Is It Risky to Live Near a Nuclear Power Plant?

Nuclear power plants could resolve the energy crisis in the United States brought on by the recent exponential growth of data centers. However, some have safety concerns. Incidents like the Chornobyl disaster are still fresh in people’s minds. Could living next to one of these stations adversely affect their well-being? How close is too close?

The Palisade Plant’s Reopening Marks a Nuclear Milestone

In Southwest Michigan, Holtec International — a firm that specializes in reactor component design and manufacturing — is bringing the Palisades nuclear power plant back online. According to projections, it could be operational by October 2025. It will be the first domestic facility ever reopened, potentially setting a precedent for the rest of the country.

The Palisades plant closed in 2022. Since it has a capacity of 800 megawatts, the state wants to reopen it to meet its new clean energy goals. The Michigan Legislature set aside $150 million in the fiscal year 2025 budget to support that effort. Also, the federal government offered Holtec a conditional $1.5 billion loan.

While Holtec is optimistic about the October 2025 deadline, various representatives from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have said the timeline is “very, very demanding” and “very aggressive.” These comments came after a September 2024 inspection where 1,000 steam generator tubes were found damaged.

Although NRC staff say repairing and reinforcing the tubes with a specialized coating has been used thousands of times in other nuclear facilities, some residents have contended it is a shortsighted move. They argue repairing components instead of replacing them prioritizes short-term savings over long-term safety.

Michigan residents are no strangers to nuclear energy. Historically, these plants have supplied 30% of the electricity generated in-state. While decommissioning projects dropped that figure to 24.9% as of 2024, it is still above the national average of 19.1%. Some people are concerned about what the state’s heightened reliance on this power source means for their well-being.

Why Nuclear Power Plants Persist Despite Potential Risks

Three major nuclear accidents have happened in recent years — Three Mile Island in 1979, Chornobyl in 1986, and Fukushima in 2011. Meltdowns are exceedingly rare — hundreds of power plants exist, and almost all never experience such an incident. Moreover, only one has ever occurred on U.S. soil.

This sector is generally far safer than the oil and gas industry, which is why some officials are seeking to reopen shuttered plants. Due to heightened demand and an increased reliance on clean power, electricity costs are rising faster than existing energy infrastructure can keep up. While renewables are inexhaustible sources, production is intermittent — considerably less consistent than fossil fuels. Nuclear provides a reliable alternative.

However, almost all progress in this sector was halted after the partial nuclear meltdown in Pennsylvania. Today, most of the country’s reactors are more than four decades old. While a significant number have been closed over the years, including the Palisades plant, the U.S. still has the most operational reactors in the world.

For years, the facilities that remain active have provided enough power. However, as more data centers come online to support the rapidly expanding cloud computing and artificial intelligence markets, many states are finding they are no longer enough. They are faced with a tough decision — they can either build new stations or reopen old ones.

The Vogtle plant came online in April 2024. It is the first nuclear reactor built in the U.S. in decades. Despite being operational, many consider its construction a mistake because it was completed seven years late and ran around $17 billion over budget. These time and cost overruns suggest reopening shuttered plants may be the most sensible option moving forward.

Should Locals Be Concerned About Nuclear Waste?

Nuclear waste is a radioactive by-product of electricity generation within reactors. The U.S. has generated approximately 90,000 metric tons to date. It takes years, even decades, to decay, which poses long-term environmental and health problems. While it is typically stored on-site or in specialized underground facilities, cheaper, more dangerous measures are sometimes used.

In the 1900s, the government disposed of nuclear waste by dumping it into the ocean. This practice has since stopped, in part because regulations are much more strict. However, some companies have tried similar methods when decommissioning plants.

Holtec — the same firm in charge of reopening the Palisades plant — is in charge of shuttering the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, Massachusetts. It requested permission to dump 1.1 million gallons of radioactive wastewater into Cape Cod Bay. Holtec argued it would treat the water beforehand, but studies showed the radiation would linger for at least one month.

Cape Cod Bay is a protected ocean sanctuary, so officials denied Holtec’s request. However, the attempt still infuriated locals. They would have been exposed to low levels of contamination when swimming or fishing. Given that no dose of radiation is safe, they were right to be concerned with the proposal.

Studies Show Living Near a Nuclear Power Plant Is Risky

One of the biggest concerns for people living next to nuclear reactors is the possibility of a meltdown. However, these incidents are exceedingly rare. Radiation is a more present risk. Nuclear power harnesses the energy created during nuclear fission. The neutrons released during this process trigger a chain reaction that produces radiation, heat, and radioactive waste products.

Although the International Commission on Radiological Protection has established regulatory dose limits, even extremely low-level exposure to ionizing radiation can increase an individual’s risk of developing cancer. The scientific community has accepted the linear no-threshold model, which assumes that no safe dosage exists. While professionals debate the exact effects, they accept the risk as fact.

An evaluation of 47 epidemiological studies covering 175 nuclear power plants, 480,623 workers, and 7.5 million residents found evidence of an elevated cancer risk. Workers exposed to levels within regulatory dose limits were 0.85 times less likely to develop acute lymphocytic leukemia but 5.53 times more likely to develop mesothelioma.

The meta-analysis also found living near a nuclear plant is dangerous. For those within 18.5 miles, exposure of under 1 millisievert per year increases leukemia risk by 9% and thyroid cancer risk by 17%. Notably, the researchers acknowledge these findings may be biased or overestimated because some studies didn’t adjust for cancer risk confounders.

However, similar recent studies have similar findings. Research from the International Agency for Research on Cancer found that the mortality rate for leukemiaincreased by around 250% per gray (Gy) radiation dose. While plant workers typically accumulated just 0.016 Gy — and only 13 in 100,000 deaths in the study population were attributable to radiation over a 35-year period — these findings highlight the risks of living near and working in these facilities.

There Is Always a Non-Zero Chance of a Nuclear Meltdown

Since most of the country’s reactors are more than four decades old, stakeholders are pushing for modernization. However, digitalization comes with risks. Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure are on the rise, many of which involve state-sponsored threat actors. Some target nuclear facilities or administrative systems, increasing the risk of a meltdown.

This isn’t a hypothetical. In March 2022, the U.S. Justice Department unsealed criminal indictments against several Russian government agents. They had been charged with spearfishing attacks that compromised the Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp.’s business network in Kansas. They may not have been able to adjust control systems, but their actions proved they could gain access to these stations.

The only way to prevent a cyberattack is to rely on manual methods and systems. However, those make stations prone to human error, which could cause equipment malfunctions. Either way, nearby residents face the possibility of a nuclear meltdown. The risk is extremely low but present. If it came to pass, they’d have to leave their homes or risk a lethal dose of radiation.

A Buffer Zone Can Protect People From Radiation Exposure

While a nuclear power plant only needs to take up a relatively small area, officials should consider mandating expansive buffer zones. Given that studies show people living within around 18.5 miles of one of these facilities experience higher rates of cancer, it would be wise to give the reactors a wide berth.