An Objective Analysis of Nuclear Energy (Nuclear Power). Bibliography: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK8ccWSZkic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZISWJNtqZ4&…
Video Rating: 5 / 5
(may be broke/outdated!)
An Objective Analysis of Nuclear Energy (Nuclear Power). Bibliography: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK8ccWSZkic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZISWJNtqZ4&…
Video Rating: 5 / 5
Unspillable.com is your gateway into to the intriguing world of energy mysteries, revolutionary fuels, and the science driving alternative energy solutions. Delve into the depths of covert agendas and unexplained phenomena surrounding energy sources while uncovering the latest advancements in renewable technologies. From debunking conspiracies to exploring the cutting edge of sustainable energy, we’re your go-to resource for unraveling the secrets shaping our energy landscape.
© 2024 All Rights Reserved
4 Responses
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
the future is nuclear 
The editing was pretty terrible but interesting viewpoints nonetheless.
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.