr. Cohen, what your stance is on climate change, but I found it, you know, alarming that you painted the UN IPCC, these climate discussion targets as being something that's not about the science and is about industry backing in some way. I think we all understand that climate change is real and that the UN is working with all of the nations around the world to solve this problem. And the idea of, you know, secretly fueling the notion that there are many hundreds of thousands of deaths from Chernobyl that are being hidden or unknown, and that's the danger.

is just not true. And the last thing I would say that to that about you is that in your own literature on the website that promotes your book, Doomsday Machine, you cite the United Nations that has studied this as showing that there were 54 fatalities from Chernobyl. So, you know, it's important that we have factual discussions about, you know, all clean technologies and nuclear included at this particular moment in history. Gentlemen, this has been a spirited debate. I'm going to have to take the energetic back and forth that you've just treated us to as a summation of both of your overall arguments in our conversation today. And again, very much appreciate the give and take your willingness to engage with each other's ideas and to enrich us in the process. So John

Martin, on behalf of the Monk Debates community, thank you so much for coming on the program today. Thank you very much. While that wraps up today's debate, I want to thank John and Martin for sharing their perspectives with us. They certainly gave us a lot to think about. If you have feedback or reflections on what you've just heard, please send us an email to podcast at monkdebates.com. Also a reminder that our members-only podcast is yours free to listen to anytime as a perk of our complementary membership. You can grab that right now at triple w monkdebates.com forward slash. And please visit our website to listen to more debates on everything from genetic engineering to the fate and future of American democracy to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

And you can do that all at triple w monk debates.com. Thank you again for lending your time and attention to our efforts to bring back the art of public debate one conversation at a time. I'm your host and moderator, Rudyard Griffiths. The monk debates are a project of the Aurea and Peter and Menace. Melanie Monk Charitable Foundations. Rudyard Griffiths and Ricky Gerwitz are the producers. The Monk Debates podcast is mixed by Adam Karsh. Be sure to download and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like us, feel free to give us a five-star rating. Thank you again for listening.