Nuclear Revolution: Power, Politics, and Public Perception Post-WW2 | The Atom And Us
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 січ 2022
- Action-packed tour through the history of one of the most controversial subjects of the 20th century - nuclear power - as told by those who experienced it first-hand. Focusing on events in the US, UK, France and Germany, it charts its social and political development from the early
days of post-war atomic euphoria, through to the struggling ‘nuclear renaissance’ of the present day.
It's like Netflix for history... Sign up to History Hit, the world's best history documentary service and get 50% off using the code 'TIMELINE' bit.ly/3a7ambu
You can find more from us on:
/ timelinewh
/ timelinewh
This channel is part of the History Hit Network. Any queries, please contact owned-enquiries@littledotstudios.com
The 1950s seem more futuristic and optimistic than today by far 😂
For sure…makes no sense smh
Funny how effective propaganda can be on the sheeple. I'll tell you a little secret... it was the rhytmic flicker rate of the fuzzlejug (cathode ray tube television).
FACTZS
It's always amazed me how fear robs people of rationality.
That point cannot be understated in light of CoronaPhobia, which has spawned an entire new generation of Fearful, Panic-Stricken Hypochondriacs. 😵💫😱
@@blackduk6200 ... Phil Valentine said almost the exact same thing... 2 months before he died of COVID.
@@Chris-ie9os They're either going to relegate it to just another disease like AIDS, or they will have to roll out another engineered virus with 30% fatality. Each new booster spawns each new variant...Let's see if the "Powers That Be" switch to doubling down on Carbon and the state-sponsored religion of "Man Made C(lie)mate Change".
@@blackduk6200 ... boosters don't spawn variants. Mutation spawns variants. Every replication can spawn a variant. Boosters reduce replications.... Biology.
Which part of climate change is a lie? That CO2 is 40% higher, our pathetic addition to fools fuel is the reason or that CO2 blocks outgoing IR? Physics.
@@Chris-ie9os ..Those without the injection need to get it because “it works”. Those with the injection need to get the same formula again, because it doesn’t work.😳
The vaccinated need to be protected from the unvaccinated by forcing the unvaccinated to be vaccinated with the same vaccine that doesn’t protect the vaccinated. 😳--> ‘When you realize the virus comes from within you because you consumed the vaccine products, now becoming the super spreader you once feared.’ 😳
I wish I could live through the optimism of that era. Imagine honestly believing that unlimited energy has finally been achieved.
It had, we just don’t like it because the tv said so. Think about it , what’s Chernobyl to the millions of lives cut short and countless species
Yeah the idiots used to spew propaganda like " its too cheap to meter". Lol boy were they wrong, and not to take into account accident cleanups which are all in vain, and large areas of land remain radioactive for millennia like Fukushima Japan or Chernobyl, or Simi valley California. The cost of making that land uninhabitable is not calculated, not is the disposal of spent fuel rods, that just collect at the nuclear power plants spent fuel pools, that need to be kept cool with pumps for decades. But ultmately they have no where to safely dispose of it for millennia. Thats a long time to keep something safe, cool since it generates heat for a long time after its used up, and kept from spreading. Anyhow, how much will that cost for the next 100 million years? You see how even this documentary is actually nothing but propaganda for the nuclear industry?
"We had the discovery of natural gas in the United States. In large amounts. Its much cheaper." Fast forward to 2022, and power plants are burning coal again because natural gas prices have risen 110% in 1 year. So I would say that levels the field a bit for nuclear energy.
welcome to suriname ua-cam.com/video/QecDL9RfxNQ/v-deo.html
It doesn't really, because renewables far outmatch any other energy source for cheapness by now.
@@jamielondon6436 then why do our power bills continue to get more expensive? The area I live in Illinois is 75% clean energy. And yet our electricity is more expensive than it ever has been. Its a racket just like anything else. Yes it's MUCH better for the planet. And it's absolutely the way we should go. But if you think the reason they are doing it is to make power "cheaper" for us. Then you are unfortunately mistaken. The estimate is that 25% of the entire cou tries energy comes from renewable resources. Have our bills dropped 25%? Well no. In fact, in the last 10 years our electricity bills have went up AT LEAST 50%. I would literally rather them say "we need to put up these windmills to help our Co2 levels. But just to be clear, we are going to continue skull f**king you on the cost of delivering your energy." I think it would be much better received if they say that. If the premise of their argument is allready a clear lie, then people wonder what else are they lying about.
@@DC-1226 what a bunch of nonsense. Are you completely ignoring that while energy production increases and renewable energy increases as well the energy demand increased even further then that? Your whole argument only works if energy demand stayed the same for at least 20 years. Well it hasnt stayed the same but rather exploded and even more so with covid. Renewable energy is cheaper the problem is that this will not be visible on the energy bill if consumption continues to outgrow production and if energy producers dont want to decrease their profit by decreasing energy costs (which would further increase energy consumption by making it cheaper). Renewable energy isnt even close to solving the energy problems but it rather decreased the minimum of budget needed to make energy production a source of income. Where millions upon millions would be needed to start energy production (in a way that generates profit) with nuclear or fossil fuel power plants you could just buy a couple of solar panels or windmills worth 5k or something and make a profit after around 3 to 4 years (depending where you live) it wouldnt be much but its something and it adds up.
Where? The US uses almost no coal at all.
My grandfather traveled the globe setting up the production side of nuclear power
Made him quite successful
The only thing that could happen is mismanagement
Human error has been at the root of most mishaps
And even at that the worst of nuclear disasters are absolutely nothing to the global destruction from fossil fuels
The only thing that could happen is what happens everywhere, of every minute of every day, Murphys law. Its insanity to think the Titanic will never sink... right?
28:40 I think this man was around radiation for too long, his eyebrows mutated in size haha
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Bro
Ralph Nader , time has proven him not to be acting on the best information.
Nader's been a gangstah from the beginning and it's very interesting to read up on him. He was originally hired, as a young man just out of college, to figure out whey the Air Force was losing more pilots on the roads than in the air, and this was during Viet Nam when we lost some pilots. The result was his book on car safety, "Unsafe At Any Speed". Nader was notorious for buying a large batch of surplus Army shoes so he'd never need to buy shoes again, and living in a small, inexpensive apartment - he was a public figure who couldn't be bribed! Needles to say the establishment can't stand him and he's still around giving lectures at least online, I come across him when I watch Michael Moore's stuff.
Just cause he’s a minimalist or eccentric doesn’t mean he acts in good faith and effort as
the original poster mentioned
welcome to suriname ua-cam.com/video/QecDL9RfxNQ/v-deo.html
Yes, I'm saddened to see that Nader is still beating the anti-nuclear drum. He's smart enough to know better.
I’m disappointed that the documentary didn’t mention nuclear power in the US Navy. The first nuclear powered submarine USS Nautilus started up in 1955. And first aircraft carrier in 1960. The navy has continued to operate with nuclear power to this day. Maybe you can do a Timeline on that story.
They have
Ironically the problem at Three Mile Island was the result of the adoption of the Navy's model. The reactor doesn't respond the same when scaled up the that size. They didn't realize it until an unscheduled shutdown occurred and the way the technicians were trained to respond (Navy model) was wrong for a reactor at that scale. A great Ted Talk was done by Nicholas Means on the subject.
@@albatross5466 I'll need to look up this TED Talk, but I will say that the Navy has an impeccable record when it comes to their use of nuclear technology. They've had dozens of reactors operating for decades with no major incidents.
@@kinkane5566 That is true. The problem isn't with the technology per se. The issue is with the scaling up of the reactors which the Nay never encountered as the reactor size on a ship and one on land are vastly different. I am not a nuke tech or anything I just remember the documentary and how that specific training wasn't appropriate for the situation. Nobody had anticipated the issue.
@@albatross5466 It does make some sense, there are marked differences between naval reactors and civilian reactors, the most obvious being size and the second greatest difference probably being that naval reactors fluctuate power levels more often than civilian reactors. When you've got a reactor tied to your shaft through turbines you have to throttle it to control speed whereas civilian reactors will most of the time be at a fixed level of output for long periods of time for generating power. I can imagine that it takes a mistake or two before it's understood how to manage these different use cases. There are some exciting developments in nuclear power such as pebble-bed and traveling wave reactors. My main issue with it has been the diminishing return of obtaining uranium as there is only a fixed amount on earth and it's taking an increasing amount of energy to retrieve it, but for now I suppose it's not yet a concern and thorium reactors and traveling wave may mitigate that concern. We definitely need to make sure we retain enough fuel material to power use cases that need it such as submarines, aircraft carriers, and satellites. Building the future on nuclear instead of solar, wind, etc, seems problematic.
Nuclear energy is needed today.
You do you. Buy some nuclear for $120/MWh. I'm happy paying $30/MWh for solar...
Yea solar is the way for America! We got deserts 🌵 full of nothing where we can put solar farms to power the entire country! We just need one small corner of Arizona no one will even miss it!
@@tammyforbes2101 .... why not just use solar on rooftops, covered parking and over canals? CA is adding 13GW of solar just over their canals. No need to go using up desert habitat.
I appreciate the great content 🙏 TimeLine. I've heard you never stop learning. This much is true.
my grandfather was an atomic; worked at windscale sellafield, lathes mounted on ceiling, one of 6 who pushed out the rods and got burns on back of his hands.. lived past the 60 years secrecy act.
Cool! I'd love to hear more about him.
Very little data given out as to the radiation levels and deaths caused by these fallouts. As far as I know nuclear energy is far far safer than any significant alternative. It is like comparing travelling by air to travelling I a car.
No, you've been misinformed.
@@jamielondon6436 My Info is Geraldine Thomas from Imperial College London and the comparison of nuclear energy to all other major forms over the last 60 years.Do you have any Data for me?
@@brianmoran1196 I don't know her, but I can tell you that there simply isn't really good data on these questions. Just two relatively simple examples:
- Death rates from coal energy are not people 'falling into the coal ovens' or something like that, they're purely statistical numbers of estimating the amount of pre-mature deaths from air pollution and multiplying it with the percentage of pollution that is due to coal.
- Death rates from nuclear are impossible to know - radiation is known as the 'silent killer' for a reason. Chernobyl alone has estimates from mere dozens (laughable) to hundreds of thousands of premature deaths.
So these comparisons are effectively pointless, but it's pretty obvious to see that building renewables in decentralised, safe locations at least potentially is far less harmful than fossils, including nuclear.
@@jamielondon6436 , Can you give me some data on the upper limits of your nuclear power deaths? I mean Proper analysis, not documentaries. Building renewables in decentralised locations is only useful where energy is required in a decentralised location which is still a small proportion of the grid and the deaths from renewables have a lot of improvements to make before they can compare with nuclear power. (in per Megawatt hour terms). Can you tell me which renewable sources have a better carbon footprint than the Johan Sverdrup Oil deposit in the North Sea?( In "all in sustaining" megawatt hour terms)
@@brianmoran1196 I've already told you that there aren't any good data. The main reason is that the catastrophe happened in a totalitarian dictatorship which had no interest in information getting out about what happened. In fact, if the radiation had not been noticed in Western Europe (Forsmark, Sweden, was the first), they would not even have admitted to it happening at all.
Broadly, there are three large groups of people affected: the people working and living in the area (city of Pripyat), who also were not warned about the danger and only relocated far too late. No study has been made on finding out about what happened to them, as far as I'm aware.
Secondly, there are the liquidators who fought the catastrophe, several hundreds of thousands who also were spread across the Soviet Union afterwards without any follow up studies.
Thirdly, there are the millions of people in the areas of nuclear fallout, 70% of which came down in what is now Belarus. Since that regime also has no interest in putting blame on their neighbours, I doubt there's much in terms of reliable data there, either.
As to renewables, maybe you and I have very different definitions of decentralised, but the facts are the other way round: Right now energy is produced in large plants and then needs to be taken to where it's needed. A decentralised network would produce energy far closer to where it's needed, like the obvious example of photo voltaic on house roofs.
I am watching this 10 years post Fukishima and I haven't news of radiation contamination. Not saying it didn't occur, just that it doesn't seem to have been a major reportable occurrence.
The Atom always comes out on top eventually.
Interesting documentary 👍
perhaps make parts, like three parts AND charge for the third part, just a thought, great content
It's a great documentary. I expected a history of nuclear power but found a history of perception of nuclear power by the public.
7:00 first nuclear power station borned in USSR ..
This is a GREAT documentary, congrats for the good work! I wanted to laugh maniacally at the part where it shows the French going about building reactors systematically and rationally and the total production anarchy of the US and the French guy saying, "That's no way to do business!".
Thanks!
My only issue with nuclear power is the companies running the plants don't spend any money on maintenance or training. If there were a TON of regulations so the leadership went to prison if training and maintenance were issues there would be no issues with those plants. Unfortunately the only thing that doesn't get cut from costs are the CEO and administrators pay check, we see it over and over at pretty much any company anywhere in the world.
Thank you for all the great docs
I appreciate the balanced viewpoints. Overall I think the pro - nuclear side displayed more logical and less emotional arguments ..z so while before watching this video I was vehemently anti-nuclear power based on what I soaked in from the media, I have thus forth become a believer and will henceforth promote nuclear power as the preferred and heretofore solely recommend source of power for all!!
A very good documentary is "Pandora's Promise". It was done by 5 environmentalists that had been anti-nuclear but came to realize that their opinions were not based on fact, and have come to advocate the technology.
Its nice to see people who are able to change their minds when presented with new information. good on you!
So the propaganda was effective I recon... thank you for shareing.
When computers first came out there was multiple problems with them. Today one doesnt have those problems anymore. If we keep to old designed nuclear reactors that have been overtime upgraded and have proven their reliability we will get same effects as has in computer industry. A car also has problems while under development and often with new models which are gradually ironed out over time. Strangely we end making a car model when the car has reached its peak in matureity.
No other product on the market requires that we take this very careful approach. We must not resort to new designs other than those that have proven themselvs over time and where all the problems have been ironed out over time i.e. mature design. This is not to say that we should undertake development of new concepts but under strict conditions and not produce them until they are proven to be safe over time. There is no way around this. An added bonus is that we today have super computers that can simulate things that wasnt possible before. We must also do compressive safety studies of different nuclear designs on the market.
Watching this makes me think of that saying,,my enemies, enemy is my friend
Michael Bolton does Documentarys now? Nice!
Fantastic!
1. Outline what have been presented from the video.
2. Why some people advocate for the use of nuclear power?
3. Why some people are against the use of nuclear power?
4. What are the reasons why a country wants or does not want to use nuclear power for energy generation?
5. Aside from nuclear power and fossil fuels, what other sources of energy are viable?
6. What is the difference of France and Germany in terms of attitudes toward Nuclear Power?
7. There are three major accidents/incidents involving or somewhat involving nuclear meltdown: Tree Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. What are the reactions of people regarding the three separate events?
8. Are you an advocate or opponent of nuclear power in your country? Why or why not? What would be your slogan?
9. What are the challenges of designing nuclear power plants?
10. Why nuclear power has complex economics?
11. Why is it that nuclear power is said to be a political technology?
Dan Carlin's "The Destroyer of World's" on youtube covers this in much more detail and much less bias.
I love this channel...
This is almost worthy of "Gimmie Some Truth."
nuclear power is the only way forward to prevent climate change, we need to break the stigma and educate ourselves on the vast benefits of nuclear, especially with the prospects of thorium nuclear power plants on the horizon.
I wish the San Onofre Power Plant was still around.
At 16:07, I wish oil was only $12 a barrel. Nowadays it's +/- $90 per barrel.
Depends on the oil
Because of the economic crisis and the rate of unemployment, now is the best time to invest and make money.
Stocks are good but crypto is more profitable
I wanted to trade crypto but got confused by the fluctuations in price
His success stories are everywhere 😱
How do I contact Mr muller ?
@Cole Matt Thanks for his contact info, I'll get to him right away
How the Atom changed the world. It might be equivalent to say, How the cell changed to origins of life.
Or how a radioactive atom turned the cell cancerous, and thereby destroyed the cell.
I live next to the coal power plant and the thing is Nuclear power plants can kill you when they're not working but the Coal power plants kill you while they're working. People who are against nuclear energy are clueless.
The main thing is that the "ecological" groups and actual ecologists talk different stuff. One ecological group here is against building the nuclear power plant and against building a incenirator of medical waste, and when I've asked my brother, who's finishing masters in Ecology, he said both things are the absolute best we can have right now. Also, that eco group, they don't have ONE ecologist there but they do have a couple of lawyers. Absolute stupidity and ignorance. I'm from Serbia btw and we're working on our first nuclear power plant.
Carbon-based compounds form the basis of all known life on Earth, Carbon is the 15th most abundant element in the Earth's crust, and the fourth most abundant element in the universe by mass after hydrogen, helium, and oxygen. Carbon's abundance, its unique diversity of organic compounds, and its unusual ability to form polymers at the temperatures commonly encountered on Earth enables this element to serve as a common element of all known life. It is the second most abundant element in the human body by mass (about 18.5%) after oxygen
Pure carbon has extremely low toxicity to humans and can be handled safely in the form of graphite or charcoal. It is resistant to dissolution or chemical attack, even in the acidic contents of the digestive tract. Consequently, once it enters into the body's tissues it is likely to remain there indefinitely. Carbon black was probably one of the first pigments to be used for tattooing, and Ötzi the Iceman was found to have carbon tattoos that survived during his life and for 5200 years after his death.[126] Inhalation of coal dust or soot (carbon black) in large quantities can be dangerous, irritating lung tissues and causing the congestive lung disease, coalworker's pneumoconiosis. Diamond dust used as an abrasive can be harmful if ingested or inhaled. Microparticles of carbon are produced in diesel engine exhaust fumes, and may accumulate in the lungs.[127] In these examples, the harm may result from contaminants (e.g., organic chemicals, heavy metals) rather than from the carbon itself.
Carbon generally has low toxicity to life on Earth;
Radioactive waste and contamination
radioactive waste and contamination Each radiation exposure increases the risk of damage to tissues, cells, DNA and other vital molecules. Any exposure can potentially cause programmed cell death, genetic mutations, cancers, leukemia, congenital malformations, and disorders of the reproductive, immune, and endocrine systems. There is no safe threshold for exposure to radiation.
Government regulations allow radioactive water to be released from the Indian Point nuclear power plant into an environment where there are "permitted" contaminants. However, the absence of a safe threshold for exposure to radiation does not mean safe.
There is no need for an accident at the Indian Point nuclear power plant to release radioactivity into the air, water and soil. During regular operations, Indian Point releases radiation as liquid, gaseous and solid radioactive waste. Solid radioactive waste includes laundry (considered low-level waste) and irradiated spent fuel (high-level waste).
Each reactor routinely emits relatively small amounts of airborne and liquid radioactivity. This radioactivity represents more than 100 different isotopes produced only in reactors and atomic bombs, including strontium-89, strontium-90, cesium-137, and iodine-131. People ingest them either by inhalation or through the food chain (when radioactivity returns these chemicals to the ground).
Each of these chemicals has a specific biochemical effect; iodine searches the thyroid gland, strontium accumulates in bone and teeth (such as calcium), and cesium is distributed to soft tissues. All are carcinogenic. Each deteriorates at a varying rate; for example, iodine-131 has a half-life of eight days and remains in the body for only a few weeks. Strontium-90 has a half-life of 28.7 years, so it stays in the bone and teeth for several years.
These chemicals differ from the "background radiation" that occurs in nature in cosmic rays and on the earth's surface. Although background radiation is still harmful, it does not contain chemicals that specifically attack the thyroid gland, bones, or other organs. Indian Point is one of the largest emitters of radioactive emissions during its years of operation.
Radioactive releases are caused by plant accidents and incidents. On 15 February 2000, a steam generator pipe was broken at IP-2, which allowed the plant to
a steam generator tube that discharged 20,000 gallons of radioactive coolant into the facility. The incident was due to poor maintenance of the facility and loose oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The accident, a Phase 2 incident, triggered a radioactive release into the atmosphere. The NRC gave the facility the worst rating because the previous operator of the facility was unable to detect any deficiencies in the steam generator tube that generated 20,000 gallons of radioactive coolant to the facility. The incident was due to poor maintenance of the facility and loose oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The accident, a Phase 2 incident, triggered a radioactive release into the atmosphere. The NRC gave the plant the worst rating because the previous operator of the plant was unable to detect any deficiencies in the steam generator pipe prior to the February 2000 leak. A week after the accident, 200 gallons of radioactive water accidentally entered the Hudson River.
At least since August 2005, radioactive toxins such as tritium and strontium-90 have been spilled from at least two spent fuel pools at Indian Point into groundwater and the Hudson River. In January 2007, it was reported that strontium-90 was detected in four of the twelve fish tested in the Hudson River.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission relies on self-reporting and computer modeling by reactor operators to monitor radioactive releases and their projected spread. A significant portion of the environmental monitoring data is extrapolated - virtual, not real.
However, radioactive releases from Indian Point’s routine operations are often not fully detected or reported. In fact, accidental releases may not be fully verified or documented.
And they occur throughout the nuclear fuel cycle, which includes uranium mining, uranium mining, chemical conversion, fuel enrichment and fabrication, the process of generating electricity in a plant through a controlled reaction, and the storage of radioactive waste, both on site. and beyond.
Finally, radioactive by-products continue to release hazardous radioactive particles and rays for extremely long periods of time, described as "half-lives". The radioactive substance emits hazardous radiation for at least ten half-lives. Of the radioactive isotopes iodine (iodine-129), the half-life is 16 million years; technetium-99 has a half-life of 211,000 years; and the half-life of plutonium-239 is 24,000 years. Xenon-135, a noble gas, decomposes into cesium-135, an isotope with a half-life of 2.3 million years.
This documentary does explain the Nord Stream 2 proposition of avoiding nuclear in favor of gas. My opinion at least
Nord Stream is both political and strategic for both Russia and Germany and has nothing to do with the environment.
Chernobyl was a design that isn't allowed in the western world. The test being conducted was done outside the parameters prescribed for safety. The man conducting the test had another accident at a nuke plant on his record for operating outside safety parameters.
Could you imagine if we had invested more effort and technology into nuclear power? We wouldn't be using any wind farms, coal, wouldn't need to damn Rivers purely for the sake of power....
It almost feels as if the moment we realize the power we had unlocked, it was taken from us.
Fewer generation stations, smaller footprints on the ecosystem they're built in, clean oxygen as the only exhaust fume.
We have fleets of nuclear submarines that produce no byproducts of their production of energy except the water in the air the crew needs to survive.
We are idiots for even contemplating moving from fossil fuels to solar and wind, when we've had nuclear for almost 90 years now.
Actually, for most of the 50s and 60s, the US did research on a number of reactor designs, mostly in Idaho. Some of these designs are only now being planned to be built. We've wasted 60 years because of ignorance about nuclear power. Read James Mahaffey's book, Atomic Accidents, for a good history of nuclear power in this country. Despite the title, you'll learn about all the different reactor types created, some much safer than the plants we have today.
47:40 "Chapesses"? Geez.
That you
nuclear weapons for making large scale wars suicidal and a thing of the past.
Best docs
4th gen nuclear reactors are incredible, very safe and efficient and you can recycle some of the waste that comes from it.
Very safe and efficent, is what they said about every nuclear reactor that melted down thus far. They even said it was too cheap to meter. The propaganda is working well I see.
@@Ed-ty1kr - You know nothing about nuclear power.
@@xuser48 I know that its a death cult, and that when their disease machines break down, hundreds of thousands of square miles, and all the way up to the stratosphere become polluted, for millions of years.
I also know that you are either part of the nuclear death cult, like the South Korean nuclear sciences college students that were paid to go on social media, and defend the Fukushima tripple meldowns with propaganda. Or you were brainwashed by the nuclear death cult into thinking that nuclear energy is "green", and somehow "good" for the environment. But more than likely you are just anouther nuclear death cult chat bot, here to give simple one liners and catch phrases, as nuclear death cult propaganda.
Ken Osgood just can't pronounce nuclear; IT"S NOT NUCULAR !!!
We just need to use less energy by any means possible.
I am very familiar with the inner workings of the nuke industry, due to my work history.
I can see both sides of the arguments, but once I compared the impacts of oil refinery explosions, ash pile breaches, chemical/oik dump failures and spills, coal/gas/oil mining/drilling, lithium mining and battery facility fires I came to the conclusion that the nuclear industry, while not perfect, is much safer than it gets credit for.
Even wind an solar have a higher incident rate per MW hour, than nuclear.
That said, I do worry that the executive management approach to running nukes is becoming more in line with the Boeing aka Jack Welch GE model, which is a concerning trend. But again, thats not unique to muclear either. The Walstreet folks worry about today and tomorrows gains... not 10 years from now.
I've always wondered how you can say somewhere is "uninhabitable" as they do regarding Chyrnobl, when they have every other species living there for the last 30 years? Birds, wolf's, wild boar etc. Those animals are ,(like ourselves) carbon based, oxygen breathing H2O drinking, meat or plant eaters. If they can thrive in this 'exclusion zone' why not humans?
You should move there and prove us all wrong.
@@andrewthomson who is 'US'. And I would love to. If you want to pay for the plane ticket,(from the USA) and the appropriate bribes. I'll bring the camera and we'll do a documentary.
@@styx4947 just because there are animals living there doesn’t mean it is totally safe. Radiation levels could still be too high for it to be safe. Who’s to say how long those animals live?
Actually a number of residents went back and were still there years later, and may be today.
@@andrewthomson The tone I take from your comment is that he would come to harm if you went there. He only asked a science based question. If my perception is correct you are not nice person.
How about: Believe in nuclear science and nuclear experts!
Don't forget economists. Economics matters. Nuclear is now >4x more than solar and wind per MWh and ~15x more per MW. How much more is too much?
@@Chris-ie9os No it's not because you have to add storage costs.
@@wbaumschlager SPP gets ~33% of its energy from wind... SPP has ~no storage.
Russian Rosatom agency signed 1200 contracts to build nuclear reactors all over the world. American companies missing in action
God bless you Dan snow
The Chinese make substandard reactors. The French are better and the Chinese are having reactors in trouble now and need the French to help them fix them.
So, after all the doomsday predictions didn't come true, and now that nuclear energy is safer than ever...
Welp if you dont know "Dan Snyder" and his "Special Offer" on HIT TV!😂 that means you haven't watched alot of these!!🤦😂 Which are very good!💯👍🚀🚀
With the possible shortage of Russian gas, ahead of the Ukraine situation, even Germany declared nuclear as a clean source of energy
also The Atom possesses the power to alter his size down to the subatomic level while retaining his natural strength level. This is accomplished by using the remnants of a white-dwarf star made into a belt buckle worn with his costume. Originally, he had to manipulate his abilities via the belt, and later with hand movements, before eventually syncing directly with his brain via mental commands. The Atom is one of the few heroes in the DC Universe that has 100% control over his body on the molecular level (Plastic Man being another), thus making him exponentially more powerful than he is often portrayed; he is limited only by his application of his powers. Some of the applications he has demonstrated include reducing his mass to glide through the air (simulating flight, like Wonder Woman) and increasing his mass to punch through concrete. He also demonstrated the ability to make his costume appear and disappear at will by shifting its atoms between this dimension and another.
Very good well spoke
No $ Trillions from Government for WIND & SOLAR.$ Trillions for FUSION tech and research. We have Fission NOW
No. Trillions for welfare. We need to pay people not to work.
Would be nice of it was in English
I have wondered since seeing Elon musk's tail landing rocket which is supposed to be unbelievably affordable and reusable could be used to send this waste to the sun to be eradicated. Anyone else thought of this possibility?
Pretty sure that idea was deemed infeasible long ago, even if we employed reusable rockets. First you have to consider the possibility of a failed launch and exploding rocket that could spread nuclear waste around the launch site, or upper atmosphere. That alone makes it a non-starter. It would require a sizable engine to boost the payload out of Earth orbit - the payloads would have to be considerably large to make the task economically feasible. Many small payloads is expensive, and large payloads require larger rockets.
It's not safe enough or cost effective enough yet. But may in the future. It's a possibility, but the possibility of a failed launch is too great at present.
We might have gone to the point of having nuclear cars......." Oh there's an accident up the street there... That road's going to be shut down for a while..?. "No the whole neighborhood"...." How long? 50 years.
And guess where we got all this technology!!?
Germans
cool clarinet music
Cant wait for the nuclear apocalypse so i can finally wear power armor
ANGRY ATOM.....UP UP UP UP!
Informative
History of nuclear power. Your titles are always wrong
.... atoms for peace ... privizations of sectors constrain projects being develop due to the relience on organizations which dont have the capital to perpetuate the projects and sometimes embezeling funds deligated to projects through privizations of sectors as per say ... goverment state projects embarking one rejuvanization of nuclear power technologies which difference nations as a high tech countries or just an average one ... codin atoms and bits .... desigin nuclear power plants .... human organs cant sense radioactive materials hence the need for geiger counters .... should goverment privatizations of nuclear programs sectors brings majors constrain and sharesholders gain imensly from the profits without any major accomplishments being produce ... goverments should embark on nuclear program projects for the sake of enegry security .... nuclear power plants maximum lifespan expection for each plant ... the media general public and policy makers are enemy number one for preventions of economic growth ... achivements of atoms ... enerygy is a story that is still being written lets continue writting it with less carbon dioxide tony blair indicated that by 2025 if current policy arent changed there will be dramatic gap on targerts for reducations of carbon dioxide emissions those facts put the revival of nuclear power stations back on the agendas with a vengeance ... launchin the power of nuclear power program to combat global warmin .... no phasin out nuclear energy producations creating surplus of energy while exportin around the regions ... lolz to solar and wind power .... rick perry quest to revive nuclear energy programs and william magwood need to enhance nuclear technologies to avoid critical issues such as followin producin nuclear power that doent produce waste and makin nuclear power plants that cant melt down ... nuclear programs starts up funded by the goverments and department of energy to create safer reactors ... understandin the risks and safety aspects revevin nuclear programs is critical ... china only major country successfully building reactors and selling their expertise around the world ... politacal and general public pressure and the impact it plagues the advancements of nuclear power programs ... and unless there is a major breakthrough to a fundamentally more economic form of nuclear power nuclear is always gonna be struggling to survive ... nuclear power has always enjoyed powerful backin from scientists engineer and politicians who felt their were best equipped to decide its future ... lolz general public decidin on whether to buy energy lolz what a world we live in lolz
Was that Ronald Reagan i saw at 00:33 ?!
And Hanford did all of this first. Very badly, but yep.
The question of spent fuel is one that has answers, as most of the usable fuel aka U235 goes unused, but because of international agreements the reprocessing ie removal of fission products and then reusing that uranium and plutonium as new fuel, is prohibited by law. The fact that these agreements are still in place and there's no concerted effort to get fusion or thorium tech up and running tells me that while climate change is real its not the existential threat its made out to be
I think nuclear power is absolutely necessary
Yay nuclear power!!!
What would have happened if those idiots flew those passenger planes into working nuclear power plants????????????🤔
The containment dome would be scratched and the plane would be in microscopic pieces. Wouldn't hurt the reactor at all.
Do any of you have a voice? A thought, maybe, of your own?
E8
"whitewash what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki"? He talks like Japan didn't attack us out of nowhere and drag us into a 2nd world war in which we were fighting in numerous fronts all across the world.
I bet I know what his early life says on Wikipedia.
Its a long twisted bad road the wars and all the greed to form a one world gov.
the attack on Pearl Harbor was nothing compared to the destruction the USA caused in Japan.
What about the cost of waste disposal? The waste is dangerous to life for 10,000 years. maybe longer.
This started out as an interesting historical documentary before launching into a clearly anti-nuclear propaganda film interviewing the likes of Ralph Nader and Greenpeace. 🤦♂️
It’s crazy because nuclear is and should be the stepping stone towards green energy but because of this and the stagnant technology of the storage of nuclear waste we are screwed
Pleased that you did not dubbed this.
In india , the Russian company ROSATOM responsible for CHERNOBYL is developing new Nuclear power plants .
No its not, the only connection is that its russian and works with nuclear power but thats it. Chernobyl was under the soviet union with a planned economy and Rosatom didnt even exist up until 2007
@@l.h.9747 Well sir , The predecessor of ROSATOM developed Chernobyl , The Ministry of Nuclear Engineering and industry of the USSR , after dissolution of USSR it was renamed and converted to Minatom then on 2004 it was converted into Federal Agency of Atomic energy , finally on 1 December 2007 converted it into ROSATOM .
Clever way to hide the Dirty work and to improve the image as new ..
Besides , the Chief villain of Chernobyl Tragedy Anatoly Stepanovich Dyatlov studied Nuclear Enginnering from MEPHI university , Moscow , it's also now under ROSATOM .
That bodes well then or not
So by your logic if we buy any Boeing plane it will have similar issue like Boeing 637 max?
@@RailTV01 Obviously. As there is no B637 Max or not
bro! unusual ~have a good day-
They chose the most dangerous, most inefficient and most profitable nuclear energy options for the USA. They sold the safe, effective and mobile nuclear energy.
There is no safe nuclear power.
@@jamielondon6436 i believe our United States navy completely disagrees
@@paulezycom I doubt it.
If you can't pronounce "nucelar" properly, your opinions on the subject are invalid.
Does that mean that a nuclear physicist that does not speak English has invalid opinions? By the way you spelled it wrong. To quote Joe Biden "what a stupid S.O.B"
Everyone pro nuclear energy has to be open to living next to one. Humans take shortcuts and get lazy, nuclear energy use requires no errors.
No problem. I'd build a house next door to a nuclear plant. Have you ever seen a coal plant?
The waste alone from fission should be enough to stop this madness.
Helium 4 to Hydrogen through fusion maybe?
The moon has enough helium 3 to fuel mankind for centuries. Fusion is the problem. We need a star to balance gravity and output.
just create the one-day work week and make the other 6 days like a Jewish holiday under Amish law - people only allowed to run machines on a biweekly basis. Just have people drugged up on pharmaceutical grade heroin all day in bed staring at the ceiling with Big Brothers soothing edicts piped in like THX1138.
If man made climate change was real, we would be dead already. In my life time I should have froze, burned and drowned bc of climate change. Lol
This lady narrates everything on British television. It kind of cheapens the subject matter to me
the ONLY longterm problem with nuclear is where to put all the nuclear waste…I say we put it into space but then I guess we would have nuclear bombs raining down on us
Also the finite amount of uranium on Earth.
Earth-0, Ray Palmer is, by day, a professor at an Ivy League college and, by night, the experienced crime fighter The Atom. He reveals his secret identity to his friend and apprentice Ryan Choi, and enlists him for tech support during his adventures. After many adventures together, Ray disappears and Ryan is scolded when Ray cancels classes for the fifth day in a row. When Ryan goes to get Ray from his workshop where he has seemingly been confined for a week, he instead finds a video recording from Ray. In it he reveals he discovered a universe beyond the subatomic, a so-called Microverse while investigating a disruption in space and time, and within he found something that posed an existential threat to their universe. He asks Ryan, the only other person who knows how to use the Atom's technology and whom Ray trusts, to go into it, rescue him, and finish his work. Ray informs Ryan that upon arrival he will also meet with someone who he himself has encountered. He tries to warn Ryan about something, but the footage cuts out abruptly before he can finish
Three Miles→Somewhere in the Soviet→Fukushima→？
⚘🍃.
Are6 you serious, speaking against our conscience? Deep down in the inner self, is that the solution for a comfortable life?
#nukethemoon
😓
But the environmentalists say that nuclear power is dangerous. We need to do what they say.
CO2 is dangerous
@@yourstruly4817 yes true, that's why you need to live in a tent ⛺ & ride a bicycle 🚲 too
@@yourstruly4817 Oxygen disintegrates steel 😱
Prayer is the key For our minds 🙏 ✨ 🙌 drift into turning each one to his own way. Always remember ❤ 💛 💓 💙 💖 💕 ❤ 💛 we are our brothers keeper
Hallelujah !!
Why do even experts still say "nuculur"?
He's probably not an expert. In fact, he's an author of a book about cold War propaganda in the 1950s. This doesn't seem like a very credible documentary.
On second thought, it's not too bad. It does have about 70 years of history to cover. It doesn't go nearly deep enough in any one area but hopefully it encourages further research.
I have a Sneaky Little Theory(tm) that nuclear power has so far operated at a large loss. By the time you factor in all the motor vehicles used to go out and get the ore, the energy used to refine it, the energy and materials that go into the plans, the disposal and theoretical reprocessing of the spent fuel rods and on and on and on .... it's a big boondoggle that's been riding on the shoulders of conventional power.
Doesnt sound like something thats realistic. Uranium would be mined and refined even without nuclear power plants for research, medical and millitary usage so thats not something that they have to pay completely themself (more demand more, mass production, reduced cost). Research for nuclear power plants doesnt exclusivly have to be paid by nuclear power companies but also by the government who needs it for weapon production and reactors on ships for example as there is no other way to build a ship with even anywhere close the range of one with a nuclear reactor. All this even without the most important point, if nuclear power wasnt profitable there wouldnt be any companies that make their money out of it and there clearly are. Nuclear power might not be the way to get profits as fast as possible but it certainly generates enough to be worthwhile.
Nonsense.
It takes a very small amount of uranium to run a plant, and the recycling and improved enrichment make a big difference. I think you are right about the initial construction costs.The plant has to run for 40 years to be "worth it". But we always compare modern gas and modern renewables to Nuclear plants built in the 60s. Modern SMRs have the ability to replace coal fired plants while preserving the same distribution network.
@@l.h.9747 Your responses to these comments are conflicting lol. Or I'm the one struggling to figure out if you actually support nuclear power advancement.
@@br88dy im for nuclear power advancement im just pointing out that a nuclear power plant (right now) costs millions upon millions to build and years of time where it doesnt generate income. the invested money comes back in revenue later but the company that builds it still has to be able to survive till it does. renewable energy on the other hand is cheap and fast to build and if a company plans on building a windpark with 100 windmills or something the windmills that are built already produce energy before the whole park is built and generate revenue and if the company cant afford it to continue building they can just stop and let the already built windmills run wheres a half built nuclear power plant produces nothing. of course nuclear power is needed for the ammount of power it provides and that it works day and night, wind or no wind but that still doesnt make it a smaller economical commitment for a company especially considering the rumors that uranium prices are going to increase in 20 years because the currently used uranium deposits are going to be depleted and new ones will have to be found and mined but those are more expensive to exploit. i know that there are plans to make mini reactors a thing but im not a fan of that to be honest. a big nuclear power plant can be way more efficient and also safe. im not from the us but my country produces 70% of the needed power through renewable sources (mostly hydro) so its not like it doesnt work to run mostly on renewable its just different and fulfills different parts
Very good retelling of the many misconceptions and mistakes throughout the history of this fundamentally flawed technology.