The atmosphere in the meeting room was tense. Government officials argued late into the night. For weeks, ministers had debated a vital question: how should Britain be powered in the 21st Century? Eventually, with just hours to spare, they formed a plan.

Yesterday, after weeks of anticipation, British prime minister Boris Johnson launched a new energy strategy for the UK. 

"Nuclear is coming home," Johnson said in an address to the nation. "In the country that was the first to split the atom, the first truly to harness its power to light our homes and drive our factories, we will once again lead the way."

The plan is clear. Every year until 2030, a new nuclear reactor will be approved in the UK. By 2050, atomic energy will produce 25% of Britain's electricity, alongside offshore wind, solar and hydrogen power. 

Johnson hopes the new strategyA general plan or set of plans intended to achieve something, especially over a long period. could solve Britain's energy problems. A rise in nuclear power, which harnesses the energy released by splitting apart the atomsThe smallest unit of any chemical element. of radioactive materials, could help wean the UK off polluting fossil fuels. Moreover, it can be produced domestically, reducing dependence on expensive imported energy. 

But campaigners say new reactors are not the solution. Many believe that using radioactive material to generate electricity simply cannot be safe. 

Radiation exposure can cause humans to develop cancer, pass genetic mutations onto their children - and even die. In 1986, the world's worst fears were realised when a meltdown at the ChernobylThe disaster, in 1986, involved a meltdown at a nuclear plant in Ukraine. nuclear power station spread radioactive material across Europe. 

Today, safety standards for nuclear plants are rigorous, but unexpected events can still have devastating consequences. The 2011 Fukushima disaster was caused by a powerful tsunami. Nuclear reactors are not designed for war zones, but last month, a missile strike caused a fire at Ukraine's ZaporizhzhiaA city in eastern Ukraine. plant. It raised fears of a new nuclear catastrophe.

Even when everything goes according to plan, nuclear reactors have a dangerous byproduct: toxic waste remains radioactive for thousands of years.

Yet proponents of nuclear energy say these fears are overblown. Only three nuclear accidents have caused significant alarm since the 1950s, and only one, Chernobyl, directly caused deaths. 

Meanwhile, up to 90% of nuclear byproducts can be recycled. And the waste that does remain is stored securely. In comparison, fossil fuels killed an astonishing 8.7 million people worldwide in 2018. 

"Radiation is the shark attack of environmental danger," summarises journalist Nick Stockton. "An awful way to go, but far less likely than, say, a car wreck." 

Nearly 70 years on from its invention, nuclear energy remains hotly debated. But one thing is not in doubt: as the world turns away from fossil fuels and Russian exports, finding safe alternatives is more important than ever before. 

Yes: The fear is not based on facts. Nuclear energy is far less dangerous than fossil fuels. In fact, one UN agency says nuclear plants are among "the safest facilities in the world".

No: The risk is small, but when nuclear reactors fail, they fail disastrously. It will be thousands of years before Chernobyl is completely safe again. The world should listen to this warning.

Or... Nuclear energy is a risk the world does not need to take. Instead, governments should be investing in energy that is both clean and renewable, from wind and solar farms to hydroelectric dams.