4 thoughts on “Nuclear Energy Documentary

  1. This video is actually the best thing ive seen on this controversial topic.
    It’s helped me immensely, great job on making it! And yes, the future is
    nuclear

  2. Surprising, the nuclear physics prof and the nuclear physics grad student
    are pro-nuclear. Nathan Gibson’s statements about safety are laughably
    naive…”tons and tons of redundancy”….”the safest things you can
    imagine.” Sorry, Nathan, I can imagine things incredibly more safe then
    nuclear power plants. These people like to form their own reality out of
    the theories they study and language they use, while Fukushima and
    Chernobyl are evidence of 2 level 7 catastrophes within 30 years of each
    other. Hey Nathan, go tell the Japanese about safety and see how they
    feel. Oh, and by the way, everyone likes to gloss over what to do with the
    radioactive waste…it is quite possibly the greatest proof of nuclear
    energy NOT BEING CLEAN ENERGY WHATSOEVER and potentially being the worst
    polluting form of energy production ever created (especially when you
    factor in the 100% predictable nuclear plant operation failures–there will
    be future failures, this is 100% certain). Mmm, let’s see, no output of
    point-source greenhouse gasses but production of radioactive waste hot for
    tens of thousands of years and we have zero technological ability to
    contain it and the occasional devastating nuclear facility disaster. The
    building of a nuclear power plants also involves a tremendous amount of
    resources…these resources are extracted from the environment as any other
    resource, they are mined, drilled, and removed…yet, they are not included
    in the analysis of environmental impact. We have a problem in our ability
    to intelligently comprehend our problems when the extraction processes are
    a given and not analyzed. Nuclear industry, what a joke. Good job on the
    video, it views as an attempt to give a balanced perspective.
    Unfortunately, an “acceptable” balanced perspective always means equal
    weight is given to pro-industry point of view. This is misguided for the
    same reason it would be misguided to give equal weight to the arguments for
    and against Nazi concentration camps. What’s the difference between
    killing people immediately and killing people in a drawn out method through
    pollution and destruction of our inhabitable environment? Some positions
    are simply ethically wrong and to give weight to an ethically wrong
    position is wrong. However, society is not taught to be critical minded
    (or to be ethical astute with regards to our health, the health of our
    environment and the impact of our behavior upon the future), we are taught
    to support industrial capitalism at all costs–I mean that figuratively and
    literally and in all ways possible. 

Comments are closed.