Contested facts · veracity-3pt · fact-nuclear-safety-01

Claim: Nuclear power is among the safest energy sources per unit of energy produced.

0.00

Divergence

1.00

Avg stability

Refusal rate

Models

Where each model stands

CCG

refutedcontestedsupported

ChatGPT modal supported [supported, supported, supported, supported] · stability 1.00

1 supported 0.93 The answer states: 'Short answer: Yes — by the common metric "deaths (and serious health impacts) per unit energy produced," nuclear power is consistently ranked among the safest large-scale electricity sources,' and provides supporting data.
2 supported 0.92 The answer explicitly states 'Short answer: Supported' and provides deaths/TWh comparisons showing nuclear has low mortality per unit energy (e.g., 'Nuclear: roughly 0.03–0.2 deaths per TWh' and much higher for coal), supporting the claim.
3 supported 0.93 The answer begins 'Short answer: Supported' and explains that multiple life‑cycle studies find nuclear 'among the safest' with deaths per TWh 'well under 1' and 'markedly safer than fossil fuels.'
4 supported 0.90 The answer explicitly states: “Short answer: Yes — supported by the evidence. On a per-unit-of-energy basis ... nuclear power is among the safest large-scale electricity sources,” and cites deaths-per-TWh and life‑cycle assessments.

Claude modal supported [supported, supported, supported, supported, supported] · stability 1.00

1 supported 0.92 The answer states 'The claim is empirically sound' by standard safety metrics, and presents peer-reviewed data showing nuclear has 'among the lowest death rates per unit energy' comparable to wind and solar, with deaths per TWh (~0.07) far lower than coal (~24.6) or oil (~18.4).
2 supported 0.82 The claim is 'substantially accurate as a statistical statement about per-unit-energy fatality rates' with studies showing nuclear at 0.07 deaths/TWh versus coal (~25), oil (~36), and natural gas (~4). The answer acknowledges important caveats but ultimately confirms the core claim using the specified metric.
3 supported 0.82 The claim is largely accurate statistically. Deaths per unit of energy (TWh) are lower than fossil fuels by most measures, and modern reactor designs have strong safety records. The answer supports the core claim while appropriately noting important caveats about catastrophic risk versus statistical averages.
4 supported 0.85 The answer concludes that 'the claim is substantially supported by available data on mortality per kilowatt-hour' and notes that 'Studies comparing fatalities (direct + indirect) across energy sources typically rank nuclear among the lowest.' While acknowledging important caveats about waste storage and accident severity, the overall stance affirms the core claim about per-unit energy safety metri
5 supported 0.85 The answer explicitly concludes 'The claim is accurate as stated' and notes that 'Deaths per unit of energy produced (per TWh) are lower for nuclear than coal, oil, or gas' with support from major studies, while acknowledging important caveats about what metrics are included.

Gemini modal supported [supported, supported, supported, supported, supported] · stability 1.00

1 supported 1.00 The answer directly confirms the claim, stating that 'Based on comprehensive historical and epidemiological data, this claim is accurate' and providing data showing nuclear ranks alongside wind and solar as one of the safest sources per TWh.
2 supported 0.95 The response explicitly states that 'The claim that nuclear power is among the safest energy sources per unit of energy produced is supported by numerous statistical and epidemiological studies' and concludes that it is 'widely acknowledged by scientific and energy institutions to be among the safest available sources'.
3 supported 1.00 The answer directly states that 'The claim is supported by empirical data' and concludes that 'the claim is accurate: along with modern wind and solar, nuclear power is one of the safest and lowest-fatality methods humanity has ever used to generate electricity.'
4 supported 0.95 The answer directly states that the claim 'is strongly supported by empirical studies in epidemiology and energy policy' and concludes that peer-reviewed data consistently place nuclear energy on par with wind and solar as one of the safest sources per unit of electricity delivered.
5 supported 1.00 The answer directly affirms the claim, stating: 'Based on comprehensive epidemiological and industrial safety data, this claim is accurate' and 'The claim is supported by decades of data.'

Change over time

No change from the prior run — every model's modal stance held.

Every stance label is a derived judgment over the model's free-text answer, kept auditable against the original transcript in the run's raw data. Method: /methodology.