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?👩🏽‍🔬☢️

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

I love how internet gives experts in their field their own channels to discuss the topics. I hope your channel grows even much bigger 😊

Moral of the story, never trust a journalist.

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.

I love Elina's big brain!

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 ).

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

On point about journalists sharing their feelings!

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

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

This video is amazing! Thank you, Elina!

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

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

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!

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.

Elina, thanks for this video.

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.

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.

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

Johnny Harris isn't a Journalist, he makes some interesting videos but his version of the story.

Thank you for the well-informed videos.

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.😊😊😅

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?

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

*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.

Thank you so much, good job.

The politics of Nuclear have been horrible. I live in Hokkaido, a very left leaning part of Japan, and very anti nuclear, which had a couple of years ago a complete blackout of the whole island for a couple of days because after the Nuclear Power plant of the island was shutdown for government "inspections" (which continue to this day, over 10 years, without any sign of stopping anytime soon), a big chunk of the grid agglomerated in a single coal power plant, that had troubles after an earthquake, the grid lost its balance after that, and it completely shut down, and even after that experience, people are suing the nuclear power plant for being "dangerous" even though it hasn't run for over 10 years, and in fact the local Sapporo court ordered the power plant to never get turned on again because of this suit, and now they are going at it at the High court, and once again, this plant is also fighting government inspections, which by the way, wasted over 9 years asking the plant owners to show that the soil was stable, even though this was already done back when the plant was constructed, and the regulators basically started to ask them to show for ridiculous things like, "show that there will never be a crack forming in the base rock of the soil", and after showing that, after all these years, they are for the first time asking them to show they have good practices put in place to avoid problems from a Tsunami or a volcanic eruption. I think that by the time they show everything the plant will be way beyond the age of decommissioning.

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.

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

The one source on youtube for credible info on nuclear tech

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.

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. 👍🏻

Excellent blog, keep it up👍

I love how factual you always are.

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

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.

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?

Great idea to describe it❤❤

Please don't call Johnny Harris a journalist

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

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.

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.

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.

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? 😅

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?

Love you ❤ and your videos ❤

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.

"WHAT HAPPENED IN 2011?" Amazing acting 👏

I have only recently found your videos, and find them very interesting and informative. In the 1960's I grew up in Aiken,SC near the Savannah River Plant (aka The Bomb Plant), and in the 80s and 90s, as a truck driver I delivered there many times. That place made the Simpsons plant seem perfectly run. If you are interested let me know.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

Thank you Elina!

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.

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

She says roughly, "...but nowadays, safety of airlines is so much higher that we generally rarely wonder if getting on a plane just this once might see us crash." And my immediate realization was, "...unlike ValuJet in the 90's where they had SUPER cheap fares but especially in the mid-to-later 90's, where 'I might die for this ticket price' was an actual consideration for standard fliers to have." I mean, we KNEW it, and loved their super-cheap prices enough to KNOW we might ACTUALLY die if they didn't maintain the plane properly today or whatever, but they were SUPER cheap prices! We gambled. People are dumb. Including me too in some ways, I mention! It's not like I'm 'better than everyone all the time' or something. I don't fall prey to some logical fallacies, but I still fall for others, and sometimes I too accepted the ValuJet Gamble because a $50 ticket was an INSANE value back then! Airlines and nuclear power are excellent examples of how open investigations, a no-fault investigation process, AND 'proper government regulation and rules' have made the industries wildly-safer. PERFECTLY safe? Of course not...but like that submarine-collapse idiot said, "There's risk even involved in just getting out of bed in the morning!" and he was right! In 2011, a CDC study found that 233,600 people were treated in an emergency room for injuries sustained in the bathroom. With 311.6 million people in the US in 2011, that's a per-capita wounding rate of 75 per 100,000. Wounding, of course, vs deaths per 100,000, but whatever...this is an example. Pinch of salt, though, these only mostly-compare apples to are-those-apples? Anyway, 24.6 deaths per "A terawatt is what 150,000 people use per annum", so divide by 2/3 to get about 16.4 deaths per 100,000 people. So you are 4.6x more likely to be harmed in the bathroom in any given year than you are by COAL power in any given year...nuclear, I can't even calculate that small of a fraction of a percent without a real calculator. Eh...fine, I grabbed my calculator. 0.03 per 150k, so 0.02 per 100k, and then 75 divided by 0.02 (unless lunch made me math silly...which may happen sometimes!) gives us, "Going to the bathroom is 3,750x more dangerous than nuclear power in an average day." Let's ban bathrooms..! /s 25:45 "I definitely feel..." the lad says. "Yes," says I, "But like with Republicans at the moment...and other people too at other times but ESPECIALLY them with the COVID vaccine thing...your feelings are not FACTS, and I am dismayed that a supposedly-Journalist is so "I feel"." Her montage of his many 'feelings' was especially amusing to me. Well, 'amusing in a sense'...but Feelings Are Not Facts. Scaremongering about your 'feelings' is fake news, is disinformation. His "I Feeeeeeel like nuclear power is such awful poison!" will become one of those 'THIS IS WHY WE SHOULD NEVER USE NUCULUR POWER EVUR AGAIN JOURNALIST SAYS SO HASHTAGALLCAPS HASHTAGNUCLEARRADIATIONISTERRIFYING!!!ELEVENTY!1!ONEONE!!1" video clips that could go viral among the anti-nuclear folks. Which, I mean, they can choose their own things that they find funny/agreeable, sure, but this is supposed to be unbiased. This has, however, quoted biased source after biased source so far (by about 30 minutes in at this posting). He is the excellent/bad/obvious example of "News having an agenda." He's afraid of 'invisibu rediattion theengs!' and wants them to go away because 'feelings'. STOP FEELING, and just do your job! Put 'feelings' in the comments under your own video'...or at least list this as an "I hate invisible dangers and want to pretend like I won't have to worry about them ever again" video. Ugh. Let me see what happens in the rest of the video now that my 'math break rant' is over. :-\

Nuclear energy received a tremendous amount of funding for R&D for decades - that's why it's a practical and fairly cost effective way of generating base load worldwide. The majority of that funding just happened a very long time ago. It's still being funded - but most of that is going towards / being wasted on fusion. I wholeheartedly agree with everything else you've said here.

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!

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.

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

I feel like the intent of the original video has been misunderstood. The idea is that they would do a sort of "good cop / bad coop" sort of situation. They even talk about it in the video where they explicitly said they want to do a "skeptic / optimist" style of dialogue. They obviously used bad and biased sources to try and then give an answer to those unfortunately popular arguments. He is not trying to misinform, he's trying to represent the skeptic side, to provide her the opportunity to answer to those.

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

Woof, hash. Thanks for confirming some things and pointing out discrepancies.

Me: So i expect Johhny to cite non-biased surveys, not present data showcasing public opinion/interest DIRECTLY after nuclear accidents, not compare industries with HIGHLY different variables that can cause deaths, properly undestand the different steps and components needed for the nuclear assembly, not constantly shove his personal feelings and mindset and state things factually and apply the same investing factors that made renewable energy affordable to nuclear energy research while also pointing the political/media influences that actively cause this area of energy source to lag behind. Johnny: So i feel a bit malakas. Jokes aside i recently found your channel and through your briliant takes and degree of knowledge i can't just stop feeling a bit more proud knowing that greek minds still shine out there. Keep it up!

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

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?

Hi Elina! Thank your interesting videos :) I have a question: today internet is full courses and resources, even on nuclear physics, maths, plasma physics and related (MIT OCW has at least a few courses on nuclear physics). Could you please do a video were you list some free resources so that someone who just wants to dive a bit deeper than "pop-sci level" can take a dive a bit deeper into nuclear physics?

Fish fingers😂 totally stealing that!

Hello from Switzerland, first of all, I am absolutely not an expert/scientist. To my satisfaction, nuclear power is being phased out and in the meantime 1 power plant has been shut down and our energy production focuses on renewable energies (mainly hydropower, plus solar and wind power, of course). Regarding nuclear power: From my point of view, the two major risks are accidents and waste. As the past shows, accidents in particular have a great impact, as shown by Tschnobyl and Fukushima, both events also affected the lives of people far away from the events, one must not forget that! But what concerns me no less and probably doesn't really flow into the cost calculation is the "waste", of course, the fuel rods/residues, we all know, but not only what happens when a nuclear power plant is dismantled, the building materials, at least the ones directly were near the fuel rods, as well as tubes? I don't think they are completely unencumbered after many years of operation. These can only be disposed of via long-term storage like other radioactive waste. I don't really know the half-life, but it takes (felt) an eternity for these things to be stored, safe from environmental impact, but also from unauthorized access. I'm not so sure if these costs are all really worth considering or if it's conveniently left to the taxpayers. Other energy sources clearly also have certain risks, but these are usually in a limited radius (a wind turbine that is thrown around is probably 50-100 meters) or in a certain direction (water flows downhill). Both could be taken into account during planning, but this becomes more difficult with a nuclear power plant. To be fair, however, it must also be mentioned that nuclear power naturally provides a very large amount of energy and can usually do this consistently over a longer period of time compared to solar and wind energy. The industry also has to think about the rotor blades of the wind turbines, which are obviously difficult to recycle because they are made of composite materials, which is very problematic. Finally, yes, Radioactivity/Radioactive Waste is green and lit.🤣

Always thought it was a bit strange that Germans used Fukushima as the catalyst for ending nuclear energy in their country (when earthquake followed by tsunami isn’t really something they’ve got to worry about) compared to even using Chernobyl although even that seems unreasonable to use in Germany for ending nuclear power use; especially when France next door isn’t ending nuclear power use and the westerlies makes it pretty pointless to end nuclear power use in Germany if France doesn’t also end their use which they won’t thankfully

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.

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!

the problem is not the big accident that happened, its the lack of security in the power plants, the lack of controls and the greed of the owners together with not enough controls, (Sellafield in UK toxic waste dumped on the people there, Doel in Belgium where the crack in the wall are so big that you can look through, Penly and Cattenom also crack in the walls, the list is much longer) the technology could be useful but not in the hand of privates, not with the absolute missing respect of the danger and the people. Besides the fact that the cost is to high and with heating up the climate the reactors are less useful, not to mention what to do with the waste

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.

Thank you.

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.

"what the fish fingers" 🤣🤣

8:29 Fun fact: In the USA nuclear power provides about 20% of energy production, meanwhile elevators, escalators and automatic doors consume about 20% of the USA's energy supply. Ergo, nope nuclear is not necessary for the USA if all of you start walking up stairs instead of convenience.

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?

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.

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

solar and wind power is cheaper because there is no big security needed, no extreme cooling, and not expensive people working on it, not even the liquid salt power plants use humans to adjust the mirrors or keep the temperature, this facility can be built and run for 20 years or longer with nearly no interaction and additional cost, France shows how the cost for newer power plants exploded

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.