Nuclear Physicist Reacts to Johnny Harris WTF Happened to Nuclear Energy?

[@YourFriendlyNuclearPhysicist]

Well that was quite the video! Be sure to check out the full video, link in the description, to get the full context in which I’m coming from. It’s good to see people try to raise awareness for nuclear power. When it comes to journalists it’d be better to have more factual data and less personal feelings and opinions. I’d also be interesting to see them calling out their own and discuss about the media’s influence in the topic, since they’re so closely related to it. What do you think?👩🏽‍🔬☢️

[@Boodieman72]

Since when have journalists been concerned about facts (speaking as someone who used to work at a newspaper).

[@pixelfairy]

Jhonny was presenting the perspective of the uninformed public. Using sources biased against nuclear is sort of a steel man tactic. He can't be accused of being biased for the nuclear industry. With the myths and origins identified, Cleo can come in and knock them down.

[@Lucien86]

Their problems with nuclear - accidents waste and cost.. It is quite possible to fix all three. (and yes this mostly does repeat the arguments in the video - sorry) Accidents - Hugely almost insanely over-hyped in their deadliness.. As it should say on the label coal has a 'Chernobyl' about every three days. Other fossil fuels are little better. Renewables are generally far safer but have their own potential disaster problems especially in places that can experience very cold winters. Waste - Another mole hill turned into a mountain. The wrong solutions to waste have been chosen again and again turning it into a much bigger problem than it ever needed to be. The basic answer is fuel reprocessing and the use of plutonium as fuel. The best answer (IMO) to long term waste is deep ocean burial. Cost - The big problem here is over-regulation and over design. Basically even with poor design, shoddy cheap construction, and incompetent management nuclear is still roughly about maybe 100 times safer than coal. The result of all that safety regulation is that nuclear today is over 10,000 times safer than coal. The price is simply the cost and difficulty of building new reactors.. The solution is a slimmer simpler more effectively designed regulation system.

[@colsylvester639]

Hoping Johnny reaches out to discuss the issues you've highlighted.

[@chrisf84]

The problem I have with the appeal to 'factual data' for this specific subject (normally I 100% say 'factual data #1') is this: Radiation damage is obfuscated in the data. For example: Hydro dam Accident - 100 people died during x construction disaster and afterwards 100MJ of energy was produced = 1 death / 1MJ Nuclear Reactor Accident - 50 people died within 3 years from excessive radiation exposure, 1000 mothers miscarried for unknown reasons within 100km of the accident within the next 2 years, Cancer rates skyrocketed for anyone in the area or downwind at any time during the cleanup, Life expectancy of the entire population reduced by 6 years on average, Every animal in 50 km radius had to be eradicated, 500km^2 of territory was rendered hazardous and unusable. 50MJ of energy was produced = 1 death / 1MJ (It Is SaFe) The statistics bury the true cost of Nuclear Power. Feelings or no.

[@entropyachieved750]

Im not a big johnny fan. At first I was but after a few vids I found that he cherry picks the facts that support the narrative and skips over concepts or facts and time lines that are quit important. I feel he is more after the views and the entertainment value then actually doing a documentary

[@box_of_things]

thats exactly what happened to me i started watching after his Qatar slave labor video but slowly stopped when i noticed all the holes in his journalism when he explored topics i had prior knowledge on

[@zopEnglandzip]

He's had some "wealthy donors" in the past, several folk have made videos on the subject with proof. The production levels are top tier, very persuasive but as has been demonstrated he is a journalist for sale.

[@colsylvester639]

same

[@Shadrio]

I was in the same boat as you, I get the feeling that he reiterates constantly on his opinion (which Elina pointed out is something a journalist should *never* be doing) in order to gain a sense of camaraderie with the viewer, which would help in building up a following. In this video in particular it felt like he was playing the role of the devil's advocate in order to have his cohost talk about the topic instead of just stating the facts. Trying to make a narrative instead of a presentation of the investigation.

[@tonywilson4713]

Go look at Thunderf00ts "Busted" edition on Johnny Harris. Harris is another of these _"What could it be?"_ _"What could that mean?"_ _"Isn't this amazing!"_ attention seeking BULLSHlT artists. As for Cleo Abram, I watched he video on nuclear waste and it was (no pun intended) a waste of time. Joan Rivers summed up such women with the line _"She's so dumb she'd have to study for a pap test!"_

[@brianfisher3620]

I absolutely love your videos, nuclear power has been a major fascination of mine since I was a kid. It's great to see someone who takes a true logical and scientific approach to the subject.

[@skataskatata9236]

nuclear electricity is economically obsolete. it simply costs 4-10x more per kWh than any other electrivity source.

[@koltoncrane3099]

I doubt that. Nuclear power is expensive because of regulation end of story. When it takes forty years to build a plant ya of course it’s going to be more expensive. Sure make sure nuclear power is safe, but ya gotta admit decades of regulation really ended research and investment in it. Plus small reactors that are the same design really could make costs go down. Solar and wind etc made in China where pollution is free is also a crap scam that’s been going on. It’s like we offshore pollution to FEEL GOOD and then say we’re clean. It’s like employing children in the Congo for cobalt and saying that’s cleaner then having a cobalt mine in Utah. Environmentalists make massive distortions

[@dft1]

@@skataskatata9236 wrong. its only slightly more

[@Marqan]

I have to agree. Experts of other fields also criticised his videos :/ The excuse is that he's focusing more on storytelling, but that doesn't really excuse factual mistakes. I've watched his economy videos also, and he's not that great at simplifying things either. Storytelling can be a great tool, but it should be the right story.. not the wrong or misleading one. Really makes me appreciate Veritasium, who is also a general science communicator, also focuses on storytelling, but aims to stay accurate above all.

[@voongnz]

Yep, his cherry picking facts (and ommissions) on some of his history videos are especially egregious. I had to unsub from him. I prefer to get information from experts in their field no matter how dry, as opposed to his dumbed down narrative led videos with flashy editing of b-roll and transitions.

[@reallybigjohnson]

Agree Veritisium is much better and if you want the absolute best "war" videos I found Perun to be the top one. Lots of info and graphs albeit its basically an hour long powerpoint so if you want flashy editing you won't find it with him.

[@marekdg]

The only thing that I know of that is a big dishonest from Veritasium is that he did one propaganda/advertisement piece once. But presented as a regular video. Not mentioning it was sponsored by that self driving company.

[@marekdg]

But yeah: Johnny is just pure garbage 🗑️ at this point. He once used a whole life work of a professor in a certain field (keyboards or maps) without even mentioning that poor guy… so nasty 🤢 Also what I find so telling: he used to work for Vox where his content was actually fact checked … I have a feeling that his view on being fact checked was unnecessary and a “bummer”. If he saw the value of fact checking he could have (and would have) hired one when he started his own channel

[@GlenHunt]

The crazy disconnect that makes me want to explode is that not only do coal fired power plants release 10x more radiation into the environment than nuclear power plants, it's done in a way that contaminates the surrounding environment, the people and animals and plants that inhabit the environment, and any products made from that environment, i.e., food. That doesn't even begin to consider the harmful substances which also get spread around.

[@bencoad8492]

yea its annoying considering that old school nuclear is the safest power source, order mag compared to wind even ha, and new gen 4s well just blow solar/wind out of the water

[@TheOldBlackCrow]

You nailed the state of journalism... Thank you!

[@skataskatata9236]

nuclear electricity is economically obsolete. it simply costs 4-10x more per kWh than any other electricity source. all the other talk is pointless once econimics are clarified including all intrinsic costs.

[@TheOldBlackCrow]

@@skataskatata9236 That's what they said about electric cars 10 years ago. You don't have to keep up with cost of technology... It will move past you regardless.

[@ivant5054]

@@skataskatata9236 this false is bullcrap Nuclear is CHEAPER than the next cheapest source IN A WHOLE POWER PLANT LIFETIME, after year 10 or 15 of operation it simply becomes cheaper than the next cheapest source, natural gas (lmao, good luck with that now)

[@moladiver6817]

@@skataskatata9236 Not according to multiple countries who are in fact planning and building new reactors. Especially not when economics incorporate environmental cost. This world is changing fast and not in a good way. What we need is an end of fossil fuels and for the time being a mix of nuclear and renewable energy is all we have and should be everyone's goal. In fact the discussion about nuclear is becoming obsolete fast. There's simply no alternative to a very low carbon emission type of energy source that just works, day and night.

[@Ikbeneengeit]

​@@TheOldBlackCrowNuclear is getting steadily more expensive though. EVs are half the price today that they were 10 years ago. Nuclear must get more affordable.

[@채월Sky]

The fact that you make such hard topics sound so comprehensible says so much about your knowledge in the field ❤

[@michaelwebber4033]

I'm not afraid of nuclear power because I understand it. I'm actually a supporter of it. Sadly my country is nuclear free, but if we want to live the electric vehicle nightmare we absolutely need nuclear power

[@grantcivyt]

The approach that these two vloggers are taking is to establish empathy with a skeptical audience before allowing themselves to be persuaded to a different position. It's less about objective reporting and more of a persuasive video that they're putting together.

[@victorajayi2412]

I'm pretty sure that's the definition of propaganda. If you're a journalist, your job is to prioritize objective reporting; otherwise, they should've chosen a career in marketing. We shouldn't normalize or condone this kind of approach from journalists, as it blurs the line between factual reporting and persuasive storytelling. Maintaining journalistic integrity and upholding the principles of accurate, unbiased reporting should always be the norm.

[@grantcivyt]

@@victorajayi2412 I agree, but I wouldn't call the subject video propaganda. I view it simply as a video intended to persuade. Important not to blur the line tho. Very much agree with that.

[@ronald3836]

I agree 100%. The video was very well done, and I don't agree with Elina's criticism. The message of Johnny's video is exactly the same as hers.

[@Archgeek0]

@@grantcivytYup, not propaganda by any stretch, but definitely a bit polemic, possibly because they went in wanting to offer a gentle hand up to misconception holders after considering the findings of their brief research stint (and then kinda misapplying the visuals a bit and getting a few details confused (in Cleo's video, she even accidentally says atoms instead of neutrons at one point).

[@orchdork775]

​@ronald3836 This youtuber clearly values accuracy, truthfulness, and transparency, so even though the video she reviewed ended up agreeing with her overall position, it did so in a way she finds immoral, and you should apply your morals to everyone equally, not just those who disagree with you. Having integrity means standing up for your beliefs even when doing so is inconvenient, so I applaud her for calling out sketchy journalistic practices. If Johnny wasn't portraying his video as a piece of journalism, then most of these criticisms wouldn't apply. A piece of journalism from an award winning journalist is going to be taken way more seriously and be way more influential than just a blog post where someone did some research and is sharing what they found, and that's the problem. There are certain standards that journalists are expected to uphold, so it needs to be called out when one fails to uphold them.

[@anadrollecter7102]

Hi Elina, While you bring up some valid criticisms in this response to Johnny and Cleo, I think the tone of the original video may have gone over your head. The video format is unusual and the discussion Johnny and Cleo have is quite nuanced. Johnny and Cleo often bring up commonly held misconceptions about nuclear energy that they know are not true and do not try to pass them off as true. Instead, they delve in 2:26 So they didn't cite incorrect information then? Notice how in Johnny and Cleo's video the graph is animated. What they did is give this graph to the animator (Karla Nunez in the credits) as a starting point to add the extending bars and trend line. I do agree it was an oversight not to include it in the source document. 2:46 "We all know why that is." We don't though. We're not all nuclear physicists. A lot about nuclear energy might seem elementary to you, but we as the general public know very little. That's why Johnny and Cleo made a video to explore the decline of nuclear energy. 8:38 Cleo knows about Fukushima. She's asking the question to get Johnny to talk about it. 12:00 I agree with you here. Cleo worded this poorly. She did turn it around though when she compared nuclear-related deaths to other energy sources. 21:07 Johnny is not citing this tweet as a valid argument against nuclear energy. He knows this isn't an accurate depiction of nuclear waste, and he does not claim that Greenpeace is stating a fact. He includes this tweet because this is something an average person, who knows very little about nuclear energy, might see while scrolling through Twitter. It also highlights the effort made by environmentalist organizations like Greenpeace to smear the status of nuclear energy as a relatively clean source of energy. 22:08 This was a good correction that you brought up. And thanks for explaining that the entire fuel assembly gets taken out and stored as waste. They definitely did not make that clear. 26:23 Johnny says he doesn't like how nuclear waste is stored underground for two reasons. The first is that this is how a lot of people will react to hearing about how waste is stored. The second is to provide Cleo with an opportunity to bring up nuclear waste recycling. Johnny keeps saying "I feel" because he is trying to demonstrate the typical attitude of a layperson who is not provided with complete information. This video format is a little confusing because they take turns playing the clueless person, which does make it seem like they don't really know what they're doing. The premise is that Johnny doesn't know much about nuclear energy and is having Cleo explain it to him. It may sound silly to an expert like you, but when he says storing waste underground scares him, or the Fukishima disaster made him wary of nuclear energy, he is presenting popular concerns. 29:59. This is a detail all three of you missed. The decline in solar price had more to do with market forces than improving the technology through R&D. But this is actually a misleading graph that Johnny and Cleo showed, so I blame them. The reason Solar was so expensive in 2008 was because of a polysilicon shortage. Higher price per Kg of polysilicon means higher price per Watt-hour of solar-generated electricity. If you look at the historical data, prices per Kg were much lower in the early 2000s: www.bernreuter.com/polysilicon/price-trend/ . I think it's really bad that they missed this. Also, they talked about Nuclear waste recycling but you didn't address it. So was that part of the video accurate or not? This is something you should have addressed instead of talking about the graph in the beginning. The graph that was displayed for about three seconds... 36:00 Johnny and Cleo mention fear mongering in their conclusion. Johnny expresses his belief that nuclear still has potential as a clean energy source and that it should be invested in. Cleo says "deaths from nuclear accidents should always be compared to deaths from other energy sources." They ARE trying to be objective and they did see through the media scare campaign. Ultimately, they are not opposed to nuclear energy on the basis of safety. 36:15 Elina, you are a brilliant physicist and I'm sure a casual "few hours" of researching is a breeze for you, but the people who watch Johnny's videos don't want to do that. So do you think watching their video makes someone less informed and objective than doing nothing? Because that’s the alternative. The state of nuclear energy today as well as the actual process of taking uranium from ore to spent fuel is so complex that it would not be possible to cover all the details in a single video. The video Johnny and Cleo made is an oversimplification for an audience that wants to learn in an engaging way despite living in a world where so many have seconds-long attention spans. Yes, they gloss over things, and even include some inaccurate details. I still think their video is valuable and made in good faith. I feel sorry for Johnny because whenever he makes a video there are always subject matter experts that come out of the woodwork to pick small details in his videos. Then they post responses using his name to get views. I skimmed through a recent video you made in Response to Cleo’s nuclear waste video and noticed you were much nicer. I wonder what changed between then and now.

[@silvesterjkennedy]

Thanks for this!

[@Jhakaas_Jai]

thanks, you explained my thoughts so nicely

[@revenantwolzart]

As a scientist your way of understanding and explanation makes it all so clear, they way concepts are corelated makes me excited about nuclear energy

[@mariagavriilidou7525]

I love how you always point out even the smallest details on the the general information that is provided cause those small details will and are making the deference. As always can't wait for your next video.

[@ronald3836]

Small details like the pellets that are apparently not nuclear waste really do not make any difference. Any news story of a current event contains small inaccuracies, which you would spot immediately if you were part of the current event. It almost never matters, the general public reading the story does not pay attention to details, and even if they do, they will have forgotten them the next day anyway. It is the same with any popular account of a complex subject. The experts reading the popular account will spot small mistakes, but what the popular account is trying to communicate are not the little details but merely some amount of understanding. Details are forgotten within a day, if they were even noticed at all.

[@IngVasiu]

Thanks to your channel I'm more prepared with arguments when debating such issues with my nuclear-skeptic friends.

[@5stardave]

The problem with the statement of US people being split 50/50 on nuclear power is that it only represents the people willing to respond to a survey. Also not knowing if the questions asked were structured in a way to lead one answer over the other.

[@kevynnedallaire1815]

The other problem is that to make policy decisions about technology based on people's feelings can lead you to do nothing to change for the better. People are afraid of change in general. This is where the government should be making the proper decision and then spend their energy in education of the public instead of fear mongering for votes. There was a time when we treated advances in the sciences with amazement at the possibilities. Now, we are denigrating the science community. 😢

[@monadic_monastic69]

I also find it weird where the "against" side of this 50/50 figure even comes from. Here in California at least, an overwhelming majority now support nuclear energy in addition to renewables.

[@kevynnedallaire1815]

@@monadic_monastic69 Texas? Alabama? Florida? Any state where science is considered "elitist"... that would be my guess. California is definitely more progressive and forward leaning than a lot of others.

[@5stardave]

@@monadic_monastic69 I live in CA and it's because of brownouts that really turned the tide back toward nuclear. A lot of my neighbors wouldn't care if the power came from whale blubber, as long as the power stayed on and got cheaper.

[@knickebien1966]

I love Elina's big brain!

[@slugface322]

She's the cutest thing ever.

[@zzord]

On point about journalists sharing their feelings!

[@MusicalZombie]

Incredibly well and factually explained. We need more people like you, who educate other people and take their fears away. Very good job! 👍

[@moorgunandmarshes]

Having just found your channel whilst looking for more information on nuclear power. You are an asset to your field, passionate, beautiful and obviously smart, but what really impressed me in this video was how quickly you looked for the reference source. I just wished more people would highlight how important it is to look behind the information that is being presented. I'll probably be binge watching your other videos, but if you have not covered it yet, have you any thoughts on the small nuclear reactors that are currently being developed for supplying domestic power. ( Military sized reactors ).

[@alphaxneo]

I really like the last point you made about how media has treated the topic. I went to Japan for an exchange year two weeks after Fukushima, and two things that surprised me were 1) how little the Japanese themselves were concerned about the nuclear aspect of it (speaking about the people you meet everyday, not the people working at nuclear plants). They were far more concerned about the earthquake and the tsunami. 2) how different foreign media talked about the issue. My mother mostly watched Spanish and Swiss tv, and the difference of how they reported about the incident couldn't be any larger if they tried. The same goes for other country's media, where some students went into full nervous breakdown because of the way they reported about it. Of course, it's everyone's own decision whether stay or leave after that - some countries actually had the students fly back, while others left it open to student whether they wanted to or not. But long story short, since energy is so politicized, it's no wonder that media will reflect these biases and extreme opinions (whether positive or negative) and end up cherry picking sources and facts to their advantage. I just found your channel by accident but I love the way you're reacting to these videos and explaining things clearly where I've missed some things while watching those videos beforehand.

[@protennis365]

Moral of the story, never trust a journalist.

[@cybercat1531]

Self ascribed Journalists in particular. Johnny is about as real a Journalist as I am an Astronaut.

[@user72958]

Especially independent journalists who aren't experts on the topic and doing story telling like a marketing technique 😂. I'd rather trust big media journalists like DW, Veritasium, or at least they have a PhD in a particular field like Sabine Hossenfelder.

[@JohnDoe-tx8lq]

"What The Fish-Fingers" - aaaah, I always wondered what that stood for! 😁

[@terlik3537]

Wednesday Thursday Friday.....

[@TeethToothman]

This video is amazing! Thank you, Elina!

[@zeon5323]

Elina, thanks for this video.

[@felishahauswirth9336]

2:20, Great job checking the references!!!

[@Jochla]

It is interesting how I never see any mention of the indirect costs associated with renewable energy, like the cost of providing double infrastructure with power plants that can jump in whenever the output of renewable power plants is minimal. Almost every source mentions indirect costs of nuclear energy, but the lack of information for the renewable side is enorm.

[@Quarky_]

I can feel your annoyance radiating from my screen every time they incorrectly skip from the fuel pellets to spent fuel rods :D :D

[@ChaineYTXF]

The one source on youtube for credible info on nuclear tech

[@antonioreale8707]

The Gordian knot is in recognize the difference between risk and harm and thus how we could correctly "read" as more or less safe something; as well as you stated from min 12:00 to 13:00. Perfect material for a short video, even tough I'm not a fan. 👍🏻

[@ceejaay88]

Nuclear physics student here, loved the video!! Was more than happy to suscribe! Keep up the great work :)

[@kronos2611]

the work you are doing is invaluable. People need to understand the realities of nuclear power versus the propaganda that they may have seen

[@antonyshadowbanned]

my favorite reaction videos : ) very well put together & explained

[@SvetzBowman]

The nuclear power plant near me (Turkey Point) is over 50 years old and was designed in the 1950s. According to Wikipedia, nuclear stations were originally designed for a life of about 30 years. Last February, Turkey Point received a 30-year operating extension. People complained and the extension was dropped to 20 years (possibly dropped again to 10). I doubt this situation is all that unique, but it makes me wonder how safe the aging nuclear infrastructure is around the world?

[@RobinTheBot]

Just as safe as any critical infrastructure that's been neglected for 60 years! They can be updated, refurbished, and upgraded though. A coal plant neglected that long is roughly as dangerous, moreso as there's no clean up procedure for most of those toxins, but for some reason they're always pretty new and up to date... 🫠

[@RJvanVeen]

As a physics teacher I think you bring some really interesting points to the table. I really enjoy your videos bc of your sharp analysis.

[@kidShibuya]

10:59 its not increasing fast enough. Japan gutted their power network based on popular option relying more and more on coal and guess what? Electricity prices are skyrocketing. My bills in Tokyo are over double what they used to be.

[@jb5nf]

Thank you🎉. You've a communication gift. Thank you for communicating all of this to us in such clear, beautiful way. Obviously you have been blessed in so many ways. I wish you the best always.

[@shonabirkett2196]

Thank you for making this informative video! I especially admire the comment you made towards the end of the video regarding the bias in politics and the media. I look forward to watching more of your videos as a new subscriber!

[@peterm.eggers520]

Modular molten salt reactors have passive safety, are cheapest when mass produced, and produce far less waste that is dangerous for a fraction of the time. It is the solution for grid power for the foreseeable future. Solar only makes sense off-grid and in mobile applications. Wind is a negative except in small off-grid niche applications.

[@richardfincher6697]

Can I add an extra element to the "Cost" chapter? In the early years of nuclear, people didn't know how to safely manage the dangers. Same with steam- they had lots of boiler explosions when steam engines first appeared. As decades passed, and public concerns grew, the industry rightly piled on more and more safety measures, just as civil aviation did, but all this comes at a cost. A justified cost yes, but still a cost. The same arguments apply to pharmaceuticals - 50 years ago, they were cheaper to develop and bring to market, but that was before thalidomide. Now, it costs a million bucks to make the first pill, and takes years. But we don't want to go back. The key question here is, which forms of power generation are hiding the true cost of their operations by discarding it daily into our atmosphere? Not nuclear.

[@executormmm]

Another simple add - the cost of operation per unit energy is one thing. Adding the cost of R&D and the cost of recycling and the cost of safety per unit energy produced, or maybe per some constant assumption (for example if all our sources were nuclear/coal/wood etc.) will be much more accurate and describing the real cost, without a need of "feelings" ...

[@bencoad8492]

@@executormmm there is, energy invested to what is gotten out, old school nuclear sits at about 70, wind/solar at about 2....

[@machines8593]

I love how factual you always are.

[@killphil9119]

A great analysis, and I love that you insist on peer reviews, notations and journalists, not giving their opinion or what they feel

[@Spacecookie-]

I'm glad that you're making videos like this one talking about the facts.

[@AqeelAhmed-ef6um]

Johnny makes videos on various subject and i always believe we cant be expert in everything you just have proved why, Thank you beautiful.

[@Pleplerhep]

It's so typical modern urinalists to reference sources they didnt put the smallest effort into checking themselves.

[@GlenHunt]

When you say that those are fresh pellets that have not been activated yet, what does "activated" mean?

[@YourFriendlyNuclearPhysicist]

It means the Uranium hasn’t been fissioned. There were in no contact with neutrons yet to fission split produce fission products etc…

[@rafascd12]

Elina, I love your vídeos. Here I find good information and I know people will find that out. The midea is ruined, and people are seeing that and turning to people like you.

[@JonStockman82]

The vast majority of people afraid of nuclear energy are misinformed and not educated enough on a non biased basis. Fear sells, media outlets want stories that sell. In that way headlines are more likely to have stories like "oh no nuclear tragedy" rather than "yay look cleaner nuclear energy". I live in Scotland and not all that far from Torness nuclear power plant, always wanted to visit it.

[@ericfielding2540]

There has been a huge investment in nuclear fusion power, especially in the last few years. I understand that you are working in the fission area, and the engineering issues are very different, but it would be interesting to hear your thoughts about fusion power prospects.

[@HansLennros-ry5iz]

Elina, about the post-Chernobyl radiation that hit Scandinavia the main concern was the synthetic strontium-90 that is radioactive is thus an indication of nuclear weapon detonation or nuclear accident. As strontium is absorbed by the body in a similar manner to calcium the radioactivity of Sr-90 is one of the most dangerous components of nuclear fallout. How much of the waste compose Strontium?

[@udayatreyasa]

Great video, I am at 2 mins into the video and already new this is going to be good !!!!

[@kevynnedallaire1815]

*Elina*, I love your content creation as a whole. This one in particular shows comparisons between various power generating sources. While it's obvious that we must move away from fossil fuels, I would love to see a video on the necessary requirements to consider in siting a nuclear plant, specifically for newly researched designs. To date, every reactor requires some form of coolant (either light water or heavy water), but would that be as much a requirement for molten salt reactors? Could the amount of water required be fairly minimal, i.e. a closed loop system as far as the steam generation is concerned. The reason I ask this is that it seems whatever source is used, it will have to take into consideration the local geography where the plant is to be located. Some may be amenable to wind, or solar, and others might be good for nuclear. I am thinking in particular of SMRs. Anyway, keep up the fantastic work! You're providing really good educational material.

[@ageens]

Primary contour is closed loop system. Usually. Hopefully. Secondary - too. If you use stream turbines, you have to cool down one end by thermodynamics or it will never work. You can cool down by air, but unexpectedly - water is better coolant

[@xraysteve]

I FEEL like Johnny is a Buzzfeed quality journalist. I also have a problem believing anyone that uses the word “like” so many times.

[@andoletube]

That's the problem with collaborations between people like Johnny and Cleo - they are like a couple of Valley girls trying to validate their feelings.

[@remasterus]

You are awesome and amazing and I love your content! I do find that it's crazy that you have more views than many of the NGOs that are trying to influence nuclear policy in a positive direction, though. What kind of tips would you give to those NGOs (Generation Atomic, Mothers for Nuclear, Citizens for a Green Nuclear Deal, etc.) on building a fanbase and actually getting recognized?

[@PomerleauL]

Thank you so much, good job.

[@Ken00001010]

Thank you, Dr. Charatsidou, for another very good video. Of the three factors presented, accidents may have been the largest part of "WTF Happened," but looking forward it has to be cost. Perhaps what you say re cost could have been reduced by sufficient R&D is true, but we can't know that, and we are now where we are now, and investment is not going into future nuclear for general power application because renewables are continuing to get cheaper. There are special applications, such as submarine power, where nuclear can't be beat (cost does not matter, security is guaranteed, mechanical plant density matters, fuel density matters, feelings of neighborhood people don't matter). You are right to emphasize the ever increasing technology to reduce the chance of accidents. I think you should talk about "lights out, walk away" safety (what they did not have at Fukushima). However, plant density is not a big thing to most people, and will not be much of an advantage over deep geothermal in the future. Also, back in the past "efficiency" was a big selling point when the newsreels would show a giant pile of coal next to a table top of enriched uranium, but now renewables have zero operating fuel, so will always have nuclear beat on efficiency. On waste, I think you should present more info on deep storage in drill holes, especially deep drill holes in subduction strata that are going to sink away on their own for millions of years.

[@RobinTheBot]

The "fuel" of renewables is the rare elements that are irreversibly consumed in the manufacture of solar panels that will inevitably degrade beyond use and cannot afaik be recycled. Renewables have a lot of the same problems, but as with all modern Internet darlings, they come decades later when we wonder how we built an electrical grid that makes us dependent on china and forces us to do more and more destructive things to get more and more of the exhaustible resources.... And that's without batteries, which would be 80% of the problem with renewables.

[@maidenfan]

When someone puts the nuclear accidents as an excuse They dont know or forgot about all the accidents that the petroleum industry had caused, for instance Chevron in Ecuador.

[@laincoubert7236]

not to mention how often we hear about another oil leak in some sea which harm the biosphere, indirectly harming humans

[@Catherine-gt8tr]

1st view ! Elina ! Love your content! I’m an environmental engineering student and your content is sooooo helpful!

[@shankar_padmanabhan]

Another interesting video analysis. As someone who’s been following Johnny Harris since his Vox days, it’s great to see his videos being analyzed in depth. Also, would you be catching Oppenheimer in IMAX? 😅

[@heliopunk6000]

Funny, how everybody says "nuclear declined", when it actually stagnated while all other sources of power increased. 27:00 Journalism is not science or data presentation/communication, it also includes commentary and putting things into societal context. They provide the facts and then, mostly as a conclusion or motivation for the next part, he states his opinions and feelings. Another reason he does this so the viewers connect with him and stay engaged so they continue to watch and learn. The fact that you are able to so clearly identify when he switches between facts and opinion is a sign of good journalism. The fact that you were able to easily identify his sources, is also a sign of good journalism, btw. He is by far more transparent than journalism typically is. 30:00 You say no investments have been put into nuclear power after Fukushima, but if we go back to the beginning of the video, we can see that there has been about 50-60 years of increasing investment in nuclear power before Fukushima. Enormous amounts of public subsidies went into building, running and insuring nuclear power plants and the profits went straight to the private companies running the plants. These things were basically money printing machines for private companies, because so much of the expenses and insurances were covered by the public. Surely, they had incentives to push for research, but... didn't? Hard to believe. Or are you saying that over 60 years the nuclear industry was unable to make nuclear safe and cheap, or that only after Fukushima there was any incentive at all for them to invest into research and development and then whoops there was no money left? I can't see you having a point, there, sorry.

[@ralphfolden3273]

The world needs you so much. Please never stop doing your work identifying the truth and fallacies in our understanding the complexities of nuclear energy.development. You are performing the good fight. Bless you and your efforts.😊😊😅

[@pixelfairy]

Fish fingers😂 totally stealing that!

[@andreavaleri0]

Thank you Elina!

[@ocoolar]

Not to forget: renewables are only cheap because they are MADE WITH CHEAP FOSSIL FUELS! Try making solar panels, the epoxies used for wind turbines, etc. solely with renewables (the future painted by environmentalists) and the costs would be unbearable! Nuclear powered by nuclear, however, is easily feasible at reasonable cost!

[@BaldAndCurious]

Agree. Diversify power sources based on each country's situation and availability. Not just sources but also storage.

[@redhawk87p]

I live within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant. My high school was also within this radius. This is one take away I have that I think needs to be discussed. Growing up around the nuclear power plant, the power plant is a huge deal. In high school, the school was given iodine pills to distribute out to all kids in the event of an accident. We had to get our parents to sign a form saying they consent to the school doing this. Now that I adulted and have a whole ass house, I get flyers in the mail explaining about the test sirens done on Wednesday’s and the detailed radiation fall out maps and what zone I am in. There are also all the fences with scary signs and parts of the lake are roped off etc. And the rumors of 3 eyes fish…. If a solar farm went in a block over, I may never know about it. There is so much of our lives that gives us a constant reminder of the dangers of this plant that I think also plays a part in all of this. On the other hand though, the lake is really nice and I actually did a triathalon there and def swallowed some water 😅. So the power plant has become part of our DNA. A part of the town. Our town would not be the same without it.

[@Triring65]

In a way the nuclear industry is much more responsible than Big OIL because at least the nuclear industry takes responsibility of the waste product while Big OIL does not even acknowledge let alone take responsibility of the waste product of their product.

[@fellowyorkshireman2391]

Again you have provided another great video showing how nuclear should have more investment as an extra alterative energy source. Do you think it would be expensive to new and used fossil fuel engines to work with alcohol?

[@kasel1979krettnach]

why is open air storage in the desert not an option ?

[@erikaskeroth9720]

Nuclear dust is going to get in to the atmosphere by wind, water and animals. The same reason why the sarcophagus was built around the chernobyl reactor. Instead of just leaving the core after it was buried in sand and boron. 👍

[@kasel1979krettnach]

@@erikaskeroth9720 well the fuel pellets will be stil be contained in the cladding as i would keep the fuel element intact. so the actual fission products would not be exposed to the atmosphere at all. the Zr-Steel cladding would corrode after some decades / centuries but that should be detectable with drones. I guess primary risk is theft or sabotage or something of the sort, but on the other hand the waste would stay accessible for future breeder reactors to make good use of it. Maybe the channel owner Elina has a thought about it.

[@erikaskeroth9720]

@@kasel1979krettnach I understand were you are comming from. I am no Nuclear scientist just an interested layman. But as long as the used fuel is encapsulated the biggest threat is probably as you say terrorists trying to create a dirty bomb. I hope Dr. Charatsidou see your comment and answers the question she is very good at explaining.

[@atheistpeace7579]

have you done any videos on the new nuke plant designs?

[@KelebrimbearX]

In the US alone in 2021 there were 46,980 automotive deaths. In contrast in 2022 there were 158 Airline fatalities. Yet people are much more afraid of flying than driving. Sound familiar?

[@raulbeienheimer]

Kudos to you Elina on the "I feel..." (that goes in line with perspective on JH's videos).

[@francisfullwood3330]

Ok! Here's my opinion :) - You know that you are talking to a real PHD when you show a graph and the first thing the PHD looks for is the source. Way to go! Love it! - Journalism has to review their practice. They should always report informations without biais (that should be their expertise actually). But they can have a ''In my opinion'' portion but only in the discussion part and not when you are disclosing the informations. We have to keep in mind that all of us had an education based on ''we learn first and then we make an opinion on something''. So when a person who's not an expert in the subject get the information for the first time, all we say in the beginning may forge that person opinion. We have to be careful on this. - Finally, Here's my question to Elina. How do you work in the lab with those nails? :P They are so long that I think they can pierce any gloves! :P Elina you are awesome. Keep the good work!

[@rossheikkila6959]

If I had the drive to spend my life this way Nuclear Physics I would have liked. Thank you for dumbing it down to digest.

[@gerrywillmott6484]

Excellent blog, keep it up👍

[@latentdiscourse4357]

When you say that it’s a normal dose of radiation when living near a nuclear power plant is that measured over a year? Equivalent to less of an x ray every year?

[@fuselpeter5393]

Elina, we need more people like you. I hope more of these close minded anti-nuclear types will watch content like yours and maybe start overthinking their emotional biases and look for the facts.

[@alkman9880]

Why dont we build fast neutron ones to eliminate the toxicity of the long lasting waste? Is it the cost?

[@chapter4travels]

Very simple, 1 kg of uranium utilized in a breeder reactor would provide you with all the energy you would need for a lifetime. 1 kg of uranium costs about $50 dollars, there is no money to be made with nuclear power.

[@Highspade]

Thank you for the well-informed videos.

[@mivact]

Well done. "Probably" just a random thing. As I was watching this, it was interrupted by an ad for solar power.

[@exquisitedoomlapointe185]

Once you start to debate political issues with a balanced and honest approach you start to realize just how many bad faith actors there are out there, it's a shame. But don't let that get to you, they are playing a role, you iust have to play yours better and keep debunking, you're not going to change them but you absolutely will be heard by the silent majority. Great video.

[@SK-vg3xh]

Their logic is like " Dont use a car, you might face an accident, and you may die"

[@1crazypj]

Hi Elina, I don't know if you will read this but I hope so. I think the major issue (after unforeseen accidents) is private companies WILL put profits above safety at some time. (particularly in America) The next issue is complacency in staff. I've only ever visited one nuclear plant and that was over 50 years ago when I was still in school.(it's been decommissioned for a long time) 'We' were on the viewing platform right next to a reactor Personally, I wouldn't have a problem living next door to a nuclear power plant, I would be more worried about 'bad actors' and natural disasters, anything that could damage the plant would probably 'take me out' before any radiation could. I'm still hopeful that Thorium reactors will become main power source in future. If Thorium had had 60 years of development it would be proving far less 'dangerous' as it's purported to be able to use the high level waste currently being stored for power generation. Death toll of different power generation was a pretty interesting statement (it's been decommissioned for a long time) Personally, I wouldn't have a problem living next door to a nuclear power plant, I would be far more worried about 'bad actors' or 'natural disasters' as anything capable of damaging a nuclear power plant would 'take me out' way before radioactive material could

[@HyperFocusMarshmallow]

3:37 “double think” doesn’t have the connotation of carefully thinking over something twice. The term is used in the novel 1984 to refer to statements like “war is peace”. But you intention is clear.

[@mrrolandlawrence]

5:50 actually im old enough to remember before the 2 major accidents. the main opposition point for nuclear was nuclear = nuclear weapons.

[@leetabor5286]

I like how you call out Johnny for "I feel that..., etc." Feelings are important, but facts should be the driving force for the feelings of a journalist, particularly since they have so much influence over their audience. Thanks Elina for helping me to understand this better.

[@cammobus]

How about how dirty solar panel and LiPO manufacturing is

[@taxibaanyoutube9156]

Funny fact: Nuclear energy production is the least deathly way of making electricity. Acording to a news paper from a few years ago the average death rate was only 6 poeple at year.

[@krunoslavregvar477]

Elina, I support you and your rational voice which is based in your own knowledge & science related by science & technology about atomic source of energy production! 👍🍀✌️🍀👍

[@travishunter8573]

Ok i get you like to pick this stuff apart but the reason she asked what happened in 2011 is to allow him to introduce that incident. Its not because she actually doesnt know. She is playing the rule of someone who doesnt know anything so that johnny can hit the points he wants to talk about at specific times in the video

[@rahul_yt615]

It's actually good to hear Nuclear Physicist like Elina's perspective on the topic bcz a layman can't grasp much of the data mentioned in the references. Had the video been about transistors/VLSI integrated circuits of which I have a proficiency in, would have understood far more better.

[@johncarter1137]

The associated cost must include government contributions for a fair comparison to be made. I heard a person explaining that his electric car was cheap because he only paid $36,000.00 for it. I reminded him that because of the tax credits he received, I actually helped him purchase it at that price that I helped make up the difference on what he paid verses what the car actually cost.

[@Arasa941]

Why is he not using ppt ?

[@Bryzerse]

The pair of them have such a weird dynamic, so that whenever one person is speaking the other acts like a total idiot and is shocked by everything. That and their oversimplification of most of the information really makes it seem they aren't trying to give a really objective presentation at all. Not to mention Greenpeace!

[@hokkikokki]

Really good video. The only gripe that I have for Elina is, in her video at 23 min about what is nuclear waste. So often it is forgotten, that a huge amount of nuclear power plants are in the end nuclear waste. Not all parts of course and not all parts is the waste for thousands of years, but not only the fuel pellets are the waste that needs to be solved.

[@Tommy6860]

One thing I would like to see is how nuclear waste is stored and why it is stored in such ways. Like, how much spent nuclear fuel can be placed in a disposal compartment (underground, etc) in proximity to each component? Would allowing such proximity create a waste-like fission process or can the waste be stored safely all together? Also, the various ways waste can be stored safely and easily accessed again if the waste can be used again for energy production (which would no longer be waste lol).

[@Skumevil]

What ever happened to reporting the facts? I don't care about "feelings", I want the facts and where the facts came from, I will decide how I feel. Sad, this has become the norm for "journalists". I agree with Elina, Johnny is more of a blogger than a journalist.

[@capicolaspicy]

So many do not realize Fukishima was not an example of nuclear power being bad, it is an example of short sighted humans using poor design planning and no one catching it! Emergency generators being near or below sea level and thinking a puny man-made barrier is goping to help when they grossly underestimated the barrier walls height requirement!?! JUST getting the backup power plan right in the first place would have made the whole thing a non-issue.

[@lunsmann]

I recall reading the Japanese govt had sent a request to all their nuclear power station operators to increase the height of their sea walls due to new evidence of a larger than previously know tsunami 350 years in the past (a mystery tsunami that had finally had it's source identified - Subduction zone on the shoreline of Washington State). Apparently the owners of the Fukushima Daiichi plant chose to ignore that non binding request as their plant was close to it's decommissioning date already. The article I ready also mentioned the other plants had increased their sea wall heights and were unaffected by the tsunami as a result. Those seawalls are very effective.

[@Limpi43]

@@lunsmann You're right. Every green smart@ss talks about Fukushima Daiichi all the time, but none of them even mention Fukushima Daini.

[@andrewleyden2752]

In minor defence of their video, for most (not all) of the valid point of criticisms you make, they correct it directly afterwards, notably when discussing accidents v. risk assessments. I think a lot of it comes from the format they chose for the video, which was "perceived fear" v. "reality." Agree they totally flubbed it in places though, e.g. when conflating fuel rods v. spent rods.

[@musicworld5432]

Love you ❤ and your videos ❤

[@JeyPeyy]

"WHAT HAPPENED IN 2011?" Amazing acting 👏

[@Iam_rishuraj]

Great idea to describe it❤❤