Few subjects generate more confusion than nuclear power, nuclear weapons, and radiation. Radiation is often described as either an automatic invisible death sentence or a manageable byproduct of modern life. These competing narratives generate confusion, drowning the public in a sea of misinformation that distorts the true risks and potential benefits of nuclear power.

Comprehending the nuclear landscape requires separating elements that are frequently merged, sometimes for disingenuous purposes. While it’s true that nuclear weapons have been intrinsically linked to nuclear power, it doesn’t have to be that way.

Ionic radiation can be hazardous to organic life, but it’s also everywhere around us at all times. With numbers that account for somewhere around 1% of all fatalities, more deaths are caused each year by cosmic background radiation than all of humanity’s nuclear adventures combined.

But the risks of nuclear power are real. Strong radiation can kill fast. On the other hand, the promise of nuclear power is also real – if managed properly. But the media conversation has focused less on genuine science and more on generating unsupported drama.

A Shared Technology

At their core, nuclear power and nuclear weapons both rely on a scientific principle called nuclear fission, which simply means to separate or split apart. An enormous amount of nuclear binding energy is released each time atoms fission, but the distinction involves how that energy is controlled and used, not in the underlying physics.

Nuclear reactors are designed to moderate nuclear fission for power generation. Nuclear weapons release energy in a sudden, catastrophic event. Their purpose is different, but the materials, expertise, and infrastructure required to sustain them significantly overlap. Nor is that fact accidental, but rather dictated by physical laws of nature.

Nearly every nuclear-armed nation developed nuclear expertise through civilian or research reactor programs first. The notion that nuclear power and nuclear weapons exist in separate worlds ignores the shared technology that bound them together from the start.

The Promise of Peaceful Atoms?

For decades, nuclear power has been presented as a peaceful application of atomic energy. While it has that potential, the phrase also suggests an automatic division between energy production and military use that has not existed historically.

Nuclear reactors generate plutonium as a byproduct when uranium is irradiated. That plutonium can be chemically separated from spent reactor fuel, then used to build nuclear weapons. Most nations are prohibited from doing so by international treaties, and safeguards do exist to control cheating. But enforcement depends upon political stability, willing cooperation, and sustained oversight that may not be reliable.

Even when reactors are not used directly for weapons production, they still create latent military capability. Look no further than Iran, where expertise gained in uranium enrichment, fuel handling, and reactor operations has shortened the “breakout” time from civilian infrastructure to nuclear arms production.

The Radiation Barrier

Radiation is among the most misunderstood aspects of nuclear technology. It is often treated as either a mystical, apocalyptic force or an exaggerated concern. Both views obscure reality.

Radiation occurs naturally and cannot be escaped. Exposure may be inconsequential at lower levels, but genetic damage, cancers, and fatalities can occur as levels rise.

This deadly nature of ionic radiation is a powerful barrier against building nuclear weapons. Spent reactor fuel with the plutonium it contains is extremely radioactive. Exposure times measured in minutes can kill.

Specialized procedures and equipment are required to handle such deadly material, but weapons-grade plutonium has been physically handled in the past without ill effects once separated from spent reactor fuel. Therein lies the problem:

Once removed from reactor fuel, plutonium presents no radiation barrier to weapons production.

Plutonium metal is easily concealed, transported, shaped, and machined as well. Too easily.

But a previously suppressed nuclear technology exists that does not share those proliferation vulnerabilities.

Thorium

The following expands on comments from a previous post promoting nuclear power derived from thorium.

Carbon emissions continue to rise worldwide despite efforts to reduce them. Modern society runs on fossil fuels, which are cheap, energy dense, and abundant. Anything capable of replacing them must possess all three of those qualities, and it’s truly unfortunate that renewables do not.

It seems strange to promote nuclear energy in a post against nuclear weapons, but a hard truth comes to bear: The rise of nuclear power seems inevitable as greenhouse gasses concentrate and energy demand at AI data centers spikes.

The question is what kind of nuclear power.

U233 Versus Plutonium

As element 90, thorium is two steps below uranium on the periodic table, but over three times more abundant. Enough minable thorium exists in the ground to power our civilization for 100,00 years at current rates of consumption.

Thorium has many advantages over uranium as a nuclear fuel, but from a nonproliferation standpoint its primary advantage  involves uranium-233 (U233) versus plutonium.

Irradiating uranium in a nuclear reactor produces plutonium as a byproduct. Irradiating thorium produces U233 – the radioactive isotope that powers a thorium reactor.

Once separated from reactor fuel, plutonium is relatively safe to handle and fabricate into weapons. But U233 – although theoretically usable for nuclear weapons as well – is a deadly radioactive isotope emitting gamma radiation so intense it will kill anyone exposed to it.

Which makes building nuclear weapons a great deal more complicated using U233 – with or without any secrecy requirements. Rather than being easy to work with like plutonium metal, U233 must be processed, shaped, fabricated, and machined behind heavy radiation shielding.

Strong radiation also corrupts electronic circuitry, so the warhead itself must remain heavily shielded until detonated. The increased weight shortens missile range, reduces payload, or both.

Nuclear weapons start with uranium reactors, but something must replace them if we shut them all down. This key to nuclear disarmament is often neglected, so look for an article devoted entirely to modular thorium reactors in the near future. More details about the many advantages of thorium can also be found in the previous post, THORIUM: The Promise of Element 90.

Deriving energy from thorium offers a new approach toward nuclear disarmament. The task of eliminating nuclear weapons is challenging enough already, but it is nearly impossible while enriched uranium and plutonium exist in abundance. Eliminating both and switching to thorium keeps the green promise alive, while building nuclear weapons becomes exponentially more difficult.

New Vulnerabilities

Today’s nuclear systems increasingly rely on software, automation, and digital technology. These tools promise efficiency but carry new risks as well.

Cyber vulnerabilities, system failures, and unforeseen circumstances add layers of uncertainty to technologies already demanding perfection. Increased complexity does not eliminate risk and may conceal it instead.

That alone is reason enough to discard complex, over-engineered systems with infinite ways to fail. If nuclear power lies in our future, the simplicity, passive safety features, nonproliferation advantages, and financial incentives of thorium energy should make our choice clear. 

The Path Forward

At Our Planet Project Foundation, we believe that, for good or for bad, nuclear power is here to stay. With that in mind, thorium reactors should be commercially developed as soon as possible and uranium reactors permanently shut down as thorium comes online.

The reasons are many, but above all is the control and eventual elimination of plutonium. Both plutonium and uranium are well-suited for building nuclear weapons, thorium is not, and the difference cannot be overstated.