Utah’s nuclear energy ads spark FTC complaint

Three Utah-based organizations filed a formal complaint with the Federal Trade Commission on Monday, over a state office’s promotion of nuclear energy.

In April, Utah’s Office of Energy Development put up about a dozen billboards along the state’s main highways describing the safety of nuclear energy. The campaign was accompanied by a website explaining the claims in detail.

One said, “Nuclear plants emit less radiation than bananas.” Another read, “Nuclear waste storage is safer than your leftovers.”

Three organizations, Downwinders, Inc., Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, and Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, held a press conference on Monday where they explained why they filed the complaint.

Mary Dickson, a Downwinder, described seeing the billboards while driving north to Idaho. “I wanted to scream,” she said at a press conference at the state Capitol in Salt Lake City on Monday. “They are patently offensive. They are ridiculously offensive.”

She and a handful of others laid out concerns about unsolved waste disposal issues and health risks due to radiation exposure.

Through Gov. Spencer Cox’s Operation Gigawatt, Utah has set the goal to double its reliable energy production by 2034. As part of the goal, Utah has proposed building a nuclear fuel recycling facility in Tooele County, while the state’s first microreactor came online in Orangeville in June.

In a statement to the Deseret News, the Department of Energy Development said the state is “pursuing an any-of-the-above energy strategy to ensure we have the affordable, reliable and abundant energy our growing state will need for generations to come. Civil nuclear energy has the potential to play an important role in that future.”

The office promised to continue to share “fact-based, science-based information about civil nuclear energy” and to keep Utahns engaged with projects.

What do we know about radiation?

Scientists in the mid-1890s discovered the existence of radiation (certain elements naturally emit particles, rays and energy).

Signs that radiation could hurt people emerged almost immediately. For example in 1896, inventor Nikola Tesla subjected his fingers to X-rays and reported burns. However, it wasn’t widely accepted that radiation could lead to health risks and cancer until the 1940s.

Since then, scientists have discovered that radiation is much more common in space than on Earth, but everything in the universe, including rocks and trees (anything with a temperature above zero), emits thermal radiation.

Nuclear radiation from power plants, under normal operations, adds very little to background radiation exposure.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission found someone living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant should expect to receive an average additional radiation dose of about 0.01 millirem per year. Total annual radiation exposure for the average American, simply based on natural radiation, is 300 millirem per year.

However, various studies in the past several years have found that exposure to radiation from power plants poses a small but measurable increase in cancer risk.

What’s this about bananas?

One ad drew particular condemnation from the three organizations that opposed the campaign. With a purple background and six ripe bananas, it said, “Nuclear plants emit less radiation than bananas.”

Brian Moench, a retired anesthesiologist and founder of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, described the ad as “an insult to science, an insult to empirical evidence and an insult to logic.”

The online campaign for the ad referenced the radiation present in potassium, which bananas contain.

“Bananas contain potassium, and a small fraction of all potassium is naturally radioactive. So, eating a banana results in more radiation exposure than standing next to a nuclear power plant. The dose of radioactivity from eating bananas is minuscule and does not pose a health risk. Radiation is a normal part of everyday life; it comes from our soil, air, food, and even our own bodies,” it said.

Moench said the campaign was misleading, since the human body flushes out extra potassium quickly, when it might not flush out other types of radiation.

“Do people really get cancer from bananas?” Moench asked. “There is absolutely no evidence of that. But people get cancer from radiation exposure.”

Has nuclear safety improved over time?

When asked about Operation Gigawatt and whether they would like energy growth to come from carbon-free sources like nuclear, Moench said he has felt unconsoled regarding radiation and nuclear safety.

“The idea that somehow this is all of the sudden safer — it’s just not true. It’s not supported by the science. There’s no reason to think it is,” he said.

However, the technology which generates nuclear energy has evolved enormously in the past several decades.

Generation III reactors have backup systems that prevent meltdowns due to fires, floods or other natural disasters. Scientists have begun using safer coolants for the technology besides water, like helium or lead. The fuels themselves have also improved significantly to endure worst-case conditions.

Valar Atomics’ microreactor, which sits in Orangeville, Utah, uses helium as a coolant, since it can go to extreme temperatures without having corrosion issues. It also cannot cause explosions like water can, since it can’t undergo sudden phase changes from liquid to gas.

Lexi Tuddenham, the executive director of HEAL Utah, referenced several positives of nuclear energy.

“It is less carbon intensive than coal, and it is uses less lithium than solar,” she said. Then she described the issue of nuclear waste as a downside.

As of 2022, the U.S. generates about 2,000 metric tons of nuclear waste, while producing enough power for more than 70 million homes.

The average American’s yearly electric consumption generates only 5 grams of high-level waste, which is radioactive.

There is currently no final resting place for nuclear waste in the U.S.; most plants keep it in regulated casings near their facilities.