From as early as humans could think, to the contemporary era, our fear of technology and those who fearmonger about new sciences has only further handicapped our innovation.
Even now, the loudest warnings often come not from data or research but from misconceptions or groups with something to gain.
Nowhere is this fear the most seen than in the debate over nuclear energy, where decades of misconceptions continue to overshadow the real criticism and benefits.
Nuclear power is considered the most reliable source of energy, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
Nuclear power has a generational capacity of 92.5%, compared to coal’s 40.2%, indicating that nuclear power is the more efficient source.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the definition of generation capacity is how much energy the facility can produce when running at “full blast.”
This means that even if two different power plants generate the same amount of energy, they may actually produce differing amounts due to their varying generation capacities.
Now, when we look up what type of power generation the U.S. predominantly uses, we should see nuclear at the top right?
Wrong. We see the contrary.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), nuclear power accounts for only 19% of power generation.
“About 60% of this electricity generation was from fossil fuels—coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases,” the EIA said. “About 19% was from nuclear energy, and about 21% was from renewable energy sources.”
There are numerous costs associated with nuclear energy; it is expensive, takes a long time to build, and mining materials is dangerous.
However, a large issue with atomic energy is the reputation it has, due to misconceptions and media sensationalism.
“Commercial nuclear power is sometimes viewed by the general public as a dangerous or unstable process,” the EIA said. “This perception is often based on three global nuclear accidents, its false association with nuclear weapons, and how it is portrayed on popular television shows and films.”
When we look at the dangers around nuclear power at a different angle and compare it to deaths associated with other power sources, we see a clear divide.
According to Ourworldindata.org, the death rates per one terawatt per hour of electricity production, there are 24.6 annual deaths from coal, 18.4 deaths and only 0.03 deaths from nuclear power.
However, when we look into the people spreading anti-nuclear information and the people within the government who are anti-nuclear, we see groups and politicians backed by coal and oil companies.
According to environmentalprogress.org, we see influential anti-nuclear groups like the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund receive millions of dollars from oil and coal interest groups who receive benefits from the closure of nuclear power plants.
In addition to the fear-mongering surrounding nuclear power, another fear that was spread by people was the fear that automation would replace people’s jobs, and soon everyone would be out of a job.
Furthermore, there is a degree of truth to this; most importantly, matters like this have multiple different angles.
The impact we would see wouldn’t affect most high-paying jobs; it would hit the more routine jobs- ones that a majority of students and people without college work at.
According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Workers with lower levels of education and who perform routine tasks—think cashiers or file clerks—face the greatest risks of their jobs being automated. However, automation is likely to have widespread effects. Researchers estimate that anywhere from 9% to 47% of jobs could be automated in the future.”
However, with automation in the workplace, many jobs would be created relating to aiding the automation and maintaining the machines.
The fear of automation is not the only fear popular in America; we have seen the rise in fear of vaccines.
This fear, however, has serious consequences, and we see it as much worse than the fear around nuclear power and automation.
According to CBS News, skeptics surrounding vaccines put people at risk for life-altering diseases, including children as young as one month old.
An advancement that has saved millions of people annually has had information misinterpreted and misjudged.
According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), vaccines prevent around four million deaths per year.
“More than 50 million deaths can be prevented through immunization between 2021 and 2030,” the CDC said. “By 2030, it is estimated that the Measles vaccination can save nearly 19 million lives and Hepatitis B vaccination can save 14 million lives.”
So why are there people scared of vaccine advancements?
“You never know” and “they don’t want you to know” tropes are common in conversations related to vaccines, according to CBS News. Others argue that there is no need for vaccinations at all.
“Some skeptics argue that vaccine-preventable diseases are no longer a threat because they’ve become relatively rare in the U.S. (True — due to vaccination),” CBS said.
According to CBS News, as this “lax attitude” persuades parents to decline vaccination, “the protective group immunity will drop, and outbreaks will grow larger and faster.”
Illnesses such as measles, rubella and polio have seen a dramatic decline over the past 50 years, according to The World Health Organization.
“Measles vaccines have averted the deaths of about 94 million people, mainly children,” CBS News said. “Together with immunizations against polio and other diseases, vaccines have saved an estimated 154 million lives globally.”
Vaccines are not just created in one single go.
Hundreds of people participate in clinical trials to test side effects such as allergic reactions and other symptoms before doctors and healthcare professionals can offer the vaccine.
According to the CDC, vaccine research takes on average 10-14 years to develop before it is even considered for testing, after which it will then enter the clinical development stage.
“[A clinical trial] is a three-phase process, which may include a fourth phase if the vaccine is approved by the FDA,” the CDC said.
If we approach scientific breakthroughs with an open mind and an informed perspective, we can build a future where technology strengthens rather than frightens.
When we rise above fear and focus on evidence, innovation becomes an opportunity, not a threat.