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
0.89
Avg stability
0%
Refusal rate
3
Models
Where each model stands
CCG
refutedcontestedsupported
ChatGPT modal supported [supported, supported, supported] · stability 1.00
- 1 supported 0.90 The answer states: "Short answer: Yes — by standard, peer‑reviewed life‑cycle metrics... nuclear power is among the safest large‑scale electricity sources... comparable to wind and solar and far safer than fossil fuels."
- 2 supported 0.90 The answer begins 'Short answer: True in general.' and explains that 'nuclear fatalities in the order of ≈0.01–0.2 deaths/TWh... comparable to wind/solar and far safer than coal, oil and biomass,' supporting the claim.
- 3 supported 0.90 The answer states ‘Short answer: Largely true’ and concludes ‘By conventional, evidence‑based metrics... nuclear power ranks among the safest large‑scale options,’ citing deaths/TWh comparisons and major assessments (IPCC, UNSCEAR).
Claude modal supported [contested, supported, supported] · stability 0.67
- 1 contested 0.92 The answer states the claim is 'statistically defensible' using standard metrics but emphasizes important caveats: the per-unit metric 'excludes rare but catastrophic events,' masks concentrated risk from accidents, and oversimplifies by calling nuclear the 'safest' when it's actually 'different' in its risk profile. The claim is 'true in a narrow, specific sense rather than a complete safety pict
- 2 supported 0.85 The answer states the claim is 'directionally accurate by standard safety metrics' and identifies it as 'one of the more defensible claims in energy debates.' While noting important caveats about how catastrophic risk is weighted, the response affirms that historical death rates studies consistently rank nuclear very low—typically below wind and solar, and far below coal or oil.
- 3 supported 0.85 The claim is 'substantially supported by data' with evidence that 'Deaths per unit of energy produced are lower for nuclear than coal, oil, or gas' and specific data showing nuclear at ~0.07 deaths per TWh compared to coal at ~25. The answer confirms 'The claim is accurate by the standard metric (deaths per TWh).'
Gemini modal supported [supported, supported, supported] · stability 1.00
- 1 supported 1.00 The answer directly affirms the claim, stating that 'This claim is well-supported by empirical data and public health research' and showing that nuclear ranks alongside wind and solar as one of the lowest in mortality per TWh.
- 2 supported 1.00 The answer directly affirms the claim, stating '**This claim is accurate.**' and concluding that 'nuclear power consistently ranks alongside solar and wind as one of the safest methods for generating electricity.'
- 3 supported 1.00 The answer directly affirms the claim, stating that 'Based on empirical data and comprehensive lifecycle analyses, this claim is accurate' and concluding that 'Statistically and empirically, the claim is true.'
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.