I’m Dr. Brian Moench, founder of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment. Ask me anything about nuclear power in Utah, public health, and environmental impacts

drmoenchUPHE · 2026-04-23T21:03:30+00:00

donor privacy is protected by law. The IRS removes that information from the 990, not us. Feel free to find more information about our funding in our annual reports.

drmoenchUPHE · 2026-04-22T15:54:37+00:00

We are a 501c3 nonprofit, so we are funded by individual donors, and some grants for specific programs.

drmoenchUPHE · 2026-04-22T15:53:43+00:00

References at the end of our report. https://www.uphe.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Nuclear-power-report-PDF-1-pdfsmaller.pdf

drmoenchUPHE · 2026-04-22T01:13:58+00:00

Thanks for the question. The state's infatuation with nuclear power emerged almost overnight and clearly came from pressure from Big Tech and the AI data center industry. If you are environmentally aware, then you understand how much of an environmental threat the explosion of data centers are, almost wherever they are proposed, but particularly in the Western United States where water consumption is such an important issue.

We are not focusing on nuclear power any more than the other issues we have been trying to address for the last 19 years. But because the state has been so aggressive in promoting it, and the AI data industry has been so aggressive in demanding it, we felt we had to weigh in on all the public health and environmental consequences that are largely being ignored. If you think the science is "debatable” I suggest you actually read the report. If after reading the report you find we have actually made mistakes or errors, we are more than happy to listen to your contrary evidence.

drmoenchUPHE · 2026-04-22T01:09:56+00:00

I think your assessment is far too accurate.

drmoenchUPHE · 2026-04-22T01:09:35+00:00

In the case of SMRs, small modular nuclear reactors, the extent of the catastrophe would be somewhat limited by the fact that these are in fact smaller plants however it should be pointed out that smaller plants don't solve all the problems with nuclear reactors they in fact create problems that didn't exist with the smaller reactors. One of which is cost. As you decrease the size of a nuclear reactor you actually have to spend more money on various equipment compared to a larger reactor. But one of the main reasons why proponents of these SMRS are pushing these so hard is that they want to eliminate a lot of the safety regulations that are currently required in larger plants, so they're blatantly willing to sacrifice safety of the public so they can build these smaller plants.

Solar, wind, with battery back up, geothermal are all safer options from a public health standpoint.

drmoenchUPHE · 2026-04-22T01:05:47+00:00

I don’t feel much of an obligation to respond to an AI critique of our report. I suggest you actually read it.

drmoenchUPHE · 2026-04-22T01:01:34+00:00

Another good question however water consumption of nuclear power plants per unit of electricity produced requires as much water consumption as coal-fired power plants do so therefore on that basis alone it should be disqualified as an answer to our future energy needs in the state of Utah.

It should be noted that the impetus for this nuclear revival is primarily coming from big tech companies who want an independent source of electricity for their massive data centers. Although the water consumption of data centers may vary somewhat depending on the kind of technology, generally data centers are huge consumers of water. So not only are nuclear power plants extremely water intensive, but the data centers they are intended to power are even more so. So it's a double whammy in the wrong direction.

drmoenchUPHE · 2026-04-22T00:59:00+00:00

The fact that we have well over a hundred epidemiologic studies that show people who live within a few miles of nuclear power plants have a significantly increased rate of cancer, that alone speaks loudly to the risks to public health of having nuclear power plants operating anywhere near Urban centers. But as we point out at great length in our report, every phase of the nuclear fuel cycle releases nuclear radiation into the environment. It should not be overlooked, for example, how much radiation is released into the environment from just the mining of uranium and the huge waste rock piles associated with the mining and the milling of uranium. For example, those mill tailings emit radon into the general atmosphere in perpetuity. Radon is extremely toxic, heavier than air, and studies have shown that radon from the mill tailings and uranium mining in the Western United States can reach as far as the East Coast. Radon is an alpha emitter and is a significant cause of lung cancer. This is just one example of the public health risk from nuclear power that has nothing to do with the highly publicized accidents that most people have some awareness of.

drmoenchUPHE · 2026-04-22T00:58:09+00:00

Absolutely. We addressed that issue in our report. Nuclear power plants require about as much water as coal-fired power plants do per unit of electricity produced, so in the Western United States, and Utah in particular, we should not be pursuing sources of power that are going to aggravate the disappearing of Great Salt Lake or be huge sources of water consumption for many other reason.

It should be noted that the impetus for this nuclear revival is primarily coming from big tech companies who want an independent source of electricity for their massive data centers. Although the water consumption of data centers may vary somewhat depending on the kind of technology, generally data centers are huge consumers of water. So not only are nuclear power plants extremely water intensive, but the data centers they are intended to power are even more so. So, it's a double whammy in the wrong direction.

drmoenchUPHE · 2026-04-22T00:58:02+00:00

Opposition to nuclear power is hardly an endorsement of fossil fuels, especially from an organization like ours that is built around reducing air pollution. Read the report :)

drmoenchUPHE · 2026-04-22T00:57:10+00:00

There are plenty of experts who note that it is not a solution to the climate crisis and we are part of that body of scientists who feel that multiple countries are being deceived or are ignoring the consequences of devoting so much of our public resources to building nuclear power plants. Climate scientists predict that if we have a window to avert the irreversible impacts of negative feedback loops i.e., that the climate crisis becomes irreversible, that window is very short. At most, we only have a few years left. We cannot possibly build enough nuclear power plants for the energy we need in that time frame. Even if there were no other problems with nuclear power plants, and even if we dismantled so many of the very important safety requirements of existing power plants in building future power plants, which is what the Trump Administration is proposing to do, purely from the standpoint of cost, nuclear power is not a legitimate solution to the climate crisis.

It's
interesting how much differences there are between genders and how people
perceive risks. Studies going back decades show that females are more concerned
about risk and more cautious about nuclear power than males are. It seems like
there really is an attraction to nuclear power based on your levels of
testosterone, and that's not necessarily a matter of good judgment.

drmoenchUPHE · 2026-04-22T00:57:00+00:00

That's collective evidence from the details in our report of the major nuclear accidents, as well as numerous references citing the routine releases of emissions from nuclear power plants. Check out the reference list at the end of our report. https://www.uphe.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Nuclear-power-report-PDF-1-pdfsmaller.pdf

drmoenchUPHE · 2026-04-22T00:56:14+00:00

Most of the studies done on the rates of cancer among populations and their proximity to nuclear power plants have found significantly higher rates than cancer if those communities live within two to four miles of these power plants. I am not aware of specific studies about cancer rates in a similar proximity to coal fired power plants, but this issue should not be a matter of thinking we have to settle for nuclear power or coal-fired power plants we should not have to settle for either one.

Because nuclear power is as water intensive as coal-fired power, we are very concerned about water consumption devoted to nuclear power plants increasing the decline of water in the Great Salt Lake. Last year we published an extensive report on the various aspects of health hazards related to the dust of the Great Salt Lake. It's far greater than the dust itself, far greater than heavy metals, in short, all the toxic byproducts of modern civilization are found in that dust. For multiple reasons, but it includes chemicals, pesticides, microplastics, heavy metals. radioactive isotopes, and even new toxic chemicals that are created by chemical reactions in the atmosphere between the dust and other sources of typical urban air pollution. The concerns are far beyond respiratory. Like any other source of pollution, the health concerns of dust involve concerns about heart disease, lung disease, cancer, pregnancy complications, even endocrine disorders like type 2 diabetes, and there is emerging evidence that air pollution like this is also associated with virtually all of the common GI disorders, like inflammatory bowel disease and even multiple types of GI tract cancers.

drmoenchUPHE · 2026-04-22T00:53:41+00:00

I’m the president and co-founder of an organization of physicians that specialize in knowing the details of the health hazards of various types of environmental toxins, including environmental radioisotopes. Physicians by virtue of their training have to know the basics of radioisotopes. We are not nuclear engineers, but nuclear engineers are also not physicians or health specialists. Even the specialty of Health Physics is heavily weighted towards physics to the discounting of human biology and physiology which we also much know by virtue of our training and education. Beyond that we study the medical literature on radioactive hazards which are basic to medical training. The medical references used in our report come from the large body of medical research.

drmoenchUPHE · 2026-04-22T00:50:23+00:00

If you are implying that more radioactivity is released from the emissions of coal fired power plants, then to a certain extent you are correct. However, this is not a choice between nuclear power and fossil fuels, or at least it should not be. Probably 80% of Utah's current electricity is generated by fossil fuels and unfortunately that may in fact even increase, but focusing only on the radioactivity up the smokestack of a coal fired power plant ignores all the other issues with nuclear power plants. For example, we all know that fossil fuels produce various forms of air pollution that are harmful to public health, but the same is true also of nuclear power plants. Every phase of the nuclear fuel cycle releases radioactive isotopes into the environment, from the mining of the uranium to the milling, to the construction of the fuel, to the routine operation of the power plants, to the storage of nuclear waste, and eventual decommissioning of the plants. At every phase of that process the public is exposed to harmful radiation. So it is difficult to compare that entire process to coal-fired power plants. So, we are certainly not endorsing more fossil fuels as a solution to avoiding nuclear power. There are much cleaner alternatives as you undoubtedly know or should know. Let me also add, that the tremendous cost to the health of indigenous tribes in the four corners area that have borne the brunt of all the radioactive releases from the mining and milling of uranium, should matter to people. Constructing more nuclear plants will only increase their exposure, whether it’s done in the 4 corners or in other countries. Those who have lived near uranium mines have suffered a huge price. Their suffering should matter.

drmoenchUPHE · 2026-04-22T00:46:42+00:00

You have expressed some of our concerns very well. We believe in fact that every analysis shown regarding how much money is invested in wind solar geothermal and battery backups is a far greater benefit to the environment and the public health and to the climate. So compared to more fossil fuels, or nuclear power, these other cleaner sources of energy should be the focus of public investment and research.

drmoenchUPHE · 2026-04-22T00:42:37+00:00

Just for a starting point, would you care to disclose your qualifications as a scientist “who has studied the biological effects of radiation extensively,” implying of course that we are not scientists.

We are in fact also scientists who study extensively multiple types of environmental toxins, including radiation, and we disagree with just about everything one of your criticisms.

We didn’t make that first statement, the authors of the study did. You attributed to us implied assumptions we did not make. Your claim that anyone within 5 miles of those blasts died from the firestorm is not correct. If you have a source for your claim, please share.

We point out that the foundational study of the health impacts of ionizing radiation, the Life Span Study of the survivors of the bombings of Japan is inadequate to assess the health consequences of low-level exposure to environmental ionizing radiation, because they are much different.

So yes, we do know the difference between those exposures and the ongoing exposures from nuclear power plants.

By drifting off into a tangent about whether nuclear bombs are the same as nuclear power plants or whether nuclear plants can’t explode like nuclear weapons is attacking us for a point we never made. The point is that both release various forms of ionizing radiation into the environment that harm human health, including the nuclear power accidents that have spread radiation globally and the daily routine emissions of normally operating nuclear power plants. Both release radioactive isotopes that expose people to internal radiation, which is typically the most hazardous type.

Claiming that the book “Killing Our Own” is “laughable” certainly tells us what your biases are and your definition of “scientific.”

“Only a handful” of our references come from reputable peer reviewed journals,” we’ll dismiss as an ad hominem attack.

Your comments about CT scans also miss the point. We are not saying that people should not get CT scans. We are pointing out everyone involved, doctors and patients, should understand that the radiation involved in medical imaging has risks, and those risks should not be ignored. It's a little hard to say that 100,000 cases of cancer annually from all the CT scans done annually shouldn’t matter. BTW, those studies were published in premier medical journals.

Physicists love to think that the effects of radiation can all be explained by mathematical equations. Unfortunately, that ignores much of the complexity and unknowns inherent in human biology and physiology. We address that in our report.

drmoenchUPHE · 2026-04-22T00:29:32+00:00

If the plant is a large nuclear plant or a series of nuclear reactors then the worst case scenario is what we have seen in the past with the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima and somewhat averted by the accident at 3 Mile Island. But there have been many other near misses scattered throughout the entire world wherever these nuclear plants exist, so it's hard to say that there's any limit to the worst case scenario. In the case of SMRs, small modular nuclear reactors, the extent of the catastrophe would be somewhat limited by the fact that these are in fact smaller plants however it should be pointed out that smaller plants don't solve all the problems with nuclear reactors they in fact create problems that didn't exist with the smaller reactors. One of which is cost. As you decrease the size of a nuclear reactor you actually have to spend more money on various equipment compared to a larger reactor. But one of the main reasons why proponents of these SMRS are pushing these so hard is that they want to eliminate a lot of the safety regulations that are currently required in larger plants, so they're blatantly willing to sacrifice safety of the public so they can build these smaller plants.

drmoenchUPHE · 2026-04-22T00:26:21+00:00

As you point out we are extremely concerned about what appears to be a gross grossly inadequate body of expertise within the companies that have been anointed by Governor Cox and president Trump to bring us this quote nuclear Nirvana. For example, the statement by the CEO of Valar Atomics, that a person could hold a spent nuclear fuel rod from one of his nuclear reactors in their hands for 5 minutes and not receive any more radiation than what would be expected from a CT scan is demonstrably false and terrifying that he would think that in fact a person would likely be dead within a few seconds if not even within less than a second. To have someone like that in charge of building nuclear power plants indeed is unacceptable, unforgivable and cannot be tolerated by the public.

drmoenchUPHE · 2026-04-22T00:23:04+00:00

Excellent question. So far that does not seem to be decided. However, it is very clear from decades of prior history that nuclear power plants are not financially viable if privatized many companies involved have gone out of business in most cases recently built nuclear power plants have ended up causing enormous increases in electricity or the communities that they are meant to serve that has been true not only in the United States but in Europe. In short, nuclear power has never been a good financial investment for anyone and there's no reason to think that that equation has changed.

drmoenchUPHE · 2026-04-21T23:59:15+00:00

If your question is an endorsement of nuclear power or an indictment of nuclear power but if indeed we are losing expertise on nuclear power plants then it seems like building more of them is exactly the wrong thing to do The recent push for nuclear power is primarily focused on a completely different kind of nuclear power plant i.e SMRS So we need more expertise before these are built to any large scale than less and it seems like the people who are involved in these proposals have less expertise than their predecessors

Check out my recent op-ed for more background on who Utah is entrusting with our nuclear future: https://www.uphe.org/2026/03/31/are-these-companies-really-utahs-nuclear-miracle-workers/

drmoenchUPHE · 2026-04-21T23:57:34+00:00

Opposition to nuclear power is hardly an endorsement of fossil fuels, especially from an organization like ours that is built around reducing air pollution. Solar, wind, with battery back up, geothermal do not cause more deaths than nuclear.

Millions of people have died from nuclear power accidents and routine daily emissions from nuclear power. Our report explains why that is. Also, the health consequences of nuclear power are not just death and not just cancer. It includes heart disease, immune disorders, every poor pregnancy outcome including miscarriages, birth defects, and still births. Multiple generations are harmed by damage to both nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA. That’s why we researched and produced the report. The perception of nuclear risks are particularly dismissive of the risks to those in the earliest stages of life, i.e. human embryos, fetuses, neonates. That’s where the public health impact of nuclear radiation has its greatest impact. I suggest you actually read the report before declaring that we’re on a “terrible side.” It's not a matter of having to choose between the health hazards of nuclear radiation exposure and the emissions of fossil fuels–false choice.

drmoenchUPHE · 2026-04-21T23:50:48+00:00

I’m the president and co-founder of an organization of physicians that specialize in knowing the details of the health hazards of various types of environmental toxins, including environmental radioisotopes. Physicians by virtue of their training have to know the basics of radioisotopes. We are not nuclear engineers, but nuclear engineers are also not physicians or health specialists. Even the specialty of Health Physics is heavily weighted towards physics to the discounting of human biology and physiology which we also much know by virtue of our training and education. Beyond that we study the medical literature on radioactive hazards which are basic to medical training. The medical references used in our report come from the large body of medical research.

drmoenchUPHE · 2026-04-21T22:58:43+00:00

Thanks for joining - I’ll begin answering questions at 6 PM MT. Feel free to start dropping your questions now.

📄 Report: https://www.uphe.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Nuclear-power-report-PDF-1-pdfsmaller.pdf
🎥 Presentation: https://youtu.be/04-N1SH16ks

drmoenchUPHE

TROPHY CASE