Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

BBC Horizon Fukushima: Is Nuclear Power Safe? ¦ 720p [3/4]

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
2,731
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Oct 11, 2011

Six months after the explosions at the Fukushima nuclear plant and the release of radiation there, Professor Jim Al-Khalili sets out to discover whether nuclear power is safe.

He begins in Japan, where he meets some of the tens of thousands of people who have been evacuated from the exclusion zone. He travels to an abandoned village just outside the zone to witness a nuclear clean-up operation.

Jim draws on the latest scientific findings from Japan and from the previous explosion at Chernobyl to understand how dangerous the release of radiation is likely to be and what that means for our trust in nuclear power.

  • likes, 1 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (7)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • @bobsickle2 the oil slick..... what about electric powered cars? baseload power provided by natural gas, coal gasification and hydro while solar technology and other new clean technologies become feasable? the problem with uraniummongers such as yourself is that your always compare nuclear to the dirtiest source of power when there are much cleaner, viable alternatives that are already in use...

  • @Dejan187 And where did you pull that statistic from? Disneyland? Yes, governments have a vested interest in the furthering of nuclear development but personally I would rather live with the atom than with the oil slick. You have to remember that Chernobyl was a result of poor maintainence and construction that was a product of USSR shortcuts and Fukushima was a result of a nuclear plant being constructed in a country along a fault line which is well known for tectonic activity.

  • @truesemite I've seen entire shows about Chernobyl dedicated to those birth defect issues, and it was the subject is politically bad, expensive (compensations) and scientifically very hard to judge.

    Just bringing those things which are hard to get hard numbers on might tip the scale from what the producers probably felt was as neutral approach to the Q posed, avoiding the "there's risks which may still haven't all surfaced, better ban nuclear power" take which could be leading the viewers.

  • 99% of all information about the safety of nuclear plants comes from studies bankrolled by the nuclear industry, the government and nuclear industry have been in bed since day one. Science says nuclear plants can only be safe when built underground, business/governement say its more cost effective to build the plants above ground regardless of the risks posed.

  • Yes there are some cancers, there is a risk of many health problems that should be paid attention to. The health effects do need to be put into context though as to how likely a person is to get them not just saying how many people got something. This means that even with all this, this is somewhat a challenge to make an existing technology as in nuclear power safer.

  • why didn't they mention the childern who were born shortly after Chernobyl blew who suffered severe genetic mutations ?

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more