I saw this BBC documentary a few months ago and was shocked and sickened by the blatant propaganda and misleading information given. I was also upset a that trusted and respected network like the BBC could try and pass this garbage off as investigative journalism! Unbelievable! Jim al Khalili should go live in the exclusion zone in Chernobyl or near the destroyed reactors in Fukushima! Or have the decency to tour that Japanese schoolyard that he says is safe without protective boots!
Part 3: Do not buy European food ever because you don't know what's radioactive and what is not. It will be radioactive for 100s or 1000s of years. Turkey got a hell of a fallout and the Turkish government was so annoyed with Russia, it picked all of its radioactive tea and sent it back to Russia. But you'll see your health food shops are full of dried Turkish apricots, dried Turkish tomatoes and the like." -Dr Helen Caldicott, Conference on The Nuclear Danger, Montreal. March 18, 2011
Part 2: However, the New York Academy of Science has just, to its credit, translated 5,000 papers from Russian because there were very few papers written in English because no one wanted to find out. Almost a million people have died as a result of Chernobyl. … Forty percent of the European landmass is currently radioactive. There are farms in England whose lambs are so full of caesium 137 they can't be sold on the market.
Dr Helen Caldicott, Conference on The Nuclear Danger: Nuclear War and Nuclear Power, Montreal. March 18, 2011
Part 1: "The International Atomic Agency which promotes nuclear power has an unholy alliance with the World Health Organization which says you must not examine any nuclear accidents unless we say you can. Therefore, WHO says only 56 people died at Chernobyl.
Part 2: Hypothetically, if you could take a pound of plutonium and distribute that in every person's lung on earth, that's enough to kill every person on earth. Each of those six reactors (Fukushima, Japan) contain more than 250 KG of plutonium." -Dr Helen Caldicott, Conference on The Nuclear Danger: Nuclear War and Nuclear Power, Montreal. March 18, 2011
Dr Helen Caldicott, Conference on The Nuclear Danger: Nuclear War and Nuclear Power, Montreal. March 18, 2011
Part 1: "Plutonium has a half life of 24,400 years so it lasts about a half a million years. … Plutonium, you only need 5 kilos to make a bomb and each reactor makes 500, no, 250 KG a year. It's so toxic that a microgram is carcinogenic, that's a millionth of a gram.
600,000+ spent fuel rods were stored at Fukushima, most of those were destroyed during the initial explosions. The Japanese government has been burning tsunami debris in southern Japan, releasing radiation into the atmosphere.
Radiation contamination from Fukushima is worldwide.
BBC's Jimbo needs to go live in Fukushima and work in the destroy nuclear plant if he "believes" it to be safe. He's an idiot shill who should be ashamed of himself and his lies.
Japan has been contaminated forever. All of the North Hemisphere has been soaked in radiation since March 2011. Fukushima is far worse than Chernobyl.
Fukushima is the worst nuclear accident in the history of the planet.
Agreed, worst nuclear accident in history and JIMBO should show the world how safe it is and call it home from now on. We can check back in 12 months for a full report.
What an ignorant, obnoxious, pompous ass - but what else should we expect from the BBC pool of so called journalists.
Deceitful and shameful. May his offspring grow horns that glow in the dark!
(Well not really, don't wish that on innocent beings, but I hope people stop and think) !!!
The planet's owners (bankers, monarchies, big business) have no shame when they use these idiot shills to promote their garbage. Their intent is purely evil and demonic.
This guy is citing CNN for his facts? Funny. He clearly has very little knowledge of the nuclear incident here nor the elements needed to create the results he is jabbering on about. Nuclear scientists, educators and independent agencies versus a d-bag on YouTube...makes me chuckle.
@Saigaijin69, CNN's source for full meltdowns was the Japanese govt. As well the second media source I cite gives the times for pressure-vessel breech estimated by NISA and by Tepco itself. Tepco admits it many times since then too.
Given that that information is presented to you here and linked in the description, it's impossible to fathom from what universe you acquired the misinformation that the consensus of the scientific community believes there was no meltdown at Fukushima.
You obviously are a shill and need to educate yourself. If you live in Japan, then you need to leave Japan. It is contaminated forever. The Japanese government has lied to citizens.
Better still, if you believe Fukushima is safe ... go live there!
Ridiculous person - he's producing a commercial, denying the danger while wearing protective clothing himself. Who made this concept? Did this asshole have been payed with public money?
I seen a prerecorded vid of that program and was shocked at how inaccurate he got the facts the fact he called him self what he does is quite shocking
You take the data then don't read like I have said. Smoking and other industrial causes of cancer are included in the reports in your video. Why do you ignore that? I bet it's because you have NOT read the report!
@bigstiggerNo1, you're the one who can't read! In your universe, the BEIR VII risk model doesn't exist, the scientists all concluded the dose-response of cancer to radiation in A-bomb survivors was caused by smoking, lol! Try to find the planet Earth!
And just as I predicted, the financial costs of a disaster was a good measure of the risk of an industry, until your argument fell apart, then you just forget that line of argument when it can no longer be used to achieve your desired conclusion.
@bigstiggerNo1, citing the atomic-bomb survivors cohort as I do is hardly cherry picking data because it's the radiation-exposure cohort scientists use to predict radiation effects.
Chernobyl is still unfolding, and data from it are not considered sufficient to create risk models as with the A-bombs. And 25 years after the A-bombs there was no statistically significant increase in solid cancers among the survivor cohort. Yet in less than 25 years post-Chernobyl, thyroid-cancer cases surged.
It's Idots like you that have weakened the Stance of USA and UK in the World. I like that China and India and others are coming up. I hate that White immature idiots like you have ruined the world you live in and blame it on technology. The Fukashima reports will be released soon and then you lot of nambt pamby idiot will have less to shout about.
The Japanese are very meticulous and will release all the data. They are already planning to repopulate!
@bigstiggerNo1, BP set up a $20 billion fund to cover claims from the spill. [1] I've seen a lot of estimates for Fukushima. The Telegraph reports that Tepco faces up to ¥4.5 trillion in liabilities, [2] which I calculate equals $59 billion. I've also seen higher estimates for Fukushima's costs. [3]
So Fukushima may be more costly than the BP spill.
Google:
[1] BP Establishes $20 Billion Claims Fund
[2] "Tokyo Electric Power Co shares plunge"
[3] "faces more than $350 billion in compensation"
Hey, can anyone tell me what the situation in the UK is, with regards to radiation? Should we have been taking some king of medication? I was going through a lot of crap in my personal life, when the explosion happened, and consequently didn't bother looking into the situation.
Hey, well done! There is also another TV shows by the BBC that is purely pro nuclear propaganda. It is an episode of "bang goes the theory" you should look into that.
Also did you ever get a reply from the BBC on this issue and your complain letter? I would love to see what they had to say.
BBC and CNN utilize similar propagandistic, creepy directing tactics to get on their viewers good side while simultaneously dropping ignorance supernovas of epic mass. This guy is supposed to be believable because of his lax demeanour, sheik clothes and suave accent – what a ridiculous farce, why don't the British storm these bastards studios and take it down for good?
great video the drones think because the bbc said it's safe it must be. The bbc is the same shitty government sponsored media outlet that spread lies about iraq and wmd's. RT and al jazeera are the only ones reporting on fukushima so hat's off to them
I read somewhere quite recently the japanese government is burning contaminated radioactive waste. This is a disgrace. The people of japan and the world are being lied to to protect the global nuclear agenda. They raise the radiation exposure limit to safe levels! No such thing caesium 137 has a half life of 30 years and can cause bone cancer among other serious cancers! Radiation is deadly, how can we use this technology when we as humans don't fully understand it's potential. No to nuclear!
no u measure safety buy coopering those two number: that that didn't fail/fail and what type of fail it was ? I personalty think that Japanese was very very stupid building nuclear reactor at the cost. They should build them inside the mountains. Drill the deep hole in solid rock and there put your reactor.
@sebek23b you can't build a reactor in the mountains there is not enough of a water source. You will find all rectors are built on the coastline because there is vast amounts of water and an endless supply to cool the reactor core's down. Without water you can't have a nuclear reactor
It's a conspiracy! They know it kills us and they're happy! Wearing boots in a radiation cleanup, when he before claimed that it was *completely* safe - what a hypocrite!
But seriously now, come on dude, the documentary may have been inaccurate, but they did clearly mention that the areas were contaminated and that the matter needs careful SCIENTIFIC consideration. Like it or not,until fusion is here,it's nukes, coal and gas. And I'd prefer G4 nukes any day over the other options.And yes, IMBY.
@totoritko wrote: "but they did clearly mention that the areas were contaminated and that the matter needs careful SCIENTIFIC consideration."
Can you quote and/or time-cite that?
There are some comments he deserves credit for, like he said it remains to be seen if non-thyroid cancers will increase wrt Chernobyl. Given that 25 years after the A-bombs, the Japanese survivors showed no rise in solid cancers implies that no rise is what we might expect to see 25 years after Chernobyl.
@iamgoddard24:43 - the interviewed scientist clearly states that cesium will remain a problem for a long time to come. Also, immediately following, they state that the researchers found high levels of radiation in top-level soil, with levels of up to 500x the background level having been detected. Further, the site of the measurement isn't even in the exclusion zone, they state. They continued with pretty alarming results of government-conducted tests across Fukushima-prefecture.
@totoritko Also, I think that the point of the program was to bring a bit of sanity into the discussion. That's because every time somebody mentions radiation, the public simply goes into a haywire craze "OMG!!1! We're all gonna die!" and they think of Hiroshima or some such nonsense. Categorical statements like "Nukes can never be made safe!" often play more on people's fear of the unknown (radiation), rather than being grounded in sound logic.
@totoritko I'm all for sustainable energy sources and I don't care if it's nukes, wind or solar. My only requirements are: it has to be cheap, abundant, practical and impact the environment as little as possible. So far,G4 nukes seem like the best bet for all of these:cheap+abundant fuel, can burn our current waste, scalable & inherently passively safe (e.g. LiFTR, mentioned in the program, isn't pressurized, so it *can't* explode and its fuel solidifies if cooled, so it can't leak).
But they just report fallout *levels*, which means nothing without interpretation within a risk model such as the BEIR VII. He does later say (26:23) the evacuation was done to "protect people's health effectively." But his caveat term 'effectively' by some definitions seems, in this context, intended to case doubt and imply to *supposedly* protect health.
So I see no "careful SCIENTIFIC consideration" of risks.
@iamgoddard I'm not a native speaker, but in my mind "effectively" in no way implies "supposedly". The way I understood it, is that while exclusion zones are effective at preventing exposure, they come at a significant social & economical cost to the population - that's why the decisions about them are more complex than it looks (26:20). This needs mentioning, because most people tend to see issues as one-sided and B/W.
@totoritko, my reply isn't contingent on his meaning of 'effectively', for either way there's no appeal to careful scientific consideration as you suggested.
If as you seem to think he's allowing that the fallout levels are harmful, then he's only making a *utilitarian* appeal for letting some people die in order to avoid costs of relocation. But utilitarian ethics is outside the domain of science. So again, I see no appeal to careful scientific consideration in the cited content.
@iamgoddard Unfortunately, while "every life is infinitely more valuable than money" is a nice poetic statement, that is not really how we live our lives. The classic example is airline safety. Planes have issues, but only when an issue has killed or significantly threatened enough people are we going to do something about. We could devise a totally safe mode of transportation, but each ticket would cost $trillion. Would you be willing to pay that much, for 0.00001% more safety?
@iamgoddard wrote: "for either way there's no appeal to careful scientific consideration as you suggested".
From the documentary talking about whether we should pursue nuclear energy development (56:33): "But my hope is that whatever we decide, it will be based on a careful assessment of rational science."
@totoritko, you switched the meaning of your claim to save your claim. You said "they did clearly mention that the areas were contaminated and that the matter needs careful SCIENTIFIC consideration."
Then after your first cited support was shown baseless, you cited his closing statement, but it's about nuclear energy per se, has no direct link to contaminated areas and necessarily implies that it is his view that is "a careful assessment of rational science."
@totoritko, if people could opt out of other people's choice for nuclear power like they could opt out of their personal choice to fly, you might have an analogy. But choosing nuclear power isn't exactly a personal choice.
You couldn't honestly say you advocate nuclear power because just *you* are willing to take the risks. You'd have to say you advocate nuclear power because you're willing to take the risks AND impose these risks on others, whether they're willing to accept them or not.
@GoddardsJournal Airplanes certainly do cause collateral effects, e.g. crashes result in ground fatalities, operation of airfields contributes to noise and air pollution, etc.
Nevertheless, we've gotten side-tracked from the main issue, which is whether the presenter had an "agenda". I think that, while there's legitimate criticism to be made against certain factual claims in the movie, he did clearly label his opinions where stated, and I see no "ulterior" motives on his part.
@totoritko, comparative-risk analogies are complex and rife with apples-to-oranges incompatibilities. At least each person can privately opt to not put others on the ground at risk by opting to not fly; but each person can't opt not to do nuclear energy. When it comes to driving, adult pedestrians and other drivers you might hit have all de facto consented to the risks involved.
I don't know of any ulterior motives Al-Kalili does or might have. I think he believes in nuclear.
@iamgoddard Well, about the risk analogies, I too am reluctant to frame the choice of power generation technology as a moral issue, and would like to firmly keep our feet grounded in factual claims. However, the reason I started commenting is that I think that you are trying to claim that Al-Khalili has ulterior motives. This is most clearly shown around 9:06 of your video. You claim Al-Khalili decries the evacuation of a town - he actually does no such thing. He clearly ...
@totoritko, to say he doesn't decry the evacuation is just otherworldly. The entire program and his central thesis is unambiguously a case against evacuating populations from nuclear disasters to wit his wistful comments on the now-empty city that you cite clearly constitute decrying its abandonment.
@iamgoddard ... reports that he will investigate whether the exclusion zone is justified and then presents arguments for and against it. He then goes on to cite measurements, puts these measurements into perspective, looks at it from a political and economical perspective, social dilemmas, etc. Ultimately, he sums up (at 26:54) that the containment zone is costly socioeconomically, and given current factors, may not actually be fully justified. To explore the reasons he then ...
@totoritko, Al-Kalili's citing levels of fallout is not the presentation of a case for evacuation. You can't seem to understand that a numeric level of fallout has no meaning without interpretation within a risk model.
The careful scientific evaluation you insist exists in the program can't exist because the cited levels of fallout are not interpreted within any scientific risk model such as the BEIR VII or ICRP models. Claiming science while omitting scientific modeling is bizarre.
Here's what an argument for evacuation looks like. Al-Kalili cites the Fukushima safety level of 20 mSv/y. [1] In the U.S. National Academy of Sciences' risk model, 20 mSv is predicted to cause cancer in 955 and kill 354 of 100,000 female infants; to cause cancer in 675 and kill 269 of 100,000 5 yo girls, as two examples. [2] Exclusion-zone doses and thus risks would be higher still. That's presenting the case for evacuation.
@GoddardsJournal, and those would be cancers that become detectable at some time over the subsequent lifespan of those children, not necessarily when they are children.
@iamgoddard ...goes to Ukraine and presents the current (claimed) consensus that even an incident as bad and as badly handled as Chernobyl, might actually not be such a health catastrophe as previously thought. It's still pretty bad, but ultimately, he doesn't think that it's as bad as most critics (such as yourself) make it out to be.
Now this is where your arguments are most persuasive, but also need the most examination. The studies you cite are complex and quite prone to error..
@iamgoddard .. the studies might be right, but need a good and hard skeptical look. If true, then they do warrant a reexamination of our public policies and directions of future energy research. However, the rhetoric you employed towards the end of your video to frame Al-Khalili as some sort of an insincere person with ulterior motives is what bugged me the most. A rational honest argumentation is great, but scare tactics alienate much of your audience. And that's why I spoke up.
@totoritko says: "He clearly reports that he will investigate whether the exclusion zone is justified and then presents arguments for and against it."
In reality he presents no argument for evacuation. If he did, he would have cited a risk model and correlated the evacuation-dose criterion with predicted cancer incidence and mortality within the risk model. That's the justification for evacuation. Yet he does not even acknowledge that risk models exist. Your claims are pure hogwash.
....total propaganda by a British Academic stooge - a person that shoudl know better - But alas his pockets are lined with the coins of the nuclear power industry
What a disgrace to the scientific community that a so called Expert in Nuclear physics could make this pro nuclear spin doctored crap program.
Chernobyl has killed about 1 million people - and still counting.
Fukushima will be worse
And there will be more deaths than the Tsunami killed
Dozens of people have died of radiation poisoning already. Police, Emergency workers and anonymous labourers drafted in. The truth is simply being suppressed via the perverse invocation of patriotism.
It's stressing enough to live in a country where, due to absence of nuclear technology, people ignore the dangers and even the concept of radiation. Whenever I explain to them what radiation is and what it can do they actually believe it to be something too movie-like to be real. What's more frustrating, though, is seeing you argueing for the sake of accuracy in claims. Less deaths than reported is not a good thing per se. Every death counts. They never asked to die due to the mistakes of others
The comparison between A-Bomb survivors & Fukushima is incorrect. The people exposed to the A-Bomb received a single sudden & enormous dose of Gamma & Neutron radiation of 250 to 5000 millisieverts. Japanese Civilians are forecast to get an additional 1 or 2 millisieverts per year due to Fukushima (1/250th to 1/5000 of what the A-Bomb did).
@Diamonddavej, citation for your annual-exposure forecast data?
Indeed it has been assumed that the fast-dose rates of Abomb survivors would be worse than the slow-dose rate of chronic low-dose exposure. However, a meta-analysis of nuclear-worker studies found that low-dose rates are probably no safer and might actually cause higher cancer risk than the fast-dose rate exposure of Abomb survivors. [*]
[*] Google: "Is cancer risk of radiation workers larger than expected?"
@GoddardsJournal Jacob et al. (2009) excluded Mayak workers, who received low dose rates but high doses. Also, definition of low dose rate & low dose varies between study, no definition of LDRLD. These problems reduce statical power.
This is irrelevant nevertheless, as heath effects are unknown <20mSv/yr.
See: "Xenon 400,000 times normal found in Chiba air immediately after Fukushima nuke accident"
Despite the scary headline, people got only 0.0013 mSv/3months from Xe133.
@Diamonddavej, Jacob et al. were researching low-dose radiation, so their exclusion of a high-dose study was a logical feature, not a bug.
In the largest nuclear-worker study (Cardis et al. 2007), which found a radiation-dose relation to cancer, "90% of workers received cumulative doses below 50 mSv," and, "The overall average cumulative recorded dose was 19.4 mSv." That's over their entire employment periods, which was on average 10.5 years.
That's whole-body doses. How can that possible translate to the magnified effects of small particles lodged in organs giving continuous, targeted doses to specific tissues? Toss the precautionary principle out the window why don't ya?
@GoddardsJournal Civilians are limited to <20 mSv/year, or they have to evacuate. Again, the vast majority of Japanese will receive a far lower dose.
At the very low doses, <20 mSv/year, the effects are controversial & uncertain. Though, from what I read, there's a growing body of research that indicates, radiation below a certain level maybe harmless (maybe 20 mSv/year). But until we know more LNT should still be used.
@GoddardsJournal Also, "citation for your annual-exposure forecast data?"
36,478 citizens of the City of Fukushima wore dosimeters during September. 99% of the population received <0.3 mSv/month, 3.6 mSv/year. Since natural background is 2 to 3 mSv/year, the extra does due to Fukushima Daiichi would be ca. 0.6 to 1.6 mSv/year.
In: "Schoolgirl in Fukushima exposed to high level of radiation in September -Mainichi News, Nov. 2"
@GoddardsJournal My understanding is Fuku' type radiation is much worse than an A Bomb's. A Bomb leaves less radiation. Regardless, this is far from over. At least one and probably all 3 will hit the water table and then it will blow up. With millions of gallons of steam and water. Are you a lawyer? You systematically chew a nice hole in this professional liar.
@IExposeMormonism, Thanks. No, I'm not a lawyer. Right! The Hiroshima bomb released only 89 tera becquerels (TBq) of radiation, whereas the official estimate of just cesium137 from Fukushima was 15,000 TBq, reported Aug 25. [1] Comparative levels form cited source:
@Alchaeon1, the source I cited gives 89 TBq as the radiation released from Little Boy, which seems to imply from its full radioisotope spectrum. Though this isn't explicit. The limitation to just Cs137 is explicit only for Fukushima.
Is there a study that specifically compares health outcomes from internal vs external exposure? I believe the difference is base on reasonable hypotheses drawn from relevant evidence, not yet empirical findings from a study set out to compare the two.
The above-mentioned plant flavinoids are found to be much more protective against radiation damage than Vitamins C & E. Together, these vitamins are synergistically protective but nowhere near as powerful as Curcumin and Quercitin.
@darthvader5300 Humans have a natural capacity to cope with radiation, radiation <20 mSv/year maybe harmless.
Löbrich et al., 2005. In vivo formation and repair of DNA double-strand breaks after computed tomography examinations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102(25), 8984 -8989.
- Resveratrol, a compound most commonly associated with red wine is also a very potent radio-protectant, in supplement doses of 200mg, twice a day.
- Hesperidin was found to be very protective of DNA and of bone marrow, the blood-forming organ that's the most sensitive to radiation exposure, along with the brain and the gastrointestinal tract.
- Quercitin, which is found in fruits, vegetables, leaves and grains and
- Punicalagins, extracted from pomegranates.
- Alpha Lipoid Acid was found to actually reverse some effects of radiation damage in Chernobyl, returning the levels of oxidized protein compounds in the body caused by radiation exposure back to normal levels and in some cases, better than normal.
Plant flavinoids which were shown to be radio-protective include:
- Gingko biloba at a dose of 250-350mg per day; it was found to protect DNA from radiation damage. Ginger was found to protect animal DNA from massive exposure to Gamma radiation, the most destructive kind.- Garlic has also been found to protect against ionizing radiation.- Curcumin (turmeric extract) was found to be enormously protective as well as,
Several Plant-based Compounds Are Radio-Protective and BBC ignored this data in order to sensationalize on the Fukyshima disaster to boost their ratings.
Nuclear power is still the safest power source but it depends on what kind of reactor design you are using and how well designed and well built it is. The Fukushima nuclear incident is not a failure of nuclear energy but a failure of taking into account of what future disasters it will face before it was designed and built and ignoring the fact that it is a very old reactor already. The new reactors, especially military ones, will never suffer when hit by an earthquake or a tsunami!
To be honest at Chernobyl they expected ~million deaths from cancer, yet there were only ~9,000-but the problem is no cancer has a label saying Hi I'm caused by radiation or smoking etc. So we can't accurately say how many cancer patients were actually ill because of radiation-same at Fukushima.
I believe that Nuclear Power shouldn't be strongly used until we have the technology to make it safer-I think we should also pay attention to the Economic and Social disasters Fukushima has caused.
This bald headed disingenuous lackey for the lying colluding Tepco murderers speaks with forked tongue. And you, Goddard, do an excellent job of sewing his split speech together and clarifying his lies.. He speaks like a good defense lawyer for mafia murderers. Very slickery obfukuscation.. (My contribution to linguistics and pun on obfuscation and fukushima)
Not only the BBC, but the media as a whole have either been downplaying or completely ignoring the situation in Japan ever since the situation evolved from tsunami disaster to tsunami recovery and Nuclear disaster.
Most of the media in the world are owned by the same people that own nuclear reactors and have stakes in nuclear power.
whats the difference between fission & fusion? Seems, fusion uses all accumulated fuel immediately. Is their no way to nuke it with a small strategically placed explosive? implosive, shape. I don know?
@armaddajam, I've not researched fusion energy, so I also don't know. I hope it might be a truly safe nuclear energy, and from what little has crossed my path it seems it might be.
But then I have to be skeptical because when I take the time to research the claims of fission-energy advocates against objective scientific literature, I usually find they're misleading at best, very much like misleading advertisements for any other commercial product.
@armaddajam I met people working on fusion energy. They tell me Fusion generates neutrons, these particles make the interior of the reaction vessel radioactive after a while.
However, they are trying to work out what materials can be used inside the reaction vessel, in order to minimise this secondary radioactivity. They hope the radioactive isotopes created will be minimised and their short half-lives will mean any radioactivity created will decay away very quickly.
I have seen the standard of the BBC reporting going downhill very fast in the past few years - such irresponsibilty, such lack of social leadership - such a shame. Good you took the time to highlight this aspect of their recent gross negligence
It's not an error when you deliberately lie to the public. If that show had aired in Russia or China it would be rightly pilloried for the transparent State propaganda it is.
The # of deaths per terawatt due to Nuclear Power is far less than any other form of energy, with Hydroelectric (with first world safety standards, 2nd & 3rd world are quite different) coming in 2nd with more than double.
The bad side of this is most people just buy into the official story & are not perceptive enough to point out the obvious. Yes, most people are generally ignorantly gullible to the obvious. Very sad, yet would be a proven fact with indirect poles & surveys. All you have to do is ask someone what they saw in the room they were just in, many will not be able to recognize the potted plant sitting in the corner of the room. Or should i say MOST.
Al-Khalili looks, speaks, acts and maybe also thinks the same way as Richard "Mack" Machowicz, the Future Weapons host(Discovery Channel) and a former Navy Seal...he is appealing to rednecks
Very good debunk vid. Nuclear energy is ALWAYS dangerous! Why can't people understand that if something takes hundreds of years to degenerate-then it should not even be considered for usage. The BBC is paid off by the ones who want to spread nuclear usage & the public is at risk to all of the dangers that go with it. We need to educate more people on alternative energy & how it is already available. But, alas, the elite will not let this happen b/c they cannot make enough money off of it.
Thank you!!! I think the real issue is that the US and other westerners do NOT want a wave of Japanese emigrants flooding their shores trying to flee their ruined homeland. The contaminants are already in the food chain and the air. The Japanese should evacuate ASAP!!!
Nuclear energy is not safe at least in Japan. Because there's no way to protect nuclear power plants from earthquake. I think Japanese public learned the lesson from this disaster. I hope nuclear power plants stop lobbying Japanese government and move into geothermal energy like New Zealand's doing. By the way I still like BBC. As a Japanese I would prefer alternative energy over any other energy sources.
the bbc did not overlook that the effects of radiation takes years, his response was to the deaths accounted for at the time of the report about the earthquake and tsunami, why would he count the theoretical hundreds of thousands possible deaths when doing a report on the confirmed deaths. tho i suppose for what this video is, hearing about hundreds of thousands of deaths would be more satisfying to those fundamental against nuclear power. perhaps its the hardware and not the idea.
@ouellette666, yes he did overlook the differential mortality profiles of tsunamis and radiation. He's expressly prodding us (@ 1:57 ) to believe that nuclear accidents are relatively safe based on the differential deaths tolls of the tsunami vs the meltdowns as of Sept 14, 2011. That isn't even slightly ambiguous.
@GoddardsJournal they guy that did the "research" for the BBC is a idiot or a lier because evrybody who says that the fallout is safe should go to kiev, minsk and other citys in russia and look at the poor people and how the kids suffer 20+ years after the fallout
Predictably absurd propaganda nonsense from the so-called "BBC", a for decades highly "neo-liberalised" and thus biased, dumbed-down state-controlled media institution which generally does NOT seriously question or oppose any policy favored by HMG. HMG is at the preset time pro-nuclear. If the opposite were the case, this programme would not have been made / broadcast or would have had an opposite 'message'.
The BBC stance / propaganda 'line' will mostly assist and facilitate HMG policy implementation vis-a-vis public opinion 'development' and 'management'. Nobody knows how many people the Chernobyl catastrophe has killed or will kill... primarily because the world's major governments - all of them for various reasons 'pro nuclear' - have not wanted to 'go there' and so have not moved to properly / rigorously investigate its impact PUBLICLY.
this BBC shit4brains should be the #1 fukushima liquidator cleanup manager !!! LOL !! with NO protection but those boots/ sign this nukemeathead up and send him into all 3 nuclear cores with a helmet cam !! LMAO
I am not sure what to think...but I'm a surfer and my friend in Japan is still surfing there along with lots of others and exploring the waters and taking pics underwater there. Everything looks ok.
Many proponents of Nuclear energy have blinders on about it's dangers, not only in the short term, but the potential harm it can cause for generations if something goes wrong. If solar energy had received the funding that nuclear energy had received, we would not be at war in the middle east . It's not a either or argument, there are options that have never been presented to the public about choices of power production.
Well done ! Exposing yet another of the BBC's psudo scientific propaganda documentries. All of them are full of neuro linguistic programming, well spoken congenial brain washed YESMEN who are in reality sociopath. Because most peoples attention span has been sabotaged by the their subtle visual/audio programming and jingoistic soundbites they they think they can get away with it, but yet they are putting all of this garbage on record !!! Wonder what will happen to the BBC when people wake up ?
then that man is guilty of every person who will die, and get sick in the future. that is when more meltdowns happen as resalt of public dumbness as the bbc too, and everyone behind this lie. LUVBUG
the beeb have repeated this BS in a new program..bang goes the theory. this time at 7.30 on bbc 1. primetime unlike horizon. the theme again is radiation at low levels is not dangerous. Some might think there is an agenda here.
@iamgoddard not as far as i can see. its still on iplayer if you are able to view it. Its called 'bang goes the theory" It starts with an explanation of the science, particularly the cause of the hydrogen explosions, it then follows a similar line to the horizon program. For example the world foremost expert on chenobyl shows how more people died falling out of bed than died in the chernobyl disaster (i'm not kidding)
@thingfish333, thanks! And so officialdom is planning to invest 870 million euros (1.17 billion dollars) to build a new Chernobyl sarcophagus because they believe the health costs of Chernobyl were less than those incurred by folks falling out of bed.
But of course it stands to reason that officials are planning to invest that much, even in a time of budgetary constrain, because they believe the potential health-care costs if it leaks further could exceed the cost of a new preventive enclosure.
My, my,I have Arnold Gunderson, Michio Kaku, Helen Caldicott, Chris Busby and some others claiming 1 million deaths.Or I can listen to this Professional Obfukuscationist (A little pun on obfuscation) and sleep. The Tepco liars have made much hey over the "evacuation" being a trauma but not their plant melting down and Causing this violence and disease. The exclusion zone is too small, there are at least 1000 miles contaminated. Let him pick up the 600,000 plutonium plutonium pellets blown up
All of the internet tough guys.. You are on a computer now that is powered by either coal or nuclear power. Both have incredible danger to them. Nuclear for the obvious reasons, but what is always miss in bashing nuclear power; coal is mined from the earth. Very often, small amounts of uranium and thorium etc are accidentally mined and burned with the coal. There is no containment vessel there. That radioactive release, done in a a few minutes and released straight to your lungs. Cheers!
Thank You. This promo vid for the nuclear industry calling itself a BBC documentary angered me greatly. Huge omissions! 985,000 dead from Chernobyl, just as Chris Busby says.
BBC is a Bilgerberg charter member and their president is on the Council on Foreign Relations. Thus BBC is basically a shill for the NRC and New World Order.
Chris Busby says Japans government DELIBERATELY spreading fallout all over Japan just to mask the effects at Fukushima. This is an atrocity of the highest order.
@BiggerThinking1 "atrocity of the highest order" It certainly is, and so is the act of covering up the truth about the situation. It's wanton endangerment of humanity itself. And for what? A special industrial interest. It's sickening.
Brainwashed idiot the guy who shaved his head and walk with carrot in his ass. I am speechless about this stupidity. Bring your kids here or to Chernobyl.... Dont stay there 40 min but live there 20 years. Ad you will see it by your self. Bring your kids to doctor and let them cut your kids neck. I am normal peaceful guy but BBC you are F...up
Yes, the BBC cheerleading 4 the mass-genocide of japs. Next Alkalili or whatever the fuk his name is will B talking about how they should package nuclear waste into lolli pops and ice cream 4 the kids 2 enjoy! MMMM =)
That BBC documentary is a disgrace and you did a great job. You could have added information on that safety issue in the end concerning Thorium reactors, e.g. mention the THTR-300 fuel pebble event.
@TheLycaeum Solid fuel thorium reactors run into many of the same problems and solid fuel uranium reactors, and are generally crappy. The book he was holding in this documentary is Alvin Weinberg's thesis on molten salt reactors, and is the basis for Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors which have become or rapid increasing interrest in China and the UK for its inherent safety, inability to melt down, scalability, near 100% efficiency, and use of very common and inexpensive thorium as fuel.
@TheLycaeum Solid fuel thorium reactors run into many of the same problems and solid fuel uranium reactors, and are generally crappy. The book he was holding in this documentary is Alvin Weinberg's thesis on molten salt reactors, and is the basis for liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTRs) which have become or rapid increasing interrest in China and the UK for its inherent safety, inability to melt down, scalability, near 100% efficiency, and use of very common and inexpensive thorium as fuel.
@AdamElseify Most of the world's baseload comes from coal, not nuclear. Now if nuclear put ads up on media channels, and those channels constantly hummed that nuclear was amazing and all that, then you'd be entitled to think things were sketchy.
Most of the time the ads are for fossil fuels and wind energy however (wind commonly being an excuse for coal and gas to build "intermittent" ramp-up plants to provide baseload whenever wind cannot, which is 75% of the time).
"The killer awoke before dawn; he put his boots on. He took a face from the ancient gallery. And he walked on down the hall." - "The End" - The Doors.
BBC Better known as The Old Fox !
TheSaghey 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BENJAMIN FULFORD VALENTINE'S DAY 2012 UPDATE PART 1
watch?v=0pCpA7RccYc&feature=related
Ganseblumchen12 3 days ago
Good work on de-bunking this garbage propaganda piece that the BBC aired!
JamieMacQuarrie 3 days ago
I saw this BBC documentary a few months ago and was shocked and sickened by the blatant propaganda and misleading information given. I was also upset a that trusted and respected network like the BBC could try and pass this garbage off as investigative journalism! Unbelievable! Jim al Khalili should go live in the exclusion zone in Chernobyl or near the destroyed reactors in Fukushima! Or have the decency to tour that Japanese schoolyard that he says is safe without protective boots!
JamieMacQuarrie 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check out my channel Doollie1 for fun from Witney
Doollie1 4 days ago
Part 3: Do not buy European food ever because you don't know what's radioactive and what is not. It will be radioactive for 100s or 1000s of years. Turkey got a hell of a fallout and the Turkish government was so annoyed with Russia, it picked all of its radioactive tea and sent it back to Russia. But you'll see your health food shops are full of dried Turkish apricots, dried Turkish tomatoes and the like." -Dr Helen Caldicott, Conference on The Nuclear Danger, Montreal. March 18, 2011
hplaserjet2001 1 week ago 3
Part 2: However, the New York Academy of Science has just, to its credit, translated 5,000 papers from Russian because there were very few papers written in English because no one wanted to find out. Almost a million people have died as a result of Chernobyl. … Forty percent of the European landmass is currently radioactive. There are farms in England whose lambs are so full of caesium 137 they can't be sold on the market.
hplaserjet2001 1 week ago 3
Dr Helen Caldicott, Conference on The Nuclear Danger: Nuclear War and Nuclear Power, Montreal. March 18, 2011
Part 1: "The International Atomic Agency which promotes nuclear power has an unholy alliance with the World Health Organization which says you must not examine any nuclear accidents unless we say you can. Therefore, WHO says only 56 people died at Chernobyl.
hplaserjet2001 1 week ago 2
Part 2: Hypothetically, if you could take a pound of plutonium and distribute that in every person's lung on earth, that's enough to kill every person on earth. Each of those six reactors (Fukushima, Japan) contain more than 250 KG of plutonium." -Dr Helen Caldicott, Conference on The Nuclear Danger: Nuclear War and Nuclear Power, Montreal. March 18, 2011
hplaserjet2001 1 week ago 2
Dr Helen Caldicott, Conference on The Nuclear Danger: Nuclear War and Nuclear Power, Montreal. March 18, 2011
Part 1: "Plutonium has a half life of 24,400 years so it lasts about a half a million years. … Plutonium, you only need 5 kilos to make a bomb and each reactor makes 500, no, 250 KG a year. It's so toxic that a microgram is carcinogenic, that's a millionth of a gram.
hplaserjet2001 1 week ago 3
The Japanese government recently admitted it considered evacuating Tokyo, but did not because of the chaos that would have happened.
Large sections of the ocean are dead.
Uranium Alpha 238 is a radioactive element with a half-life of 4.5 billion years.
Uranium Alpha 234 is a radioactive element with a half-life of 245,000 years.
Plutonium was found at Fukushima.
See the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility for more information.
ccnr (dot) org/decay_U238.html#HLL
hplaserjet2001 1 week ago 3
600,000+ spent fuel rods were stored at Fukushima, most of those were destroyed during the initial explosions. The Japanese government has been burning tsunami debris in southern Japan, releasing radiation into the atmosphere.
Radiation contamination from Fukushima is worldwide.
hplaserjet2001 1 week ago
BBC's Jimbo needs to go live in Fukushima and work in the destroy nuclear plant if he "believes" it to be safe. He's an idiot shill who should be ashamed of himself and his lies.
Japan has been contaminated forever. All of the North Hemisphere has been soaked in radiation since March 2011. Fukushima is far worse than Chernobyl.
Fukushima is the worst nuclear accident in the history of the planet.
hplaserjet2001 1 week ago
@hplaserjet2001
Agreed, worst nuclear accident in history and JIMBO should show the world how safe it is and call it home from now on. We can check back in 12 months for a full report.
What an ignorant, obnoxious, pompous ass - but what else should we expect from the BBC pool of so called journalists.
Deceitful and shameful. May his offspring grow horns that glow in the dark!
(Well not really, don't wish that on innocent beings, but I hope people stop and think) !!!
DianeDi 6 days ago
@DianeDi
The planet's owners (bankers, monarchies, big business) have no shame when they use these idiot shills to promote their garbage. Their intent is purely evil and demonic.
hplaserjet2001 6 days ago
This guy is citing CNN for his facts? Funny. He clearly has very little knowledge of the nuclear incident here nor the elements needed to create the results he is jabbering on about. Nuclear scientists, educators and independent agencies versus a d-bag on YouTube...makes me chuckle.
Saigaijin69 1 week ago
@Saigaijin69, CNN's source for full meltdowns was the Japanese govt. As well the second media source I cite gives the times for pressure-vessel breech estimated by NISA and by Tepco itself. Tepco admits it many times since then too.
Given that that information is presented to you here and linked in the description, it's impossible to fathom from what universe you acquired the misinformation that the consensus of the scientific community believes there was no meltdown at Fukushima.
iamgoddard 1 week ago
@Saigaijin69
You obviously are a shill and need to educate yourself. If you live in Japan, then you need to leave Japan. It is contaminated forever. The Japanese government has lied to citizens.
Better still, if you believe Fukushima is safe ... go live there!
hplaserjet2001 1 week ago
Comment removed
EFFMarksman 1 week ago
if the japanese people go back a few years later their health system will completely collapse
FutureDeleted 2 weeks ago
Ridiculous person - he's producing a commercial, denying the danger while wearing protective clothing himself. Who made this concept? Did this asshole have been payed with public money?
FutureDeleted 2 weeks ago
The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!!
TheJasperkitty 2 weeks ago
I seen a prerecorded vid of that program and was shocked at how inaccurate he got the facts the fact he called him self what he does is quite shocking
f1r31c3r1 2 weeks ago
Another tool for the gubner....He should join forces with the mythbusters.....
un4g1v3n1 3 weeks ago
Al-Kalili - Nuclear Physicist - His name Sounds like a Chemical Term - " Alkali " doesn't it ?
psycool666 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
psycool666 3 weeks ago
You take the data then don't read like I have said. Smoking and other industrial causes of cancer are included in the reports in your video. Why do you ignore that? I bet it's because you have NOT read the report!
READ IT YOU FREAK!
bigstiggerNo1 3 weeks ago
@bigstiggerNo1, you're the one who can't read! In your universe, the BEIR VII risk model doesn't exist, the scientists all concluded the dose-response of cancer to radiation in A-bomb survivors was caused by smoking, lol! Try to find the planet Earth!
And just as I predicted, the financial costs of a disaster was a good measure of the risk of an industry, until your argument fell apart, then you just forget that line of argument when it can no longer be used to achieve your desired conclusion.
iamgoddard 3 weeks ago
@bigstiggerNo1, citing the atomic-bomb survivors cohort as I do is hardly cherry picking data because it's the radiation-exposure cohort scientists use to predict radiation effects.
Chernobyl is still unfolding, and data from it are not considered sufficient to create risk models as with the A-bombs. And 25 years after the A-bombs there was no statistically significant increase in solid cancers among the survivor cohort. Yet in less than 25 years post-Chernobyl, thyroid-cancer cases surged.
iamgoddard 3 weeks ago
It's Idots like you that have weakened the Stance of USA and UK in the World. I like that China and India and others are coming up. I hate that White immature idiots like you have ruined the world you live in and blame it on technology. The Fukashima reports will be released soon and then you lot of nambt pamby idiot will have less to shout about.
The Japanese are very meticulous and will release all the data. They are already planning to repopulate!
only $7billion so far. Horizon$20billion
bigstiggerNo1 3 weeks ago
@bigstiggerNo1, BP set up a $20 billion fund to cover claims from the spill. [1] I've seen a lot of estimates for Fukushima. The Telegraph reports that Tepco faces up to ¥4.5 trillion in liabilities, [2] which I calculate equals $59 billion. I've also seen higher estimates for Fukushima's costs. [3]
So Fukushima may be more costly than the BP spill.
Google:
[1] BP Establishes $20 Billion Claims Fund
[2] "Tokyo Electric Power Co shares plunge"
[3] "faces more than $350 billion in compensation"
iamgoddard 3 weeks ago
Hey, can anyone tell me what the situation in the UK is, with regards to radiation? Should we have been taking some king of medication? I was going through a lot of crap in my personal life, when the explosion happened, and consequently didn't bother looking into the situation.
funkateer17 3 weeks ago
@funkateer17
enenews.com/forum-post-radiation-monitoring-data-dec-17-2011-present
arclight2011 3 weeks ago
good work mate
goatsonfilm 4 weeks ago
Hey, well done! There is also another TV shows by the BBC that is purely pro nuclear propaganda. It is an episode of "bang goes the theory" you should look into that.
Also did you ever get a reply from the BBC on this issue and your complain letter? I would love to see what they had to say.
robinhood192000 1 month ago
Hey Kiddo, You made it on ENENEWS today :)
MsMilkytheclown 1 month ago
BBC and CNN utilize similar propagandistic, creepy directing tactics to get on their viewers good side while simultaneously dropping ignorance supernovas of epic mass. This guy is supposed to be believable because of his lax demeanour, sheik clothes and suave accent – what a ridiculous farce, why don't the British storm these bastards studios and take it down for good?
VyseLegend 1 month ago
great video the drones think because the bbc said it's safe it must be. The bbc is the same shitty government sponsored media outlet that spread lies about iraq and wmd's. RT and al jazeera are the only ones reporting on fukushima so hat's off to them
ryan25n 1 month ago
I read somewhere quite recently the japanese government is burning contaminated radioactive waste. This is a disgrace. The people of japan and the world are being lied to to protect the global nuclear agenda. They raise the radiation exposure limit to safe levels! No such thing caesium 137 has a half life of 30 years and can cause bone cancer among other serious cancers! Radiation is deadly, how can we use this technology when we as humans don't fully understand it's potential. No to nuclear!
ryan25n 1 month ago
no u measure safety buy coopering those two number: that that didn't fail/fail and what type of fail it was ? I personalty think that Japanese was very very stupid building nuclear reactor at the cost. They should build them inside the mountains. Drill the deep hole in solid rock and there put your reactor.
sebek23b 1 month ago
@sebek23b you can't build a reactor in the mountains there is not enough of a water source. You will find all rectors are built on the coastline because there is vast amounts of water and an endless supply to cool the reactor core's down. Without water you can't have a nuclear reactor
ryan25n 1 month ago
Fukushima is perfectly safe. Anyone was says otherwise is a plant from the Chinese Communist Party.
HomleandSecurity 1 month ago
@HomleandSecurity i agree
ryan25n 1 month ago
It's a conspiracy! They know it kills us and they're happy! Wearing boots in a radiation cleanup, when he before claimed that it was *completely* safe - what a hypocrite!
But seriously now, come on dude, the documentary may have been inaccurate, but they did clearly mention that the areas were contaminated and that the matter needs careful SCIENTIFIC consideration. Like it or not,until fusion is here,it's nukes, coal and gas. And I'd prefer G4 nukes any day over the other options.And yes, IMBY.
totoritko 1 month ago
@totoritko wrote: "but they did clearly mention that the areas were contaminated and that the matter needs careful SCIENTIFIC consideration."
Can you quote and/or time-cite that?
There are some comments he deserves credit for, like he said it remains to be seen if non-thyroid cancers will increase wrt Chernobyl. Given that 25 years after the A-bombs, the Japanese survivors showed no rise in solid cancers implies that no rise is what we might expect to see 25 years after Chernobyl.
iamgoddard 1 month ago
@iamgoddard 24:43 - the interviewed scientist clearly states that cesium will remain a problem for a long time to come. Also, immediately following, they state that the researchers found high levels of radiation in top-level soil, with levels of up to 500x the background level having been detected. Further, the site of the measurement isn't even in the exclusion zone, they state. They continued with pretty alarming results of government-conducted tests across Fukushima-prefecture.
totoritko 1 month ago
@totoritko Also, I think that the point of the program was to bring a bit of sanity into the discussion. That's because every time somebody mentions radiation, the public simply goes into a haywire craze "OMG!!1! We're all gonna die!" and they think of Hiroshima or some such nonsense. Categorical statements like "Nukes can never be made safe!" often play more on people's fear of the unknown (radiation), rather than being grounded in sound logic.
totoritko 1 month ago
@totoritko I'm all for sustainable energy sources and I don't care if it's nukes, wind or solar. My only requirements are: it has to be cheap, abundant, practical and impact the environment as little as possible. So far,G4 nukes seem like the best bet for all of these:cheap+abundant fuel, can burn our current waste, scalable & inherently passively safe (e.g. LiFTR, mentioned in the program, isn't pressurized, so it *can't* explode and its fuel solidifies if cooled, so it can't leak).
totoritko 1 month ago
@totoritko, thanks. Here's your cite: watch?v=8vywZ84mixs#t=24m43s
But they just report fallout *levels*, which means nothing without interpretation within a risk model such as the BEIR VII. He does later say (26:23) the evacuation was done to "protect people's health effectively." But his caveat term 'effectively' by some definitions seems, in this context, intended to case doubt and imply to *supposedly* protect health.
So I see no "careful SCIENTIFIC consideration" of risks.
iamgoddard 1 month ago
@iamgoddard I'm not a native speaker, but in my mind "effectively" in no way implies "supposedly". The way I understood it, is that while exclusion zones are effective at preventing exposure, they come at a significant social & economical cost to the population - that's why the decisions about them are more complex than it looks (26:20). This needs mentioning, because most people tend to see issues as one-sided and B/W.
totoritko 1 month ago
@totoritko, my reply isn't contingent on his meaning of 'effectively', for either way there's no appeal to careful scientific consideration as you suggested.
If as you seem to think he's allowing that the fallout levels are harmful, then he's only making a *utilitarian* appeal for letting some people die in order to avoid costs of relocation. But utilitarian ethics is outside the domain of science. So again, I see no appeal to careful scientific consideration in the cited content.
iamgoddard 1 month ago
@iamgoddard Unfortunately, while "every life is infinitely more valuable than money" is a nice poetic statement, that is not really how we live our lives. The classic example is airline safety. Planes have issues, but only when an issue has killed or significantly threatened enough people are we going to do something about. We could devise a totally safe mode of transportation, but each ticket would cost $trillion. Would you be willing to pay that much, for 0.00001% more safety?
totoritko 1 month ago
@iamgoddard wrote: "for either way there's no appeal to careful scientific consideration as you suggested".
From the documentary talking about whether we should pursue nuclear energy development (56:33): "But my hope is that whatever we decide, it will be based on a careful assessment of rational science."
Did you even watch the whole thing?
totoritko 1 month ago
@totoritko, you switched the meaning of your claim to save your claim. You said "they did clearly mention that the areas were contaminated and that the matter needs careful SCIENTIFIC consideration."
Then after your first cited support was shown baseless, you cited his closing statement, but it's about nuclear energy per se, has no direct link to contaminated areas and necessarily implies that it is his view that is "a careful assessment of rational science."
You're spamming BS.
iamgoddard 1 month ago
@totoritko, if people could opt out of other people's choice for nuclear power like they could opt out of their personal choice to fly, you might have an analogy. But choosing nuclear power isn't exactly a personal choice.
You couldn't honestly say you advocate nuclear power because just *you* are willing to take the risks. You'd have to say you advocate nuclear power because you're willing to take the risks AND impose these risks on others, whether they're willing to accept them or not.
GoddardsJournal 1 month ago
@GoddardsJournal Airplanes certainly do cause collateral effects, e.g. crashes result in ground fatalities, operation of airfields contributes to noise and air pollution, etc.
Nevertheless, we've gotten side-tracked from the main issue, which is whether the presenter had an "agenda". I think that, while there's legitimate criticism to be made against certain factual claims in the movie, he did clearly label his opinions where stated, and I see no "ulterior" motives on his part.
totoritko 1 month ago
@totoritko, comparative-risk analogies are complex and rife with apples-to-oranges incompatibilities. At least each person can privately opt to not put others on the ground at risk by opting to not fly; but each person can't opt not to do nuclear energy. When it comes to driving, adult pedestrians and other drivers you might hit have all de facto consented to the risks involved.
I don't know of any ulterior motives Al-Kalili does or might have. I think he believes in nuclear.
iamgoddard 1 month ago in playlist More videos from GoddardsJournal
@iamgoddard Well, about the risk analogies, I too am reluctant to frame the choice of power generation technology as a moral issue, and would like to firmly keep our feet grounded in factual claims. However, the reason I started commenting is that I think that you are trying to claim that Al-Khalili has ulterior motives. This is most clearly shown around 9:06 of your video. You claim Al-Khalili decries the evacuation of a town - he actually does no such thing. He clearly ...
totoritko 1 month ago
@totoritko, to say he doesn't decry the evacuation is just otherworldly. The entire program and his central thesis is unambiguously a case against evacuating populations from nuclear disasters to wit his wistful comments on the now-empty city that you cite clearly constitute decrying its abandonment.
iamgoddard 1 month ago
@iamgoddard ... reports that he will investigate whether the exclusion zone is justified and then presents arguments for and against it. He then goes on to cite measurements, puts these measurements into perspective, looks at it from a political and economical perspective, social dilemmas, etc. Ultimately, he sums up (at 26:54) that the containment zone is costly socioeconomically, and given current factors, may not actually be fully justified. To explore the reasons he then ...
totoritko 1 month ago
@totoritko, Al-Kalili's citing levels of fallout is not the presentation of a case for evacuation. You can't seem to understand that a numeric level of fallout has no meaning without interpretation within a risk model.
The careful scientific evaluation you insist exists in the program can't exist because the cited levels of fallout are not interpreted within any scientific risk model such as the BEIR VII or ICRP models. Claiming science while omitting scientific modeling is bizarre.
iamgoddard 1 month ago
Here's what an argument for evacuation looks like. Al-Kalili cites the Fukushima safety level of 20 mSv/y. [1] In the U.S. National Academy of Sciences' risk model, 20 mSv is predicted to cause cancer in 955 and kill 354 of 100,000 female infants; to cause cancer in 675 and kill 269 of 100,000 5 yo girls, as two examples. [2] Exclusion-zone doses and thus risks would be higher still. That's presenting the case for evacuation.
[1] v=8vywZ84mixs#t=25m40s
[2] NAS BEIR VII Phase 2 report, p. 310-11
GoddardsJournal 1 month ago
@GoddardsJournal, and those would be cancers that become detectable at some time over the subsequent lifespan of those children, not necessarily when they are children.
GoddardsJournal 1 month ago
@iamgoddard ...goes to Ukraine and presents the current (claimed) consensus that even an incident as bad and as badly handled as Chernobyl, might actually not be such a health catastrophe as previously thought. It's still pretty bad, but ultimately, he doesn't think that it's as bad as most critics (such as yourself) make it out to be.
Now this is where your arguments are most persuasive, but also need the most examination. The studies you cite are complex and quite prone to error..
totoritko 1 month ago
@iamgoddard .. the studies might be right, but need a good and hard skeptical look. If true, then they do warrant a reexamination of our public policies and directions of future energy research. However, the rhetoric you employed towards the end of your video to frame Al-Khalili as some sort of an insincere person with ulterior motives is what bugged me the most. A rational honest argumentation is great, but scare tactics alienate much of your audience. And that's why I spoke up.
totoritko 1 month ago
@totoritko says: "He clearly reports that he will investigate whether the exclusion zone is justified and then presents arguments for and against it."
In reality he presents no argument for evacuation. If he did, he would have cited a risk model and correlated the evacuation-dose criterion with predicted cancer incidence and mortality within the risk model. That's the justification for evacuation. Yet he does not even acknowledge that risk models exist. Your claims are pure hogwash.
iamgoddard 1 month ago
.....the NY academy of sciences just released a report that puts the death toll from Chernobyl at about 985,000 - SO FAR.
Alkalili is a stooge
Alchaeon1 1 month ago
....total propaganda by a British Academic stooge - a person that shoudl know better - But alas his pockets are lined with the coins of the nuclear power industry
What a disgrace to the scientific community that a so called Expert in Nuclear physics could make this pro nuclear spin doctored crap program.
Chernobyl has killed about 1 million people - and still counting.
Fukushima will be worse
And there will be more deaths than the Tsunami killed
Alchaeon1 1 month ago
BBC British Brainwashing Corporation.
No one can seriously believe anything the BBC claims
thermate911 1 month ago
Dozens of people have died of radiation poisoning already. Police, Emergency workers and anonymous labourers drafted in. The truth is simply being suppressed via the perverse invocation of patriotism.
Tobacc0 2 months ago
LOL - do you have ANY proof of Fukushima meltdowns? No, you don't. Try sticking to facts instead of fear mongering.
seekert6 2 months ago in playlist Media & Propaganda Documentaries
It's stressing enough to live in a country where, due to absence of nuclear technology, people ignore the dangers and even the concept of radiation. Whenever I explain to them what radiation is and what it can do they actually believe it to be something too movie-like to be real. What's more frustrating, though, is seeing you argueing for the sake of accuracy in claims. Less deaths than reported is not a good thing per se. Every death counts. They never asked to die due to the mistakes of others
diegoxxve 2 months ago
The comparison between A-Bomb survivors & Fukushima is incorrect. The people exposed to the A-Bomb received a single sudden & enormous dose of Gamma & Neutron radiation of 250 to 5000 millisieverts. Japanese Civilians are forecast to get an additional 1 or 2 millisieverts per year due to Fukushima (1/250th to 1/5000 of what the A-Bomb did).
Diamonddavej 2 months ago
@Diamonddavej, citation for your annual-exposure forecast data?
Indeed it has been assumed that the fast-dose rates of Abomb survivors would be worse than the slow-dose rate of chronic low-dose exposure. However, a meta-analysis of nuclear-worker studies found that low-dose rates are probably no safer and might actually cause higher cancer risk than the fast-dose rate exposure of Abomb survivors. [*]
[*] Google: "Is cancer risk of radiation workers larger than expected?"
GoddardsJournal 2 months ago
@GoddardsJournal Jacob et al. (2009) excluded Mayak workers, who received low dose rates but high doses. Also, definition of low dose rate & low dose varies between study, no definition of LDRLD. These problems reduce statical power.
This is irrelevant nevertheless, as heath effects are unknown <20mSv/yr.
See: "Xenon 400,000 times normal found in Chiba air immediately after Fukushima nuke accident"
Despite the scary headline, people got only 0.0013 mSv/3months from Xe133.
Diamonddavej 2 months ago
@Diamonddavej, Jacob et al. were researching low-dose radiation, so their exclusion of a high-dose study was a logical feature, not a bug.
In the largest nuclear-worker study (Cardis et al. 2007), which found a radiation-dose relation to cancer, "90% of workers received cumulative doses below 50 mSv," and, "The overall average cumulative recorded dose was 19.4 mSv." That's over their entire employment periods, which was on average 10.5 years.
So < 20 mSv/y does not sound so unknown or safe.
GoddardsJournal 2 months ago
@Diamonddavej
That's whole-body doses. How can that possible translate to the magnified effects of small particles lodged in organs giving continuous, targeted doses to specific tissues? Toss the precautionary principle out the window why don't ya?
cbr125rcanada 2 months ago
@GoddardsJournal Civilians are limited to <20 mSv/year, or they have to evacuate. Again, the vast majority of Japanese will receive a far lower dose.
At the very low doses, <20 mSv/year, the effects are controversial & uncertain. Though, from what I read, there's a growing body of research that indicates, radiation below a certain level maybe harmless (maybe 20 mSv/year). But until we know more LNT should still be used.
The French don't use LNT below 20 mSv I think.
Diamonddavej 2 months ago
@GoddardsJournal Also, "citation for your annual-exposure forecast data?"
36,478 citizens of the City of Fukushima wore dosimeters during September. 99% of the population received <0.3 mSv/month, 3.6 mSv/year. Since natural background is 2 to 3 mSv/year, the extra does due to Fukushima Daiichi would be ca. 0.6 to 1.6 mSv/year.
In: "Schoolgirl in Fukushima exposed to high level of radiation in September -Mainichi News, Nov. 2"
Sadly, headlines are written to draw attention.
Diamonddavej 2 months ago
@GoddardsJournal My understanding is Fuku' type radiation is much worse than an A Bomb's. A Bomb leaves less radiation. Regardless, this is far from over. At least one and probably all 3 will hit the water table and then it will blow up. With millions of gallons of steam and water. Are you a lawyer? You systematically chew a nice hole in this professional liar.
IExposeMormonism 2 months ago
@IExposeMormonism, Thanks. No, I'm not a lawyer. Right! The Hiroshima bomb released only 89 tera becquerels (TBq) of radiation, whereas the official estimate of just cesium137 from Fukushima was 15,000 TBq, reported Aug 25. [1] Comparative levels form cited source:
Chernobyl: 5.2 million TBq [2]
Fukushima: 370,000 TBq [2]
Fukushima (Cs137): 15,000 TBq [1]
Abomb (Little Boy): 89 TBq [1]
[1] Google: Fukushima caesium leaks 'equal 168 Hiroshimas'
[2] How does Fukushima differ from Chernobyl?
GoddardsJournal 2 months ago
@GoddardsJournal
The spectrum of radionuclides released from an atomic bomb is quite different from that released from a nuclear power plant meltdown.
Check the numbers on the release of long lived alpha emmiters such as Plutonium - and their carcinogenic health effects
Check what internal radiation can do to your health compared to external radiation.
Your figures for Fukushima are also grossly underestimated - TEPCO have already admitted that several times
Alchaeon1 1 month ago
@Alchaeon1, the source I cited gives 89 TBq as the radiation released from Little Boy, which seems to imply from its full radioisotope spectrum. Though this isn't explicit. The limitation to just Cs137 is explicit only for Fukushima.
Is there a study that specifically compares health outcomes from internal vs external exposure? I believe the difference is base on reasonable hypotheses drawn from relevant evidence, not yet empirical findings from a study set out to compare the two.
iamgoddard 1 month ago
@GoddardsJournal Fukishima leaked for a year while chernobyl was contained within a few days.
SlayerofFiction 1 month ago
BBC= BIGTIME SCUMBAGS .
dan32749 2 months ago
The above-mentioned plant flavinoids are found to be much more protective against radiation damage than Vitamins C & E. Together, these vitamins are synergistically protective but nowhere near as powerful as Curcumin and Quercitin.
darthvader5300 2 months ago
@darthvader5300 Humans have a natural capacity to cope with radiation, radiation <20 mSv/year maybe harmless.
Löbrich et al., 2005. In vivo formation and repair of DNA double-strand breaks after computed tomography examinations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102(25), 8984 -8989.
Diamonddavej 2 months ago
- Resveratrol, a compound most commonly associated with red wine is also a very potent radio-protectant, in supplement doses of 200mg, twice a day.
- Hesperidin was found to be very protective of DNA and of bone marrow, the blood-forming organ that's the most sensitive to radiation exposure, along with the brain and the gastrointestinal tract.
darthvader5300 2 months ago
- Quercitin, which is found in fruits, vegetables, leaves and grains and
- Punicalagins, extracted from pomegranates.
- Alpha Lipoid Acid was found to actually reverse some effects of radiation damage in Chernobyl, returning the levels of oxidized protein compounds in the body caused by radiation exposure back to normal levels and in some cases, better than normal.
darthvader5300 2 months ago
Plant flavinoids which were shown to be radio-protective include:
- Gingko biloba at a dose of 250-350mg per day; it was found to protect DNA from radiation damage. Ginger was found to protect animal DNA from massive exposure to Gamma radiation, the most destructive kind.- Garlic has also been found to protect against ionizing radiation.- Curcumin (turmeric extract) was found to be enormously protective as well as,
darthvader5300 2 months ago
Several Plant-based Compounds Are Radio-Protective and BBC ignored this data in order to sensationalize on the Fukyshima disaster to boost their ratings.
darthvader5300 2 months ago
Nuclear power is still the safest power source but it depends on what kind of reactor design you are using and how well designed and well built it is. The Fukushima nuclear incident is not a failure of nuclear energy but a failure of taking into account of what future disasters it will face before it was designed and built and ignoring the fact that it is a very old reactor already. The new reactors, especially military ones, will never suffer when hit by an earthquake or a tsunami!
darthvader5300 2 months ago
BBC are dodgy at best
DragonYearJoji 2 months ago
To be honest at Chernobyl they expected ~million deaths from cancer, yet there were only ~9,000-but the problem is no cancer has a label saying Hi I'm caused by radiation or smoking etc. So we can't accurately say how many cancer patients were actually ill because of radiation-same at Fukushima.
I believe that Nuclear Power shouldn't be strongly used until we have the technology to make it safer-I think we should also pay attention to the Economic and Social disasters Fukushima has caused.
thatonekid722 2 months ago
Thank you for taking the time to debunk more media lies about this disaster. Good job!
TNMamaBear 2 months ago
Don't bother checking the BBC, they are banned in my home because of exactly what you have identified in your video.
I became aware of their bullshit propaganda soon after 9/11, after the building 7 fable.
Lookup2Wakeup 2 months ago
This bald headed disingenuous lackey for the lying colluding Tepco murderers speaks with forked tongue. And you, Goddard, do an excellent job of sewing his split speech together and clarifying his lies.. He speaks like a good defense lawyer for mafia murderers. Very slickery obfukuscation.. (My contribution to linguistics and pun on obfuscation and fukushima)
IExposeMormonism 2 months ago
Not only the BBC, but the media as a whole have either been downplaying or completely ignoring the situation in Japan ever since the situation evolved from tsunami disaster to tsunami recovery and Nuclear disaster.
Most of the media in the world are owned by the same people that own nuclear reactors and have stakes in nuclear power.
JayGB87 3 months ago
whats the difference between fission & fusion? Seems, fusion uses all accumulated fuel immediately. Is their no way to nuke it with a small strategically placed explosive? implosive, shape. I don know?
armaddajam 3 months ago
@armaddajam, I've not researched fusion energy, so I also don't know. I hope it might be a truly safe nuclear energy, and from what little has crossed my path it seems it might be.
But then I have to be skeptical because when I take the time to research the claims of fission-energy advocates against objective scientific literature, I usually find they're misleading at best, very much like misleading advertisements for any other commercial product.
GoddardsJournal 3 months ago
@armaddajam I met people working on fusion energy. They tell me Fusion generates neutrons, these particles make the interior of the reaction vessel radioactive after a while.
However, they are trying to work out what materials can be used inside the reaction vessel, in order to minimise this secondary radioactivity. They hope the radioactive isotopes created will be minimised and their short half-lives will mean any radioactivity created will decay away very quickly.
Diamonddavej 2 months ago
I have seen the standard of the BBC reporting going downhill very fast in the past few years - such irresponsibilty, such lack of social leadership - such a shame. Good you took the time to highlight this aspect of their recent gross negligence
sahajasam 3 months ago
It's not an error when you deliberately lie to the public. If that show had aired in Russia or China it would be rightly pilloried for the transparent State propaganda it is.
badnewswade 3 months ago
The # of deaths per terawatt due to Nuclear Power is far less than any other form of energy, with Hydroelectric (with first world safety standards, 2nd & 3rd world are quite different) coming in 2nd with more than double.
BillyJoe1305 3 months ago
what such an ass hole this Al-Khalili is??!! ASSSS HOOLEEE!!
kaostwenty2 3 months ago
The bad side of this is most people just buy into the official story & are not perceptive enough to point out the obvious. Yes, most people are generally ignorantly gullible to the obvious. Very sad, yet would be a proven fact with indirect poles & surveys. All you have to do is ask someone what they saw in the room they were just in, many will not be able to recognize the potted plant sitting in the corner of the room. Or should i say MOST.
LendMeYourHand 3 months ago
Al-Khalili looks, speaks, acts and maybe also thinks the same way as Richard "Mack" Machowicz, the Future Weapons host(Discovery Channel) and a former Navy Seal...he is appealing to rednecks
RealBulldust 3 months ago
Jim Al-khalili is quite clearly retarded.
mahlithebest 3 months ago
dear goddardsjournal , thanks for doing that !
unseenrecordings 3 months ago
why would it be any other way..
this bbc bald stooge like most news editors are part of the chatham house rothchild clique.
it is like a bad advert for nuclear structures.
nuclear containment is expensive...since radiation according too the bbc is safe maybe we do not need to build any containment just a tin shed.
how about the bbc build a prototype containment free mini nuclear power station nest too the newsroom.
antiochus66 3 months ago
Very good debunk vid. Nuclear energy is ALWAYS dangerous! Why can't people understand that if something takes hundreds of years to degenerate-then it should not even be considered for usage. The BBC is paid off by the ones who want to spread nuclear usage & the public is at risk to all of the dangers that go with it. We need to educate more people on alternative energy & how it is already available. But, alas, the elite will not let this happen b/c they cannot make enough money off of it.
drla02 3 months ago 2
Thank you!!! I think the real issue is that the US and other westerners do NOT want a wave of Japanese emigrants flooding their shores trying to flee their ruined homeland. The contaminants are already in the food chain and the air. The Japanese should evacuate ASAP!!!
SisterMotown 3 months ago
Nuclear energy is not safe at least in Japan. Because there's no way to protect nuclear power plants from earthquake. I think Japanese public learned the lesson from this disaster. I hope nuclear power plants stop lobbying Japanese government and move into geothermal energy like New Zealand's doing. By the way I still like BBC. As a Japanese I would prefer alternative energy over any other energy sources.
cateattingmonster0 3 months ago
The show from BBC must have had financial backing from the international nuclear industry. Quite disappointing ....
This is an excellent video. Thanks. I hope most people who watch it are also thankful.
tapolna 4 months ago
Really great video!
That BBC programme made me sick, I was apalled at the amount of crap they said from the very first minute!
I just wish your analysis was LONGER! No part 2?
Cheers!
JohnM3D 4 months ago 2
the bbc did not overlook that the effects of radiation takes years, his response was to the deaths accounted for at the time of the report about the earthquake and tsunami, why would he count the theoretical hundreds of thousands possible deaths when doing a report on the confirmed deaths. tho i suppose for what this video is, hearing about hundreds of thousands of deaths would be more satisfying to those fundamental against nuclear power. perhaps its the hardware and not the idea.
ouellette666 4 months ago
@ouellette666, yes he did overlook the differential mortality profiles of tsunamis and radiation. He's expressly prodding us (@ 1:57 ) to believe that nuclear accidents are relatively safe based on the differential deaths tolls of the tsunami vs the meltdowns as of Sept 14, 2011. That isn't even slightly ambiguous.
GoddardsJournal 4 months ago 8
@GoddardsJournal they guy that did the "research" for the BBC is a idiot or a lier because evrybody who says that the fallout is safe should go to kiev, minsk and other citys in russia and look at the poor people and how the kids suffer 20+ years after the fallout
warezvz 3 months ago
Predictably absurd propaganda nonsense from the so-called "BBC", a for decades highly "neo-liberalised" and thus biased, dumbed-down state-controlled media institution which generally does NOT seriously question or oppose any policy favored by HMG. HMG is at the preset time pro-nuclear. If the opposite were the case, this programme would not have been made / broadcast or would have had an opposite 'message'.
sgasgsfgsgd 4 months ago
The BBC stance / propaganda 'line' will mostly assist and facilitate HMG policy implementation vis-a-vis public opinion 'development' and 'management'. Nobody knows how many people the Chernobyl catastrophe has killed or will kill... primarily because the world's major governments - all of them for various reasons 'pro nuclear' - have not wanted to 'go there' and so have not moved to properly / rigorously investigate its impact PUBLICLY.
sgasgsfgsgd 4 months ago
they should be stupid to live there.
77616e6b79 4 months ago
this BBC shit4brains should be the #1 fukushima liquidator cleanup manager !!! LOL !! with NO protection but those boots/ sign this nukemeathead up and send him into all 3 nuclear cores with a helmet cam !! LMAO
teslacoil2012 4 months ago 14
I am not sure what to think...but I'm a surfer and my friend in Japan is still surfing there along with lots of others and exploring the waters and taking pics underwater there. Everything looks ok.
lovely9161 4 months ago
Many proponents of Nuclear energy have blinders on about it's dangers, not only in the short term, but the potential harm it can cause for generations if something goes wrong. If solar energy had received the funding that nuclear energy had received, we would not be at war in the middle east . It's not a either or argument, there are options that have never been presented to the public about choices of power production.
Kalepherion 4 months ago
yeah, BBC sucks....
shovelniron 4 months ago
Well done ! Exposing yet another of the BBC's psudo scientific propaganda documentries. All of them are full of neuro linguistic programming, well spoken congenial brain washed YESMEN who are in reality sociopath. Because most peoples attention span has been sabotaged by the their subtle visual/audio programming and jingoistic soundbites they they think they can get away with it, but yet they are putting all of this garbage on record !!! Wonder what will happen to the BBC when people wake up ?
robertk1968 4 months ago 2
BRILLIANT ANALYSIS OF THE NOT SO BRILLIANT BBC WELL DONE SIR! :o)
MrGangaheaD88 4 months ago
PARTIAL, DIP++++
2012IS1984 4 months ago
then that man is guilty of every person who will die, and get sick in the future. that is when more meltdowns happen as resalt of public dumbness as the bbc too, and everyone behind this lie. LUVBUG
believersunderground 4 months ago
Bear Grylls of the Tokyo Electric company LOL
Riverstarry 4 months ago
if you appreciated this video like I did.. you might want to watch this one as well..
it's worth the 10 minutes of your time..
youtube.com/watch?v=_fiWE9_SvT8
kaleigh79 4 months ago
the beeb have repeated this BS in a new program..bang goes the theory. this time at 7.30 on bbc 1. primetime unlike horizon. the theme again is radiation at low levels is not dangerous. Some might think there is an agenda here.
thingfish333 4 months ago
@thingfish333, thanks for the tip. Is that second BBC program posted on youtube?
iamgoddard 4 months ago
@iamgoddard not as far as i can see. its still on iplayer if you are able to view it. Its called 'bang goes the theory" It starts with an explanation of the science, particularly the cause of the hydrogen explosions, it then follows a similar line to the horizon program. For example the world foremost expert on chenobyl shows how more people died falling out of bed than died in the chernobyl disaster (i'm not kidding)
thingfish333 4 months ago
@thingfish333, thanks! And so officialdom is planning to invest 870 million euros (1.17 billion dollars) to build a new Chernobyl sarcophagus because they believe the health costs of Chernobyl were less than those incurred by folks falling out of bed.
But of course it stands to reason that officials are planning to invest that much, even in a time of budgetary constrain, because they believe the potential health-care costs if it leaks further could exceed the cost of a new preventive enclosure.
GoddardsJournal 4 months ago
No you have said it all, quite well. thanks for debunking the bbc.
They shove out a lot of bs these days, must be profitable.
cmonconan 4 months ago
My, my,I have Arnold Gunderson, Michio Kaku, Helen Caldicott, Chris Busby and some others claiming 1 million deaths.Or I can listen to this Professional Obfukuscationist (A little pun on obfuscation) and sleep. The Tepco liars have made much hey over the "evacuation" being a trauma but not their plant melting down and Causing this violence and disease. The exclusion zone is too small, there are at least 1000 miles contaminated. Let him pick up the 600,000 plutonium plutonium pellets blown up
IExposeMormonism 4 months ago
All of the internet tough guys.. You are on a computer now that is powered by either coal or nuclear power. Both have incredible danger to them. Nuclear for the obvious reasons, but what is always miss in bashing nuclear power; coal is mined from the earth. Very often, small amounts of uranium and thorium etc are accidentally mined and burned with the coal. There is no containment vessel there. That radioactive release, done in a a few minutes and released straight to your lungs. Cheers!
joecool0927 4 months ago
Very good video. Great job.
Trackstar2211 4 months ago
Thank You. This promo vid for the nuclear industry calling itself a BBC documentary angered me greatly. Huge omissions! 985,000 dead from Chernobyl, just as Chris Busby says.
THEOLDDEL 4 months ago
BBC is a Bilgerberg charter member and their president is on the Council on Foreign Relations. Thus BBC is basically a shill for the NRC and New World Order.
altgeldrarities 4 months ago
Chris Busby says Japans government DELIBERATELY spreading fallout all over Japan just to mask the effects at Fukushima. This is an atrocity of the highest order.
Save Japan's kids:
watch?v=zccMmyoMpNI&feature=channel_video_title
BiggerThinking1 5 months ago
@BiggerThinking1 "atrocity of the highest order" It certainly is, and so is the act of covering up the truth about the situation. It's wanton endangerment of humanity itself. And for what? A special industrial interest. It's sickening.
2farscape2 4 months ago
What a sell out.. That bald prick deserves to be beaten with a bag of oranges..
ActinLikeaRobot 5 months ago
The British tax payers are forced by law to pay for a tv licence so that BBC can produce propaganda programs like this.
It is time to scrap the tv licence along with this corrupt, obsolete Cold War propaganda machine.
raythiwave 5 months ago
the BBC are absolute scum - they have betrayed the British ppl.
debdah 5 months ago 36
Brainwashed idiot the guy who shaved his head and walk with carrot in his ass. I am speechless about this stupidity. Bring your kids here or to Chernobyl.... Dont stay there 40 min but live there 20 years. Ad you will see it by your self. Bring your kids to doctor and let them cut your kids neck. I am normal peaceful guy but BBC you are F...up
aristoman007 5 months ago
Yes, the BBC cheerleading 4 the mass-genocide of japs. Next Alkalili or whatever the fuk his name is will B talking about how they should package nuclear waste into lolli pops and ice cream 4 the kids 2 enjoy! MMMM =)
HornSpeakersSuk 5 months ago
That BBC documentary is a disgrace and you did a great job. You could have added information on that safety issue in the end concerning Thorium reactors, e.g. mention the THTR-300 fuel pebble event.
TheLycaeum 5 months ago in playlist TheLycaeum's Favorited Videos
@TheLycaeum Solid fuel thorium reactors run into many of the same problems and solid fuel uranium reactors, and are generally crappy. The book he was holding in this documentary is Alvin Weinberg's thesis on molten salt reactors, and is the basis for Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors which have become or rapid increasing interrest in China and the UK for its inherent safety, inability to melt down, scalability, near 100% efficiency, and use of very common and inexpensive thorium as fuel.
OfficeThug 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheLycaeum Solid fuel thorium reactors run into many of the same problems and solid fuel uranium reactors, and are generally crappy. The book he was holding in this documentary is Alvin Weinberg's thesis on molten salt reactors, and is the basis for liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTRs) which have become or rapid increasing interrest in China and the UK for its inherent safety, inability to melt down, scalability, near 100% efficiency, and use of very common and inexpensive thorium as fuel.
OfficeThug 5 months ago
The BBC programme was shameless propaganda from start to finish. Excellent work here by Goddards Journal.
Oh, anyone notice how Al-Khalili followed the now infamous "Monbiot script" point by point. Who is pulling the strings here?
hots4 5 months ago
ALL NEWS STATIONS would lose money if nuclear power was deemed hazardous. we need POWER to run our TVs all day LOL
AdamElseify 5 months ago
@AdamElseify Most of the world's baseload comes from coal, not nuclear. Now if nuclear put ads up on media channels, and those channels constantly hummed that nuclear was amazing and all that, then you'd be entitled to think things were sketchy.
Most of the time the ads are for fossil fuels and wind energy however (wind commonly being an excuse for coal and gas to build "intermittent" ramp-up plants to provide baseload whenever wind cannot, which is 75% of the time).
OfficeThug 5 months ago
BRAVO! Well done. That BBC "documentary" was pure shameless propaganda. total rubbish.
JG1635 5 months ago
I will NOT buy products from BBC’s advertisements. This is the best way for me to boycott BBC.
oilyear 5 months ago
Typical British state Tv using propaganda inline with Tory proposals to build several nuclear facilities without consultation...
Bushpig 5 months ago
"The killer awoke before dawn; he put his boots on. He took a face from the ancient gallery. And he walked on down the hall." - "The End" - The Doors.
watch?v=GGXeXm0uMDo
HyperIndividualist 5 months ago
Great video! Alcolilli is a lying hippocrite! He puts on safety boots in the end just make sure he's not contaminated by radiation! What a jerk!
freedomfighterone 5 months ago
This guy is completely delusional, and should be put in a psych hospital along with his NWO masters. Lies for money.
jaxrwld2 5 months ago
Thanks for exposing him as a fraud and NRC advocate. Total sellout!
SGMDL 5 months ago 2
@SGMDL Lol if you think the NRC is pro-nuclear.
OfficeThug 5 months ago