Is Nuclear Power Actually Dangerous? | Because Science Footnotes

Komentar

  1. Brazen Bull

    Brazen Bull5 hari yang lalu

    After 16:00 And you completely neglect to touch on comparing individual illness cause from exposure to fossil fuel byproduct vs radioactive fallout that has a 100 year + half life, causing genetic corruption and cancers etc that you will permanently pass along to your forebearers. Where throughout their life they will continue to accumulatively absorb more particles for the next 4 or more generations (depending on which isotopes). Further corrupting their dna and so on. I wouldn't be surprised if studies aren't being done to determine just what percentage of today's explosion of cancer is a result of nuclear testing and the 3 meltdowns. I know "climate change" is all the rage these days. But a real honest analysis would have been better. All you did was present the advantages of nuke over coal. Neglecting the fact that nuke pollution will permanently poison and damage you and that you will pass that damage on genetically while they in turn are poisoned by the same incident(s) as their ancestors. At least with coal, once it's gone, its gone. And my children won't have to inherit damage/any health issue that result from my exposure. If you can't tell already, I consider the POTENTIAL for disasters that's inherent with nuke power to be far more dangerous. Your DNA is the most valuable thing under your control. Your childrens childrens childrens childrens. Children (and so on) will greatly appreciate you taking care of it.. Can say I'm wrong for disagreeing all you want. You're just some nigga with a IDreporter channel..

  2. thatnickgrantguy

    thatnickgrantguy5 hari yang lalu

    why don't we just shoot out our nuclear waste into space? Or maybe at the sun just to get rid of it? If nuclear power is so great (minus the waste) why couldn't we do something like this? Space pollution?

  3. Zerberus _MS

    Zerberus _MSBulan Yang lalu

    Uranium reactors also have the advantage of using material that the governments already possess - nuclear warheads (they dismantle them and use for electricity)

  4. Inquisitorius

    InquisitoriusBulan Yang lalu

    15:39 not to mention the reactor only killed people because something went wrong. Fossil fuel power plant emissions can kill people just from their job.

  5. Sheridan Ford

    Sheridan Ford2 bulan yang lalu

    Thank you for sharing so much nuclear power information. Misinformation is everywhere, and it's great to see so much reaction and discussion of fact. I especially appreciated the reference to the NASA brief. I am going through it and the reports referenced therein now and have passed them on to some of my friends who have had questions.

  6. nikki richards

    nikki richards2 bulan yang lalu

    Hi Kyle, You make science so fun! Following your radioactive theme- your thoughts on Coldwater Creek (St. Louis, Missouri) landfill cover up/conspiracy? I trust your knowledge and evidence!!

  7. Spetsgruppa Alpha Tyrin

    Spetsgruppa Alpha Tyrin2 bulan yang lalu

    We need more Thorium reactors! Also I absolutely love your channel. I've learned more sitting here watching these videos than sitting in lecture halls. If something was touched on here, but not expounded upon, it at least piqued my curiosity to go investigate and study it on my own more in depth, so thank you and congrats on your 1 million subscribers!

  8. Douglas Peters

    Douglas Peters2 bulan yang lalu

    Could you cover the aftermath of hiroshima and nagasaki?

  9. Nathan Smith

    Nathan Smith2 bulan yang lalu

    It's a mistake to define the reactor based on the mineral name of the fuel, as opposed to the physical state of the fuel. Using the element in a fluid state is what is generally being referred to by calling it a Thorium reactor. Can't have a melt down, if you have to melt the fuel to start the fission process, also don't need active cooling systems if you can take advantage of convection currents within the fuel.

  10. matchesburn

    matchesburn3 bulan yang lalu

    Nuclear power also only has the ability to only improve in efficiency and safety. Coal? Not so much. You can't wring out blood from a stone, and that applies to sedimentary rock hydrocarbons like coal. Breeder reactors, thorium... there's a lot to investigate and build upon. And we can recycle and reuse nuclear materials to some degree in breeder reactors, it's just not as cost effective and efficient to do so. Not to mention... we have more nuclear material. While it's not a true renewable resource (then again, nothing is when you consider entropy), it is one of the most practical, safe, reliable and effective ones humanity has. Heat engines are good things, what you feed them... not necessarily so. The problem isn't nuclear power. The problem is it not being done correctly and regulated for safety. Case in point: pretty much any nuclear physicist will tell you the Soviet's RBMK reactors of the time were no where near as safe as those in the west, were outdated, and that doing what the Chernobyl NPP engineers were trying to do was incredibly foolish. Same thing with TEPCO and Fukushima. Going back decades there were reports that the seawalls around the nuclear power plant were insufficient for the largest known tsunamis to have hit Japan in the past. TEPCO ignored those warnings. Other nuclear power plants in the same region did not and improved their barriers. They didn't suffer flooding and nuclear core meltdown. TEPCO did. You do the math to see what the problem is. We've been building nuclear reactors for the better part of half a century now. We know how to do it safely, effectively and efficiently. The problem is that is also EXPENSIVE in the short-run. And, thus, some corrupt and less safety-minded individuals will find a way to cut corners - if you let them.

  11. Cirque-it

    Cirque-it3 bulan yang lalu

    Why are you still rocking the Nerdist logo at the end of your videos? I thought you branched off a year ago

  12. jtech0

    jtech03 bulan yang lalu

    Don't forget too that nuclear power means less oil needs to be drilled, fracking, etc. This less demand = lesse need for drilling and thus less chance of things like the deep water horizon disaster, etc. I would say fossil fuel impact and range is much greater than nuclear disasters or waste.

  13. Christian Barrett

    Christian Barrett3 bulan yang lalu

    Now how does renewable energy compare to the potential pollution of nuclear and is there a way to further bring down pollution from the production of materials that make up renewable energy?

  14. cenauge

    cenauge3 bulan yang lalu

    It seems to me that most of the danger posed by nuclear power lies in some mixture of human error + malfunction, with human error making up the bigger slice of the pie. The government is very involved in the commercial nuclear industry, but there is something about extreme disaster potential + profit motive that has me uneasy about the privately owned nature of most of our reactors. If there's one place you don't want to cut corners...

  15. aerozord

    aerozord3 bulan yang lalu

    There are two types of people. Those who support nuclear power, and those who don't understand it

  16. Jeffrey C

    Jeffrey C3 bulan yang lalu

    Nuclear energy is very safe. And the new research into LFTR... Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor are next level amazing

  17. Jeffrey C

    Jeffrey C3 bulan yang lalu

    Another perk to this salt reactors are that you can consume the nasty stuff in old waste stockpiles.

  18. Jeffrey C

    Jeffrey C3 bulan yang lalu

    Thorium gets converted into U233 which is just as good at making bombs as u-235. Only thing is your supposed to use all (almost) up in the fission process.

  19. Ian McPherson

    Ian McPherson3 bulan yang lalu

    I think Kyle was bitten by a radioactive Labrador...

  20. Ella Komiya

    Ella Komiya3 bulan yang lalu

    Ian McPherson - or a radioactive Thor.

  21. Ian McPherson

    Ian McPherson3 bulan yang lalu

    7:08 "Reactorium" You're welcome.

  22. Derrick Parent

    Derrick Parent3 bulan yang lalu

    7:12 MAGMANIUM (Magma + Uranium) perdy spot on... no?

  23. Xylon Pesquera

    Xylon Pesquera3 bulan yang lalu

    How could the Malaysia flight disappear?

  24. Aron Braswell

    Aron Braswell3 bulan yang lalu

    weird thought: fossil fuel pollution gives 90% of population cancer, radiation leaks at nuclear power plants cure those cancers. medicen is poision of not ill in the first place

  25. Black Slayer

    Black Slayer3 bulan yang lalu

    the nerd nation is getting stronger

  26. MonsterHunter Banjo

    MonsterHunter Banjo3 bulan yang lalu

    Link to that nasa article?

  27. Ser Garlan Tyrell

    Ser Garlan Tyrell3 bulan yang lalu

    When talking about the pollution that Nuclear power produces/saves, I think it's important to include the whole life-cycle impact, including the mining and refining of the fuel, as unlike coal, it's not just a case of dig it up then throw it on the fire.

  28. Mohammed Al-Alaw

    Mohammed Al-Alaw3 bulan yang lalu

    Hydrogen Power is the most powerful and cleanest power source!

  29. james ostendorf

    james ostendorf3 bulan yang lalu

    Alcubierre drive

  30. Game- R -Age

    Game- R -Age3 bulan yang lalu

    I like how you make me mess up as I'm reading the comment you are currently reading, your lack of verbatim is astounding.

  31. r315r4z0r

    r315r4z0r3 bulan yang lalu

    Nuclear Power is like airplanes. Some people are deathly afraid of flying on an airplane. But this fear stems from how the media extensively covers every airplane disaster. Despite the fact that thousands of planes travel safely every day. The probability of you getting into a car accident is far higher than you getting into a plane crash. The US alone is estimated to have over 270 million registered cars. However, there is roughly 87,000 airline flights operating across the US every day. Even if we assume 70 million vehicles are inactive, that number of daily flights is still less than 0.05% of the number of potential car trips happening across the country. In 2018, there was an estimated 40,000 deaths related to car crashes and, in comparison, 556 deaths from plane crashes. So why are people so afraid of planes? Because the media doesn't extensively cover every single car accident that happens to drive home the fear of car travel.

  32. Penguinator

    Penguinator3 bulan yang lalu

    No it can't. The current Regulatory environment is absolutely horrible. The EPA is now bought and paid for by DOW Chemical, Department of Energy is now selling Nuclear tech to the Saudi's. Dude, keep up with how fucked our country is.

  33. Penguinator

    Penguinator3 bulan yang lalu

    Putin is former KGB, they're still USSR and Russian.

  34. Penguinator

    Penguinator3 bulan yang lalu

    Yes it is, and without proper regulations and numerous inspectors paid well enough so they can't be bribed, there is plenty of chances for Nuclear Power facilities to fuck up and irradiate the communities they're near. There is plenty of documented studies showing increased background Radiation levels in communities near Nuclear Power plants. I wouldn't trust Nuclear power in this regulatory environment EVER. So you shouldn't be promoting this shit without understanding the current political climate that is absolutely okay with fucking people over for profit. Sorta why we're fucked on climate change.

  35. mrspidey80

    mrspidey803 bulan yang lalu

    What about Don'teverwanttogetnearthatstuff-ium?

  36. Silence

    Silence3 bulan yang lalu

    Yes, the Chernobyl video was the best yet and I’d love to see more of the same genre. Also, congratulations! It’s well deserved.

  37. Torbjørn Brekke

    Torbjørn Brekke3 bulan yang lalu

    Kyle! Please link the sources so that doubters can have something even more concrete to grab onto!

  38. ulrich brodowsky

    ulrich brodowsky3 bulan yang lalu

    What I find weird about the discussion of fossil fuels vs nuklear power is that everybody talks about Chernobyl but oil catastrophes get much less attention. The biggest one is in Siberia. There is a huge amount of oil flowing into nature. According to wikipedia, 28 bigger rivers are already biologically dead. Of course not many people live there, but it's still a shame

  39. James Holbrook

    James Holbrook3 bulan yang lalu

    I have no clue where cheerknoble is but its Russia right so thats Asia not Europe right

  40. Caustic Caucasian

    Caustic Caucasian3 bulan yang lalu

    Could you explain why electric cars, wind farms, and solar panels in general are not as environmentally friendly as some would have you believe based on their marketing propaganda? As in, why their "carbon footprint" is actually significantly more than the total output benefit those items can achieve through each one's productive lifespan?

  41. scouttyra

    scouttyra3 bulan yang lalu

    Re: nuclear power not being as bad; when it was decided that Sweden would decommission the nuclear power plants, the research about nuclear power ceased and thus any chance of making it safer (this is all iirc).

  42. Anufenrir

    Anufenrir3 bulan yang lalu

    I'm more worried about nuclear waste

  43. JennyImpatient

    JennyImpatient3 bulan yang lalu

    I’m pretty pro nuclear power. Even if there are recurrent meltdowns, wherever such a meltdown occurs, the serious effects are localised, and that zone is beautifully reclaimed by nature. I think, however, that Chernobyl highlights just how terrible radiation sickness is, and this is more relevant for nuclear weapons. Anyone who watched the series will still remember how terrible Vasily Ignatenko looked. Tens of thousands of people suffered as Vasily did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and those bombs are considered ‘tactical’ or ‘minuature’ amongst today’s nuclear arsenals. In a nuclear holocaust, hundreds of millions of people would suffer that fate. Chernobyl was a tragic accident. Radiation poisoning is not a death that anyone deserves. To inflict it upon someone deliberately is the greatest crime.

  44. undeadman7676

    undeadman76763 bulan yang lalu

    Can jet fuel melt steel beams?

  45. Adam Orth

    Adam Orth3 bulan yang lalu

    Nuclear FTW! Chernobyl is scary, but if someone made a cool 5 part miniseries discussing EVERYTHING terrifying about fossil fuel, that would be way more terrifying

  46. draco5991rep

    draco5991rep3 bulan yang lalu

    One problem remaining is the nuclear waste left. We still don't have a good way to store or dispose it. Nuclear Power is better than fossil fuels but I would only want Nuclear power for a transition phase into a world powerd by renewable Energy solutions.

  47. draco5991rep

    draco5991rep3 bulan yang lalu

    @bigevilworldwide1 we don't have the time for a transition with fossil fuels, when mankind continue to produce CO2 in the rate we Do it know in 5 to 10 years we will reach a point of no return. we will start self sustaining irrevesable processes. Nuclear Power is the better alternative. Nuclear Power is not as unsafe as you seem to believe. With Nuclear Power we could gain the years we need to make the transition to 100% renewable energy. It is not a very pleasant option but the best we currently have. My country banned Nuclear Power a few years ago and I was happy about it, but I am not so sure that this was the right decision now. New Information made me reconsider the pro and cons. I still don't like Nuclear Power but I can't argue against the fact that it currently is the cleanest and ironically the safest option so far. The numbers speak for themself, accidents are really rare and most of them are not as threatening as a meltdown. In total there were 6 meltdowns and only 2 of them went out of controll the rest was not so bad. Not every meltdown is a fukushima or Tschernobyl like catastrophy. Most of these meltdowns happend when the technology still was pretty new and the reactors are a lot more secure nowadays.

  48. bigevilworldwide1

    bigevilworldwide13 bulan yang lalu

    OR rather than do something stupid, we just continue using fossil fuels, while we transition over to hydro, solar, wind etc and not have the possibility of one day everyone glow in the dark before they melt into a puddle of goop...There is NO universe where Nuclear is either smart or useful for any situation, especially not in the US where people are the stupidest, build things the cheapest, cut as many corners as possible almost guaranteeing a meltdown. Besides the the fact that when NOTHING gets done about climate change because Trumpturds and Repbulicans are retarded, and democrats are too busy pandering to the lazy, twitter and, retarded millennials and trying to out socialism each other when half the world drops dead and there are possibly ZERO people left to actually either maintain or shut down these plants it just ends up being a ticking time bomb.

  49. isiah s

    isiah s3 bulan yang lalu

    I think it was another one of mans attempts to play god in creating it's own big bangs. It came from the core and makes it's way to one so corium it is

  50. Mike Stein

    Mike Stein3 bulan yang lalu

    They built a working molten salt reactor in the 50"s , I believe it was in Utah but I seen the documentary years back there's no excuse for the fact we're not using them , they can't melt down they are more efficient create less waste , also ocean turbines and geo thermal power plants too we have the answers now we gotta put a foot in the governments ass , worry less about wars and whatnot and get going on things like this that will sustain our civilization in the longer term , also don't worry about A.I , it would be such an intelligent entity much more than fear ridden barbaric humans , violence and destruction are low iq human impulses A.I would be way above that logic and have a much higher level of intelligent , and would not hurt us just help if you really want to free mankind let machines do and make everything for us so we can spend our lives doing what we're passionate about , do away with money , no more desperate people committing crimes you could tear down most prisons

  51. Mike Stein

    Mike Stein3 bulan yang lalu

    Also you can use the waste from lwr in Msr as fuel

  52. Ashley Goggs

    Ashley Goggs3 bulan yang lalu

    i say this all the time but nuclear is the way forward until better technologies become commercially viable. We could have thorium reactors right now which in many ways are much better then uranium reactors, however becuase US and USSR wanted the by products i.e. plutonium for making bombs uranium reactors became the "it" reactor which makes me sad. Global governments really need to start looking more in thorium and even more into fusion. If we can create commercial thorium reactors soon we may be able to pro long the point of no return atleast until fusion is capable. Iter Is only a few more years away from coming online and has the potential too give us more energy then it uses which will be the first successful fusion generator. But in the mean time we need to push nuclear, face the facts that nuclear is not the devil and is fact our salvation until we can hit that pinnacle of energy generation.

  53. Nilesh

    Nilesh3 bulan yang lalu

    Fukushima power plant accident Heres a general idea

  54. Michael Fairchild

    Michael Fairchild3 bulan yang lalu

    People watched HBOs Chernobyl and think they are experts on the topic.

  55. motox20

    motox203 bulan yang lalu

    This vid made me think of something I read, it was about Nuclear Pulse Propulsion and how using that in unmanned ship the velocity could get high enough fast enough to deflect(or destroy) an asteroid on a collision course with earth. If you leave out the problem of fallout during take off is it possible?

  56. jasonasdecker

    jasonasdecker3 bulan yang lalu

    The latter plans for the Orion Project actually called for it to be built in space. "Deep Impact" 1998 is actually a movie about this idea. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

  57. Bama Vol

    Bama Vol3 bulan yang lalu

    False the plaque is actually made of brass

  58. Ecchi Oni

    Ecchi Oni3 bulan yang lalu

    No mention of Fast Neutron breeder reactors?

  59. Eispfogel

    Eispfogel3 bulan yang lalu

    Yeah Context. How about that: How do you store away highly radioactive waste for thousands of years and make sure that even future civilisations(imagine if we fall and cockroaches rise) do not come in contact with it? How would you do that? Nothing lasts forever and the waste issue is not solved...those poor cockroaches! If anyone says that someone will solve it in the future then i have to say...how about caring for the waste problem first and then we can start using the technology? If we would use a smart power grid already we also wouldn't have an energy crisis...but those poor energy producing companies wouldn't make as much money out of it, so we better not build that! ANd now for something completly different.... You said that Hulk can jump into space and i agree with that BUT you also said he would be naked and cannot steer in space..welll...everyone KNOWS that Hulk Pants are even stronger than him, so he wouldn't be naked! And Hulk is actually able to steer in space! How he can do that? He punched time for f's sake! There is at least 1 atom in one cubic centimeter of space. If Hulk smashes that single atom with the amount of energy he used to smash time(or even less..but Hulk isn't about something less)...well...DO THE MATH boy! Yeah i want to see that! Hulk smashing his way through space! The only thing harmful to him would be if he get's bored and he reverts back to Dr. Banner...poor Banner would only last some seconds :( Anyways great to have you and keep on... uh.. sciencing!

  60. Anushruto Ghosh

    Anushruto Ghosh3 bulan yang lalu

    How objects stable object suddenly became radioactive

  61. TheOso1982

    TheOso19823 bulan yang lalu

    U.S. had its scare with a nuclear accident when three mile island had a partial meltdown of reactor number 2.

  62. C O

    C O3 bulan yang lalu

    My eternal, never answered, question: how come a space suit does not burst or swell like a weather balloon?

  63. Christopher Joshua

    Christopher Joshua3 bulan yang lalu

    It's cool how the limited episode duration, instead of just limiting content, gives the community more opportunities to interact and expand on the subjects That being said, the occasional longer episode is entertaining

  64. Gorrestujindo

    Gorrestujindo3 bulan yang lalu

    Thorium reactors my friend told me that we'd need to use/burm or whatever more thorium to equate the amount of nuclear energy we get for one month

  65. Gorrestujindo

    Gorrestujindo3 bulan yang lalu

    Congrats on gold button dude been watching you for a while now

  66. Brett Carroll

    Brett Carroll3 bulan yang lalu

    You need to get a less wibley wobley table.