By Joseph Mangano, MPH, MBA, Executive Director Radiation and Public Health Project
June 23, 2025
In the past few years, an unexpected effort to dramatically expand U.S. nuclear power – which for decades has diminished as an electricity source – has raised concerns about safety and health.
During the Cold War, government leaders promoted electricity generated by nuclear power reactors as a use of the “peaceful atom.” The threat of nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union terrified many, and leaders used reactors to distract people. Supporters presented reactors as the electricity source of the future – a cleaner and less expensive replacement for coal and oil.
Even with extensive government support, nuclear power failed to live up to the hype, as it proved to be anything but cheap and clean.
Constructing reactors took much more time than expected, and cost overruns were dramatic. Due to these factors, the U.S. market for nuclear power plants had collapsed years before the near meltdown at Three Mile Island.
Existing reactors were often shut down to make needed mechanical repairs.
Reactors accumulated vast amounts of radioactive waste, requiring storage at each site as a search for a permanent repository proved endlessly fruitless. Who would want a storage facility in their backyard that would contain the most toxic radioactive sludge, which will stay deadly for thousands of years – and for over 200,000 years in the case of radioactive Plutonium-239.
In addition, routine releases of some of the toxic waste into the environment raised concerns among nearby residents and environmental groups.
Three Mile Island’s partial meltdown (1979) was the worst in U.S. history, and full meltdowns at Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011) gave a dark warning of what reactors were capable of. As I write this today, the Fukushima nuclear reaction is going on, unchecked, as it releases millions of gallons of toxic radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean. Even worse, neither the government nor the private group charged with bringing the situation under control can estimate when, if ever, the reaction will stop. Conservative estimates believe it will take at least 40 years or more. Some independent analyses put the number of years much higher before the underground reaction ends of its own accord.
Orders for new reactors ended in the 1970s (with the notable exception of the Hinckley Point dual reactor slated for England), and some have closed permanently. The peak number of reactors was only 112 (far below President Nixon’s once predicted 1,200), which has now declined to 94. The amount of U.S. electricity from safe and renewable sources (especially wind and solar) has recently skyrocketed to 26%, surpassing nuclear at 18%. Most reactors were running past their expected lifespan, and some were losing money. Many closed or were preparing to close. Many are dangerously past their “useful lives” and – like Diablo Canyon in California – are known to have embrittled metal cladding for the reactor core.
But just as it looked as though U.S. nuclear power was approaching its sunset, efforts are being made to resuscitate it. The first moves were made by four state legislatures, which approved multi-year, multi-billion-dollar bailouts to prevent shutdowns. Taxpayers footed the bill, and utilities were allowed to raise electric rates. Utilities took advantage of the concern for climate change, tricking legislators by proclaiming nuclear power was “green” and “emission-free” – when they produce the most toxic pollutants in human history, the same mix of chemicals that keeps Chernobyl uninhabitable by humans for a thousand years or more. These are the same materials created from the fallout from atomic bombs.
Bailouts shifted from states to Washington, DC. The Inflation Reduction Act included up to $135 billion in incentives for building new reactors and keeping old and brittle ones running. The U.S. joined 30 nations in signing a pledge to triple the amount of electricity from reactors by 2050. And in addition to supporting research for new reactors, the ADVANCE Act reduced regulatory requirements for nuclear plants, denounced by critics as weakening safety and security
This sudden shift is now playing out in various plans and proposals, including:
Palisades – The First Permanently Shut U.S. Reactor to Re-Start? The Palisades nuclear reactor near Kalamazoo, MI closed permanently in 2022 after 51 years (reactors were initially licensed for 40 years as their expected lifespan). Entergy Nuclear sold the site to Holtec International, which had decommissioned closed reactors but had never run one. Palisades is the 40th U.S. reactor to close; none have ever restarted.
But Holtec discarded decommissioning and made plans to operate Palisades, bolstered by pledges of $1.5 billion from the U.S. Energy Department, $1.3 billion from the U.S. Agriculture Department, and $0.3 billion from the state of Michigan for upgrades (critics estimate the full tab to be $8 billion). Holtec is awaiting federal approval to operate for 20 years; a decision is expected later this year.
Palisades may not be the only closed reactor to restart. NextEra Energy has submitted a proposal to federal regulators to re-start the (closed) Duane Arnold reactor in Iowa, starting in late 2028.
Three Mile Island – Meltdown Site to Re-Start to Power Microsoft’s AI Operations? After the 1979 meltdown that destroyed one reactor at Three Mile Island (near Harrisburg, PA), the second unit operated until shutting down in 2019. Last year, plant owner Constellation Energy made an agreement with Microsoft to restart the reactor for an additional 20 years, to power Microsoft’s AI data centers in Pennsylvania. Microsoft would pay for all needed repairs and upgrades, with late 2028 as a target date for restart. AI data centers require enormous amounts of energy, with some estimates predicting a doubling or even tripling of electricity consumption by 2030.
Diablo Canyon – State Reneged on Deal to Shut Last Nuke Plant in California. A 2016 agreement set the closing of the two reactors at Diablo Canyon near San Luis Obispo, CA, for 2024/2025. As the last two operating reactors in California, Diablo Canyon produces only 9% of the electricity in a state with rapidly growing wind and solar power. In addition, all of the power it produces is deemed to be in excess of “surplus” by the California Independent System Operator (“CAISO”), but it is still compelled to purchase all of it from the utility, PG&E, before it can purchase wind or solar. The agreement was broken by the direct intervention of an effort led by Governor Gavin Newsom, resulting in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission allowing the reactors to operate five more years, propped up by $1.2 billion in federal funds to make upgrades. Pacific Gas and Electric plans to ask federal regulators for a 20-year license extension despite the fact that it sits on active earthquake faults, one of which runs directly under the reactor core. Had any of those faults been detected before the facility was constructed, it never would have been given a permit in the first place, as it would have been considered inherently too dangerous.
Small Modular Reactors – New Package for an Old Product. The long and costly process of planning and constructing large reactors led the nuclear industry to consider Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), each of which only generates about 20% or less of the electricity of large units average about 1,000 MW per reactor. After decades of research, just two SMRs now operate worldwide – one each in Russia and China. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) lists 83 SMRs in development.
Proponents have described SMRs as simpler, easier to build, safe, clean and affordable. These claims may not prove accurate. In the U.S., a project by NuScale Power Corporation to build 12 SMRs in Utah was scrapped after estimated costs jumped from $3 billion to $9.3 billion. NuScale also cancelled a project to build six new SMRs in Idaho due to a lack of subscribers from utilities. TerraPower, founded by Bill Gates, has yet to receive a federal permit but broke ground to build an SMR in Wyoming, with a (hopeful) start date of 2030. Most SMRs are fueled by uranium, as are current reactors. The U.S. government’s pledge of $900 million to support SMR construction is considered insufficient by some experts to build these new reactors.
As discussions continue and plans are made, current U.S. reactors continue to age. As reported above, 94 reactors are currently in use, of which 65 have operated beyond their expected life of 40 years, with 30 now past the 50-year mark. Nearly all reactors have received federal approval to operate up to 60 years, with 12 already approved to reach the 80-year mark. Not one license extension application has ever been denied by regulators at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Aging reactors mean their mechanical parts become old and brittle, allowing more radioactive leaks to occur, and increasing the possibility of a spontaneous nuclear “event.” The health status of those living closest is an important issue. In the normal course of operations, nuclear reactors must routinely release significant amounts of radioactive material into the environment. These radioactive gases and particles enter human bodies through the air and food chain, where they attack healthy cells, raising the risk of cancer and other diseases.
The U.S. government has only conducted one national study of cancer near nuclear plants. Ordered by Senator Edward Kennedy and conducted by the National Cancer Institute in the late 1980s, the study is now outdated. Since then, the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP), an independent scientist/citizen group, has taken up the slack, publishing 41 articles in scientific journals, plus numerous reports and books on health risks among people living near reactors. The World Business Academy has been actively publishing in this area as well and played a seminal role in the successful closure of the San Onofre nuclear facility, as well as in the negotiations for the closure of Diablo Canyon. The Academy has also published an in-depth research paper (Nuclear Power: Totally Unqualified to Combat Climate Change) tracking the folly of nuclear energy in terms of economics, non-sustainability of waste disposal issues, and the likelihood that enough reactors cannot be built to either replace the aging global nuclear fleet or add substantially to the total power necessary for our increasingly electrified world.
A spring 2025 RPHP report analyzed cancer death rates in counties where 16 of the oldest U.S. nuclear plants are located, with a population of 1.3 million. Just before and just after reactors started, cancer mortality in these counties was 6% below the U.S. rate. But in the 42 years after these reactors opened, local rates exceeded the national rate, peaking at 3% above the U.S. in the past two decades. Increases occurred in all but one of the 16 home counties. The shift of local cancer rates from below to above the U.S. translates into 10,000 excess cancer deaths – a figure that may only represent a fraction of the toll from exposure to nuclear plant emissions.
Concerns about environmental harm from sources such as coal and natural gas have somehow eluded nuclear power. The claim that reactors are “green” and “emission-free” has somehow convinced government leaders to vigorously support this technology, which generates the same mix of toxic chemicals as did atomic bomb explosions. This is unacceptable from a USA and a global perspective. The future of nuclear power must include a thorough review of health consequences before any large expansion of nuclear power occurs.
