4 Responses

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. the future is nuclear 

3. The editing was pretty terrible but interesting viewpoints nonetheless.

4. 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.