Víctor Resco, environmental scientist: "It's more dangerous to go to a hospital than to a nuclear power plant."

The debate over nuclear energy is back on the table, and this time with a groundbreaking argument. Environmental scientist Víctor Resco, a professor at the University of Lleida, asserts that the risks associated with this energy source are exaggerated and that, in reality, "it's more dangerous to go to a hospital than to a nuclear power plant." His comments are part of an extensive interview on the podcast " It Makes Sense ," where he defended the role of nuclear energy in the fight against climate change.

Resco argues that closing nuclear power plants is not a logical measure if the goal is to curb the climate emergency. He explains that doing away with them would force the burning of more gas and the use of fossil fuels, which would increase polluting emissions. He cites scientist James Hansen, a pioneer in warning about global warming, as one of the proponents of nuclear power: "Renewables are necessary, but not sufficient."

The researcher emphasizes that nuclear accidents are very rare, although their spectacular nature has shaped social perception. Cases like Chernobyl, he recalls, were due to obsolete facilities and a lack of adequate containment measures, something unthinkable in today's Europe.

The most surprising moment of the conversation came when he compared the radiation we're exposed to in everyday life with that of a nuclear power plant. "An X-ray or a CT scan emits much more radiation than spending a year near a reactor ," he stated. Even activities as common as eating a banana or flying from Madrid to Sydney expose the body to more radiation than living next to a nuclear power plant.

"It's a perfectly safe and clean energy that is constantly improving thanks to technological advances," he argued.

While appreciating the role of solar and wind energy, Resco warned of their limits. He pointed out that solar panels and batteries contain heavy metals whose toxicity does not disappear over time, unlike nuclear waste, whose radioactivity decreases significantly over 300 years. He also noted that a single nuclear power plant can generate as much energy as millions of solar panels, which require massive exploitation of minerals and soil.

The scientist did not shy away from controversy and criticized environmental organizations, which, he said, also act out of economic interests. "The real problem is not nuclear energy, but fossil fuels," he stated, accusing certain groups of maintaining an ideological discourse that delays the energy transition .

Beyond nuclear waste, Resco warned about another invisible enemy: microplastics. He noted that babies are the most vulnerable group, as sterilizing plastic bottles can release millions of particles that end up in the milk. Recent research has even detected plastic debris in the placenta, raising questions about its long-term health effects.

For the scientist, the great challenge is to design a balanced mix of nuclear, renewables, and biomass, adapted to the characteristics of each country. In the case of Spain, he emphasizes that the potential is enormous and that the decision should be based on data, not ideology.

"We need to put aside eco-anxiety and focus on evidence. The real enemy is climate change , not nuclear energy," he concluded.

The debate over nuclear energy is back on the table, and this time with a groundbreaking argument. Environmental scientist Víctor Resco, a professor at the University of Lleida, asserts that the risks associated with this energy source are exaggerated and that, in reality, "it's more dangerous to go to a hospital than to a nuclear power plant." His comments are part of an extensive interview on the podcast " It Makes Sense ," where he defended the role of nuclear energy in the fight against climate change.