The Public Health Case for Nuclear Power

Nuclear energy creates prosperity without sacrificing environmental and human health.

Nuclear energy offers major public health advantages by eliminating air pollution from electricity generation. Unlike coal or oil, nuclear reactors don’t rely on combustion and thus emit no smoke or smog-forming pollutants during operation. This translates into tangible health benefits: air pollution from burning fossil fuels causes millions of premature deaths each year (an estimated 8.7 million deaths in 2018 alone) , whereas nuclear plants produce virtually no particulate pollution and consequently negligible air-pollution-related deaths. Measured per unit of electricity, coal power is linked to about 25 deaths per terawatt-hour, while nuclear energy is associated with only ~0.03 deaths per TWh  – a safety gap of hundredsfold in favor of nuclear. By avoiding soot, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides, nuclear plants help prevent asthma attacks, respiratory diseases, heart conditions, and other illnesses triggered or worsened by polluted air.

Source: Our World In Data

Furthermore, energy underpins economic prosperity, which in turn supports stronger healthcare systems and outcomes. Regions with abundant, reliable electricity can power hospitals, industries, and infrastructure that drive development. As economies grow, they can invest more in medical facilities, doctors, and public health programs. In this way, clean energy access and public health rise together. The World Health Organization (WHO) emphasizes that access to electricity is “critical for quality health-care provision, from delivering babies to managing emergencies”, and without reliable power, achieving universal health coverage is impossible. For example, electrified communities can run refrigeration for vaccines and medicines, operate life-saving equipment, and attract healthcare professionals – all components of better medical care. Studies show strong correlations between energy access and health indicators: countries with high electricity availability generally enjoy higher life expectancies and lower disease burdens, while those in energy poverty suffer higher rates of maternal mortality and preventable illness. In short, energy and public health are scientific and societal issues that must be aligned, and investing in clean nuclear power is essentially an investment in the well-being of populations.

Nuclear power also contributes economically to communities, bolstering local services (including healthcare and education) through significant tax revenues and employment. A single large nuclear plant typically employs hundreds of skilled workers and pays millions in local and state taxes. These funds support schools, hospitals, and public infrastructure. In some communities, the nuclear plant is a cornerstone of the tax base – often providing over half of local government revenue. For instance, in Grundy County, Illinois, the Braidwood nuclear station supplies ~70% of a local school district’s budget through its tax payments. This infusion of funds can be used to build better clinics, hire more first responders, or improve sanitation and health programs, directly uplifting public health. By contrast, areas around polluting power plants may face high healthcare costs from pollution-related diseases without comparable economic benefits. Nuclear energy thus offers a virtuous cycle: clean air reducing healthcare strain, and economic support enabling better public services.

It’s increasingly clear that public health and energy policy should go hand in hand. Medical professionals and scientists recognize that choosing cleaner energy like nuclear is a powerful form of preventative medicine. Every coal plant retired in favor of nuclear or renewables means fewer asthma inhalers prescribed and fewer ER visits for stroke or heart attack. A striking example comes from Ontario, Canada, which in the 2000s phased out coal-fired power with the help of nuclear plant refurbishments. The result was not only a major drop in greenhouse gas emissions but also an air quality windfall: the number of “smog days” in Ontario plummeted from 53 in 2005 to effectively zero after coal was gone. Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health attributed this coal phase-out to immediate public health benefits, including fewer respiratory hospitalizations. Likewise, France’s largely nuclear-powered grid has air pollution levels far lower than if it relied on fossil fuels, preventing the acid rain and chronic lung diseases that coal-dependent countries have struggled with. By aligning energy strategy with public health imperatives – basing decisions on scientific evidence of pollution’s harm – we can save lives while powering society. In sum, nuclear energy protects public health by delivering electricity without poisoning the air, and it reinforces the economic and social conditions needed for healthy communities.