Pandora's Promise (2013) - full transcript

[ INDISTINCT SHOUTING ]

[ CROWD CHANTS, "SHUT IT DOWN" ]

>> THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY IS A

DEATH INDUSTRY.

IT'S A CANCER INDUSTRY.

IT'S A BOMB INDUSTRY.

IT'S KILLING PEOPLE AND WILL FOR

THE REST OF TIME.

WELL, WHY DOESN'T

PRESIDENT OBAMA KNOW THIS?

HE'S THE INTELLIGENT MAN.



HE'S GOT TWO LITTLE GIRLS HE

LOVES.

WHAT THE HELL DOES HE THINK HE'S

UP TO SUPPORTING THE NUCLEAR

INDUSTRY?

IT'S WICKED.

[ INDISTINCT SHOUTING ]

>> DO YOU MIND IF I USE THE

"F" WORD?

CAN I USE THE "F" WORD?

WE GET RID OF ALL THESE FUCKING

NUCLEAR PLANTS RIGHT AWAY

BECAUSE WE CAN SWITCH TO SOLAR,

WIND, TIDAL, GEOTHERMAL, OCEAN



THERMAL.

ALL THAT ENERGY IS AVAILABLE TO

DO TODAY.

WE CAN SHUT ALL THE NUCLEAR

PLANTS AND ALL THE COAL, ALL THE

OIL, ALL THE GAS PLANTS.

WE CAN SHUT THEM DOWN.

WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY.

IT'S CALLED SOLARTOPIA.

>> AS A LIFELONG

ENVIRONMENTALIST, I'M AGAINST

NUCLEAR.

BUT WHAT IF WHAT I'VE BEEN

THINKING ALL THIS TIME AND WHAT

MY FRIENDS HAVE BEEN THINKING

ALL THIS TIME IS WRONG?

>> IT'S BEEN INTERESTING TO SEE

HOW PEOPLE RESPOND TO MY

PRONUCLEAR POWER POSITION

BECAUSE THEY RESPECT ME FOR MY

BOOKS ABOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS,

THEY KNOW THAT I'M A LIBERAL

DEMOCRAT, AND THEY'RE PUZZLED.

>> I WAS AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER.

ALL I HAD TO SAY WAS

"THREE MILE ISLAND, CHERNOBYL,

ATOMIC BOMBS, ATOMIC WEAPONS."

MY MIND WAS MADE UP,

DEFINITELY.

SO, I NEEDED A LOT OF INPUT.

RESEARCH I DID AND SCIENTISTS I

INTERVIEWED AND SO ON -- GOING

AND VISITING AND SEEING FOR

MYSELF.

>> I WAS UNDER NO DOUBT THAT MY

WHOLE CAREER AND MY WHOLE

REPUTATION AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL

ACTIVIST, COMMUNICATOR, WAS AT

RISK IF I TALKED PUBLICLY ABOUT

HAVING CHANGED MY MIND ABOUT

NUCLEAR POWER.

I'D HAVE BEEN MUCH BETTER IF I

WAS JUST TO KEEP MY MOUTH SHUT.

BUT I COULDN'T DO THAT.

>> WHENEVER YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND

SO RADICALLY, LIKE THOSE OF US

THAT HAVE BECOME PRONUCLEAR HAVE

CHANGED OUR MINDS, YOU START TO

WONDER WHAT YOU WERE THINKING.

I MEAN, WHAT EXACTLY WAS GOING

ON?

YOU KNOW, THE MORE YOU PEEL THAT

ONION, THE MORE STRANGE THINGS

YOU FIGURED OUT.

[ MID-TEMPO MUSIC PLAYS ]

>> ...TO THE ATOMIC RADIATION

ISSUE IN TOKYO FROM THE NUCLEAR

POWER PLANT AT

FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI.

NOW, TODAY 4 OF THE 6 REACTORS

THERE REMAIN IN STATES OF

DANGER.

>> A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT IS ONE OF

THE BIGGEST MEDIA STORIES IT'S

POSSIBLE TO HAVE.

>> ...REACTOR NUMBER 3.

THIS IS ONE WHOSE FUEL CONTAINS

A MIX OF PLUTONIUM.

>> IN MY FIRST BLOG ENTRY,

WITHIN THE FIRST 2 OR 3 DAYS OF

IT HAPPENING, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT

THE SCALE OF THE RADIATION

RELEASE WAS GOING TO BE -- I

DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER PEOPLE WERE

BEING INJURED.

>> ...WHETHER JAPAN IS

UNDERPLAYING THIS CRISIS...

>> THE FACT THAT THIS WAS

HAPPENING LIVE ON TV AND THAT

THERE WERE EXPLOSIONS -- YOU

KNOW, THIS WAS A NUCLEAR POWER

STATION BLOWING UP -- CLEARLY,

THE SITUATION WAS OUT OF

CONTROL.

>> THE CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY

HAS ASKED THE RESIDENTS OF TOKYO

NOT TO HOARD BOTTLED WATER.

>> AND SO YOU HAVE THESE AWFUL

IMAGES OF TOTAL DEVASTATION FROM

A TSUNAMI.

AND THE STORY WAS A NUCLEAR

POWER ACCIDENT.

IT ALL GOT MUDDLED TOGETHER.

>> SOME PEOPLE ON THE WEST COAST

OF THE UNITED STATES WORRY THAT

RADIATION COULD TRAVEL 5,000

MILES...

>> I HADN'T BEEN PRONUCLEAR ALL

THAT LONG BEFORE THE

FUKUSHIMA PLANT STARTED TO MELT

DOWN.

IT'S HARD TO WATCH THAT

HAPPENING AND NOT START TO

QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS

AN ENERGY SOURCE THAT IS REALLY

SAFE.

>> RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES WILL

LIKELY REACH CALIFORNIA, BUT

EXPERTS SAY THOSE LEVELS ARE SO

LOW, THEY CERTAINLY FALL WITHIN

SAFE LIMITS.

NOW, A LARGE NETWORK OF RADIO

MONITORS IS KEEPING CLOSE TABS

ON ALL OF THIS.

>> THE LONG-TERM EFFECTS,

OBVIOUSLY -- STILL TO BE

DETERMINED.

>> I THOUGHT, "I'VE GOT TO KEEP

MY HEAD," YOU KNOW?

"I COULD COMPLETELY LOSE IT

HERE, AND I COULD JUST PANIC."

[ JET ENGINES ROAR ]

[ BIRDS CHIRPING ]

[ WIND RUSHING ]

>> WHAT DO YOU THINK, MARK?

>> FEEL LIKE A BIT OF AN IDIOT,

ACTUALLY.

>> WHY?

>> UM, I DON'T KNOW.

'CAUSE IT'S SORT OF -- I'M

WEARING RADIATION CLOTHING.

[ SIGHS ]

SHOULDN'T BE NECESSARY.

[ BEEPING ]

IT MUST BE ABSOLUTELY AWFUL TO

HAVE YOUR TOWN WIPED BY OUT BY A

TSUNAMI AND EARTHQUAKE, AND THEN

YOU CAN'T EVEN COME BACK AND

REBUILD BECAUSE THE WHOLE PLACE

IS CONTAMINATED BY RADIATION.

EVEN IF IT'S NOT MASSIVELY

CONTAMINATED, IT'S CONTAMINATED

ENOUGH THAT IT SCARES THE SHIT

OUT OF YOU, AND I THINK

THAT'S -- YOU KNOW, NOBODY CAN

LOOK YOU IN THE EYE AND SAY,

"YOU SHOULDN'T BE WORRIED."

AND THE -- YOU KNOW, AND THERE'S

NO OTHER ENERGY SOURCE THAT DOES

THIS, THAT LEAVES HUGE AREAS

CONTAMINATED BY THIS -- THIS

STRANGE, INVISIBLE PRESENCE,

WHICH YOU KNOW IS POTENTIALLY

DEADLY, YOU KNOW?

EVERYTHING HAS ITS DRAWBACKS,

EVERYTHING HAS ITS RISKS, BUT

THIS IS SOMETHING WHICH IS

UNIQUE TO -- TO NUCLEAR.

[ BEEPING ]

I GUESS I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY

PEOPLE ARE SCARED OF NUCLEAR

POWER MORE.

[ CHUCKLES ]

YOU KNOW?

IT'S -- IT'S KIND OF EERIE.

SO, YEAH, I'M -- I WOULD SAY I'M

HAVING A WOBBLE.

I COULD SEE WHY WE'D WANT TO DO

WITHOUT NUCLEAR POWER --

I REALLY CAN.

[ GEIGER COUNTER CLICKING ]

NOW, THIS PARKING LOT IS THE --

THE HOTTEST SPOT IN THE -- IN

THE WHOLE EXCLUSION ZONE.

[ BEEPING ]

THIS PLACE GOT SOME SERIOUS

FALLOUT, I THINK.

>> SO, ARE YOU STILL PRONUCLEAR?

>> UM.

[ Laughing ] AM I --- AM I STILL

PRONUCLEAR?

ASK ME IN A -- ASK ME IN A FEW

DAYS WHEN I'VE HAD THE CHANCE TO

GET MY HEAD AROUND IT, ALL

RIGHT?

ARE YOU STILL PRONUCLEAR?

[ SLOW MUSIC PLAYS ]

[ BIRDS CALLING ]

>> TO START THE CHAIN REACTION,

ALL WE NEED IS ONE NEUTRON.

I THINK YOU CAN SEE WHAT IS

GOING TO HAPPEN.

WATCH.

>> MY FIRST INTRODUCTION TO

NUCLEAR POWER WAS QUITE NICE.

IT WAS A DISNEY MOVIE CALLED

"OUR FRIEND THE ATOM."

THE ATOM WAS GOING TO BRING

ABOUT A WONDERFUL REVOLUTION

IN -- IN THE WAY WE GOT OUR

ENERGY.

AND THERE WAS A NUCLEAR POWERED

SUBMARINE, THE NAUTILUS, THAT

WENT UNDER THE NORTH POLE, AND

US KIDS WERE REALLY ENTHUSIASTIC

ABOUT THAT.

AND THEN, WHEN I WAS IN MY

EARLY TEENS, ADMIRAL RICKOVER

CAME TO GIVE A SPEECH.

AND MY DAD KNEW I WAS INTERESTED

IN SCIENCE, SO HE TOOK ME.

>> WATCH THE CONTROL RODS COME

OUT.

AS THE CONTROL RODS COME OUT,

THE REACTOR STARTS.

THE WATER STARTS IN CIRCULATING

THROUGH HERE.

THE STEAM STARTS...

>> HE WAS A WONDERFUL SPEAKER,

AND HE WAS VERY INSPIRING ABOUT

AMERICAN TECHNOLOGY AND ABOUT

THE FUTURE.

AND HE TALKED ABOUT NUCLEAR

ENERGY BEING USED TO LIGHT UP

CITIES, NOT JUST RUN SUBMARINES.

SO, IT WAS A GENERALLY POSITIVE

NOTION.

[ DRAMATIC MUSIC PLAYS ]

>> I GOT INTO THE NUCLEAR

BUSINESS IN EARLY 1948.

PRIOR TO THAT, I WAS WORKING ON

ENGINES FOR THE TUCKER

AUTOMOBILE.

[ BELL DINGS ]

EVERYTHING WE HAD DONE UP UNTIL

THAT TIME TO PRODUCE ENERGY WAS

BY BURNING SOMETHING.

THE ENTICEMENT IN THE NUCLEAR

BUSINESS WAS THE FACT THAT IT

WAS A NEW SOURCE OF ENERGY, A

NEW WAY TO GENERATE HEAT.

BUT THE EQUIVALENCY IS HUGE.

ONE POUND OF URANIUM, WHICH IS

THE SIZE OF MY FINGERTIP, IF YOU

COULD RELEASE ALL OF THE ENERGY,

HAS THE EQUIVALENT OF ABOUT

5,000 BARRELS OF OIL...

AND THAT, TO ME, IS AMAZING.

I WORKED AT

ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY IN

IDAHO, WHICH REALLY WAS THE

HEADQUARTERS IN THE WORLD FOR

NUCLEAR POWER AT THE TIME.

WE WERE BUILDING THIS

FIRST-IN-THE-WORLD EXPERIMENTAL

BREEDER REACTOR.

EBR-I WAS AN EXPERIMENT JUST TO

PROVE THAT THE CONCEPT MADE

SENSE, SCIENTIFICALLY.

EVERYTHING HAPPENED JUST LIKE

WE EXPECTED IT TO.

THE REACTORS WENT CRITICAL.

"CRITICAL" MEANS YOU JUST --

YOU HAVE ENOUGH URANIUM SO THAT

IT GENERATES HEAT.

ALL THE REACTOR DOES IS

GENERATES HEAT.

THE END PRODUCT IS STEAM, AND

THEN, ONCE YOU HAVE STEAM, IT'S

THE SAME WHETHER YOU GENERATE

THE ELECTRICITY WITH OIL OR COAL

OR GAS OR -- JUST AS LONG AS YOU

HAVE A SOURCE OF HEAT.

SO, WE GENERATED ELECTRICITY,

AND THEN WE HOOKED UP FOUR LIGHT

BULBS, AND WE LIT THE LIGHT

BULBS FROM ATOMIC ENERGY.

NOBODY ELSE HAD DONE IT BEFORE.

BUT THE FACT THAT THE WHOLE

NUCLEAR BUSINESS, ATOMIC ENERGY,

WAS STARTED FOR A BOMB AND USED

AS A BOMB, AND I THINK THAT PUT

THE NEGATIVE SIDE ON IT.

>> I'M JUST OLD ENOUGH TO HAVE

CONSCIOUS MEMORY OF

WORLD WAR II...

AND THE ENDING OF WORLD WAR II.

NUCLEAR BOMBS WERE NOT JUST A

WEAPON -- THEY WERE A LITTLE

WINDOW INTO SOME KIND OF

ARMAGEDDON.

THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THE FILMS

AND THE STORIES THAT CAME OUT OF

HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI --

THOSE THINGS CUT PRETTY DEEP.

SO, YOU HAD THIS VERY STRONG

RESIDUE OF, "OH, THIS IS NOT

PRIMARILY AN ENERGY SOURCE --

THIS IS PRIMARILY A WEAPON,"

THAT WE FEEL VERY BADLY ABOUT.

[ EXPLOSION ]

AND THEN THE TESTING WENT ON AND

ON.

WE WERE HEARING ABOUT THE

RADIATION FROM THAT AND

STRONTIUM 90.

AND THEN THE RUSSIANS WERE DOING

TESTS.

THE CHINESE WERE DOING TESTS.

AND BEFORE IT REALLY SLOWED

DOWN, THERE WERE OVER 2,000

TESTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

[ SIREN BLARES ]

I GREW UP HAVING NIGHTMARES THAT

MY HOMETOWN WAS BOMBED INTO

OBLIVION AND I WAS THE ONLY

SURVIVOR.

US KIDS WERE IN SCHOOL DOING

DUCK-AND-COVER ROUTINES UNDER

THE DESKS AND -- THE BACKYARD

FALLOUT SHELTERS AND ALL THIS

STUFF MADE IT ALL PRETTY

PERSONAL.

[ CROWD CHANTING ]

>> I GREW UP IN AN ANTINUCLEAR

FAMILY.

YOU KNOW, MY PARENTS WERE

CHILDREN OF THE '60s.

THEY WERE LIBERALS AND

ENVIRONMENTALISTS.

TO -- TO ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN

NUCLEAR POWER WAS, BY

DEFINITION, TO BE A DUPE.

>> EVERY STEP ALONG THE WAY,

MEASURES WILL BE TAKEN TO

GUARANTEE THAT OUR PLANT AT

CONNECTICUT YANKEE CONTRIBUTES

TO THE BENEFICIAL AND HARMONIOUS

DEVELOPMENT OF

THE CONNECTICUT VALLEY.

>> THE HADDAM NECK SITE WILL BE

ARTFULLY LANDSCAPED SO THAT THE

BUILDINGS HARMONIZE WITH ITS

WOODED BACKGROUND.

>> PLANS EVEN CALL FOR AN

INFORMATION AND EDUCATIONAL

CENTER FOR THOSE WISHING TO

VISIT THE HADDAM NECK PROJECT.

>> AND I ACTUALLY VISITED A

NUCLEAR POWER PLANT WITH MY

BUDDIES IN HIGH SCHOOL.

AND WE KNEW ENOUGH TO HAVE A

VERY SARCASTIC ATTITUDE TOWARD

THE TOUR THEY GAVE US.

THEY WOULD SAY, "IT'S THIS

CLEAN SOURCE OF ENERGY.

IT'S REALLY SAFE.

IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO

WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS," AND WE

WOULD JUST LAUGH.

WE JUST THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE

ALL TOOLS, STOOGES OF THE --

OF THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY AND ITS

PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN.

[ HARP STRUMS ]

>> * THE SIMPSONS

>> OF COURSE, THAT GETS

REINFORCED FOR PEOPLE IN MY

GENERATION WITH

"THE SIMPSONS"...

[ SCHOOL BELL RINGS ]

>> WARNING.

PROBLEM IN SECTOR 7-G.

>> 7-G? GOOD GOD, WHO'S THE

SAFETY INSPECTOR THERE?

>> ...WHERE THE EVIL CHARACTER

IS THE C.E.O. OF THE NUCLEAR

POWER COMPANY.

>> SIMPSON, EH?

GOOD MAN? INTELLIGENT?

>> AND HOMER SIMPSON IS BUMBLING

WHILE THE WHOLE THING IS MELTING

DOWN.

>> D'OH! WHO'D HAVE THOUGHT A

NUCLEAR REACTOR WOULD BE SO

COMPLICATED?!

>> 90 SECONDS...

>> YOU JUST ALWAYS HAD THE SENSE

THAT NUCLEAR POWER WAS SOMETHING

SINISTER, SOMETHING THAT WAS A

LURKING DANGER.

[ BIRDS CHIRPING ]

>> I WAS AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER

BECAUSE I WAS AN

ENVIRONMENTALIST.

I AM AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.

AND THE TWO THINGS GO TOGETHER.

CERTAINLY, THAT ALWAYS SEEMED

TO BE THE CASE.

[ INDISTINCT SHOUTING ]

LOOKING BACK, I SUPPOSE YOU

COULD SAY I WAS A HARD-CORE

ACTIVIST.

[ SHOUTING CONTINUES ]

IT'S ALMOST LIKE BEING IN A

BATTLE ZONE, YOU KNOW?

IT'S THE KIND OF EXPERIENCE

THAT MOST PEOPLE NEVER HAVE,

WHERE YOU'RE BATTLING THE, YOU

KNOW, THE -- THE FORCES OF EVIL

ALMOST ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS --

EVIL BEING THE BIG CORPORATIONS,

THOSE WHO ARE MAKING PROFIT OUT

OF THIS DESTRUCTION, AND GOOD

BEING US.

[ SHOUTING CONTINUES ]

THE -- THE SLOGAN WAS

"NO COMPROMISE IN DEFENSE OF

MOTHER EARTH."

THAT'S THE -- THAT WAS THE --

THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL

EARTH FIRST! SLOGAN, AND IT'S

ONE THAT I STILL SUBSCRIBE TO AT

A VERY DEEP LEVEL, I THINK.

WELL, I MEAN, NUCLEAR POWER WAS

EVIL -- NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

>> ...GENERATIONS!

CRIMES AGAINST FUTURE

GENERATIONS!

WHO ARE THE CRIMINALS?!

>> I WAS WRITING FOR NATIONAL

MAGAZINES MANY YEARS AGO,

WRITING ARTICLES ABOUT THE

DANGERS OF NUCLEAR POWER.

AND I HAD THE STANDARD POINT OF

VIEW THAT I THINK MANY

JOURNALISTS STILL HAVE, THAT IT

MUST BE BAD.

I CAME TO REALIZE THEY BASICALLY

AVOIDED LOOKING AT THE WHOLE

PICTURE AND ONLY LOOKED AT THE

QUESTIONS THAT SEEMED TO PROVE

TO THEM THAT NUCLEAR POWER WAS

DANGEROUS, AS I HAD, TOO.

THE ONLY REASON I CHANGED MY

MIND IS THAT I TALKED TO

EXPERTS, PHYSICISTS IN

PARTICULAR, WHO WERE THE

PIONEERS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY AND

WHO CAREFULLY, ONE BY ONE,

EXPLAINED TO ME AGAIN AND AGAIN

UNTIL IT FINALLY GOT THROUGH MY

HEAD WHY IT WASN'T WHAT THE

ANTINUCLEAR ACTIVISTS FELT IT

WAS, BELIEVED IT WAS.

>> I WAS RIGHT THERE AT THE

BEGINNING OF THIS.

IT WAS MY CHANCE TO DO SOMETHING

FOR HUMANKIND.

THIS, AFTER ALL, WAS AN

UNLIMITED SOURCE OF ENERGY.

I ASSUMED THAT ALL ELECTRICAL

POWER, IF WE WERE SUCCESSFUL,

WOULD BE GENERATED BY NUCLEAR

MEANS.

IN THE '50s, THERE WERE,

ESSENTIALLY, TWO KINDS OF

REACTORS BEING DEVELOPED -- THE

BREEDER REACTOR, WHICH EBR-I WAS

A PROTOTYPE FOR, AND THE

LIGHT WATER REACTOR.

THE BREEDER REACTOR BREEDS

PLUTONIUM AND CAN RECYCLE IT

OVER AND OVER AGAIN -- IT'S A

VERY GOOD FUEL.

[ CHUCKLES ]

THE LIGHT WATER REACTOR IS A

MUCH SIMPLER REACTOR, BUT IT

PRODUCES MUCH MORE WASTE.

IT WAS CHOSEN BY

ADMIRAL RICKOVER TO BE THE

REACTOR FOR THE SUBMARINE.

THERE ARE MANY THINGS TO BE

SAID FOR LIGHT WATER REACTORS

AND THERE'S SOME TO BE SAID

AGAINST THEM.

BUT WITH RICKOVER'S INFLUENCE,

THE LIGHT WATER REACTOR BECAME

THE PRINCIPAL COMMERCIAL REACTOR

AROUND THE WORLD.

>> WE DEVELOPED WATER REACTORS,

BUT WE LOOKED UPON THAT AS SORT

OF A NEAR-TERM, SHORT-RANGE

STEPPING STONE TO REAL NUCLEAR

POWER, THE BREEDER REACTOR.

THAT'S WHAT WE CONSIDERED TO BE

THE MOST LIKELY REAL LONG-RANGE

FUTURE FOR NUCLEAR POWER.

BUT THE WATER REACTOR GOT

MARKETED FIRST.

[ HORN HONKS ]

>> THIS WAS PARTLY A COMMERCIAL

MOVE ON OUR PART.

IN THE EARLY 1950s, WE WERE

CONCERNED THAT THE SOVIET UNION,

WHICH HAD KEPT PACE WITH US IN

THE DEVELOPMENT OF NUCLEAR

REACTORS FOR POWER, WOULD STEAL

A MARCH ON US AND GET THE

COMMERCIAL BUSINESS IN EUROPE.

SO, PRESIDENT EISENHOWER

DECIDED TO SHARE THE BENEFITS OF

NUCLEAR ENERGY WITH OTHER

COUNTRIES.

IT WAS CALLED "ATOMS FOR PEACE."

>> WE'VE HAD 50 YEARS NOW OF

WATER REACTORS, 400 OF 'EM,

ROUGHLY, ALL OVER THE WORLD, AND

THEY'VE PRODUCED A HELL OF A LOT

OF WASTE THAT WE DIDN'T

ANTICIPATE.

YOU KNOW, YOU MENTION

100,000 YEARS OF STUFF THAT YOU

GOT TO KEEP ISOLATED FROM THE

REST OF THE WORLD, THAT'S ENOUGH

TO SCARE A LOT OF PEOPLE.

THAT WAS, PERHAPS, THE PRICE WE

PAID FOR COMMERCIALIZATION IN

THE SENSE THAT WE DIDN'T LOOK

AHEAD.

>> NUCLEAR POWER WAS DEVELOPED

AS A KIND OF A BOUTIQUE ENERGY

SOURCE BY UTILITIES EXECUTIVES

WHO REALLY DIDN'T KNOW VERY MUCH

ABOUT IT.

I TALKED TO PEOPLE WHO SAID,

"WELL, I HEARD ABOUT IT ON THE

GOLF COURSE FROM THE GUY WHO

RUNS THE PLANT DOWN THE ROAD.

HE'S GONNA BUILD ONE, AND SO I

THOUGHT I SHOULD, TOO."

THE FIRST COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR

POWER PLANT THAT WAS BUILT IN

THE UNITED STATES WAS BUILT IN

SHIPPINGPORT, PENNSYLVANIA.

IT WAS A MODIFIED VERSION OF A

LARGE SUBMARINE REACTOR.

ONE OF THE MAJOR REASONS THE

POWER COMPANY WANTED IT WAS

BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT OF COAL

POLLUTION IN PITTSBURGH, AND

NUCLEAR ENERGY LOOKED TO PEOPLE

TO BE, AS IT IS, A CLEAN FORM OF

ENERGY.

THE FIRST POWER REACTORS WERE

FAIRLY SMALL, BUT THE PUSH BY

THE POWER AND LIGHT COMPANIES OF

AMERICA WAS TO SCALE THEM UP AS

QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

SAFETY, INSTEAD OF BEING

INHERENT IN THE DESIGN OF THE

REACTOR ITSELF, HAD TO BE

ENGINEERED AROUND IT, AS IT

WERE.

YOU HAD TO HAVE MULTIPLE CORE

COOLING SYSTEMS THAT HAD TO BE

ADDED ON TO ANTICIPATE POSSIBLE

BREAKDOWNS OF VARIOUS KINDS.

THE ODDS OF "X" HAPPENING OR

"Y" HAPPENING WERE VERY SMALL.

BUT UNLIKE THOSE SMALLER

REACTORS, THEY REALLY COULDN'T

SAY IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE.

>> LATE TODAY, OFFICIALS HERE

IN WASHINGTON SUMMARIZED BRIEFLY

WHAT SEEMS TO HAVE CAUSED THE

PROBLEM.

FIRST, A PUMP IN THE GENERATOR

SYSTEM BROKE DOWN AT 4:00 A.M.

YESTERDAY.

THE REACTOR IMMEDIATELY SHUT

DOWN.

REACTOR OPERATORS DECIDED TO

OPEN THE VALVES AND RELEASE

RADIOACTIVE WATER FROM THE

REACTOR.

THAT, APPARENTLY, MAY HAVE BEEN

THE WRONG THING TO DO.

WHEN THE EMERGENCY CORE COOLING

SYSTEM CAME ON AUTOMATICALLY, AN

OPERATOR TURNED IT OFF.

THAT, TOO, APPARENTLY, WAS A

MISTAKE, FOR THEN HIGH LEVELS OF

RADIATION WERE RELEASED INSIDE

THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING.

AND NOT TILL THREE HOURS LATER

WAS IT REALIZED THAT RADIATION

WAS BEING RELEASED AND, IN FACT,

WAS PENETRATING TO THE OUTSIDE.

>> THREE MILE ISLAND HAPPENED.

AND THE FIRST THING I THOUGHT

OF IS, "ARE THOSE RAYS COMING

OUT OF THREE MILE ISLAND GONNA

COME TO NEW YORK AND HARM MY

DAUGHTER?"

I REMEMBER STANDING IN MY

APARTMENT AND THINKING, "WHAT

CAN -- YOU KNOW, WHAT CAN WE

DO?"

>> THIS IS JACK GODELL.

WE HAVE A SERIOUS CONDITION.

YOU GET EVERYBODY INTO SAFETY

AREAS AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY

STAY THERE.

[ RECEIVER CLICKS ]

>> OF COURSE, TWO WEEKS EARLIER,

"THE CHINA SYNDROME" HAD COME

OUT.

SO I WAS ALREADY PREPARED TO BE

TERRORIZED BY THIS EVENT.

>> THE CHINA SYNDROME.

>> THE WHAT?

>> IF THE CORE IS EXPOSED, FOR

WHATEVER REASON, THE FUEL HEATS

BEYOND...

>> THE IDEA BEHIND

"THE CHINA SYNDROME" IS THAT THE

NUCLEAR POWER PLANT WOULD MELT

DOWN -- IT WOULD BURROW A HOLE

ALL THE WAY TO CHINA.

[ Chuckling ] NEVER MIND THAT

CHINA'S NOT ACTUALLY ON THE

OTHER SIDE OF THE EARTH AS

THE UNITED STATES.

BUT THAT WAS THE IDEA -- THAT IT

WOULD -- THAT -- THAT THE

WORST-CASE SCENARIO WOULD BE

APOCALYPTIC.

>> THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE KILLED

WOULD DEPEND ON WHICH WAY THE

WIND IS BLOWING -- RENDER AN

AREA THE SIZE OF PENNSYLVANIA

PERMANENTLY UNINHABITABLE, NOT

TO MENTION THE CANCER THAT WOULD

SHOW UP LATER.

>> THAT'S WHEN I THINK I BEGAN

TO CONFLATE NUCLEAR POWER WITH

NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

>> ...FROM A LEAKING NUCLEAR

PLANT.

>> WE DON'T WANT A RADIOACTIVE

WASTELAND, WHETHER IT'S FROM A

BOMB OR A NUCLEAR PLANT.

THAT KIND OF -- THAT'S PROBABLY

THE SORT OF THING I WOULD HAVE

ANSWERED.

IT JUST SEEMED LIKE, "OKAY,

NUCLEAR ANYTHING IS A BAD IDEA."

>> I WANT TO JUST SAY A FEW

WORDS ABOUT THE CHINA SYNDROME,

MY MOVIE, "THE CHINA SYNDROME,"

BECAUSE IF WE CONTINUE TO PLACE

OUR HEALTH AND SAFETY IN THE

HANDS OF UTILITY EXECUTIVES

WHOSE MAIN GOAL IN LIFE IS TO

MAXIMIZE PROFITS, THEN WE WILL

SEE MORE HARRISBURGS, WE WILL

SEE MORE LEAKS, AND WE WILL SEE

AN INCREASE IN THE CANCER

EPIDEMIC THAT IS ALREADY RUNNING

RAMPANT IN THIS COUNTRY.

[ CROWD CHANTS "NO MORE NUKES" ]

[ RHYTHMIC DRUMMING ]

[ CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ]

>> STOPPING ATOMIC ENERGY IS

PRACTICING PATRIOTISM.

STOPPING ATOMIC ENERGY IS

FIGHTING CANCER.

STOPPING ATOMIC ENERGY IS

FIGHTING INFLATION.

STOPPING ATOMIC ENERGY IS

SAVING THIS COUNTRY.

[ INTRODUCTION PLAYS ]

>> * JUST GIVE ME THE

RESTLESS POWER OF THE WIND *

* GIVE ME THE COMFORTING GLOW

OF A WOOD FIRE *

* BUT PLEASE TAKE ALL YOUR

ATOMIC POISON POWER AWAY *

>> IN THE 1980s, MY HUSBAND AND

I WERE LIVING IN THE EAST END OF

LONG ISLAND.

AND WORD GETS OUT THAT THIS

NUCLEAR PLANT IS GOING TO START

UP.

AND THIS IS, OF COURSE, RIGHT

AFTER THREE MILE ISLAND.

THAT'S VERY MUCH IN PEOPLE'S

MINDS.

THE LOCAL PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL

PEOPLE, AND I WOULD BE ONE OF

THOSE -- JUST SAID, "YEAH, WE

GOT TO STOP SHOREHAM, HOWEVER WE

CAN."

>> NO ONE WILL SURVIVE!

[ INDISTINCT SHOUTING ]

>> EVERY DAY THE PLANT OPERATES,

RADIATION WILL BE COMING OUT OF

THE PLANT, RIGHT?

AND IT'LL GET INTO THE FOOD.

>> WOMEN MAY BE HARD-WIRED TO

PROTECT OUR FAMILIES.

>> TAKE THEM ASIDE.

>> AND IT'S JUST A NATURAL

IMPULSE.

>> YOU ALL HAVE CHILDREN!

AND YOU ALL HAVE CHILDREN!

>> IF SOMETHING LOOKS LIKE IT'S

BAD, WE'RE HOLDING UP OUR HAND

AND SAYING, "NO.

NO, PLEASE.

WE -- WE CAN'T HAVE THAT."

I REMEMBER THESE BIG SCARE ADS

IN THE PAPERS GETTING PEOPLE TO

ORGANIZE RALLIES AGAINST

SHOREHAM.

THERE WERE MANY THINGS I DIDN'T

KNOW AT THAT TIME THAT I'VE

LEARNED SINCE.

FOR ONE THING, IT TURNS OUT THE

ADS WERE PLACED BY THE

OIL-DELIVERY INDUSTRY -- YOU

KNOW, THE COMPANIES THAT DELIVER

FUEL TO PEOPLE IN LONG ISLAND.

AND, SURE, THE OIL COMPANIES CAN

SAY, "GO SOLAR," 'CAUSE THEY

KNOW IT'S NEVER GOING TO REPLACE

OIL HEAT.

YOU CANNOT TURN ON THE SUN IN

THE WINTER AND HOPE TO WARM UP

YOUR HOUSE.

GOOD LUCK.

SOLAR, SOLAR -- NOT NUCLEAR.

>> SOLAR -- NOT NUCLEAR.

>> YEAH.

>> SPONSORED BY THE

OIL HEAT INSTITUTE.

>> YEAH. NO PROBLEM.

YEAH. "YOU DON'T NEED A FURNACE.

JUST HAVE SOLAR PANELS."

THEY KNOW -- I MEAN, THIS IS THE

CYNICISM OF THE FOSSIL FUEL

INDUSTRY.

>> SHOREHAM WAS ACTUALLY

FINISHED AND STARTED UP, AND

THEN IMMEDIATELY SHUT DOWN BY

THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE AND

BASICALLY MOTHBALLED.

IT WAS THIS IMMENSE INVESTMENT,

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, IN A

REACTOR WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN OF

GREAT USE TO NEW YORK CITY, BUT

PEOPLE WERE SO AFRAID OF IT THAT

THEY SIMPLY SAID, "SHUT IT

DOWN."

AND TODAY, IT'S A MAUSOLEUM.

THOSE OF US WHO WERE WORRIED

ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER PERCEIVED

THAT NUCLEAR POWER WASN'T REALLY

NEEDED.

AND THIS, I THINK, IS ONE OF

THE FUNDAMENTAL TRAGEDIES OF THE

ANTINUCLEAR MOVEMENT -- TO BE

ANTINUCLEAR IS BASICALLY TO BE

IN FAVOR OF BURNING FOSSIL

FUELS.

I HAD, FINALLY, TO CHANGE MY

MIND.

AND I HAVE SEEN FRIENDS OF MINE

CHANGE THEIR MINDS, ONE OF THEM

BEING GWYNETH CRAVENS, WHO

STARTED OUT RATHER ANTINUCLEAR,

AS I DID, AND ENDED UP WRITING A

BOOK ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF

NUCLEAR POWER.

[ BIRDS CALLING ]

>> THE DIFFERENCE NOW IS IN THE

SCALE OF THE DAMAGE WE ARE

DOING.

WE ARE SEEING A VAST INCREASE IN

THE AMOUNT OF CARBON DIOXIDE

REACHING THE ATMOSPHERE.

IT IS MANKIND AND HIS ACTIVITIES

WHICH ARE CHANGING THE

ENVIRONMENT OF OUR PLANET IN

DAMAGING AND DANGEROUS WAYS --

CHANGE TO THE SEA AROUND US,

CHANGE TO THE ATMOSPHERE ABOVE,

LEADING, IN TURN, TO CHANGE IN

THE WORLD'S CLIMATE, WHICH COULD

ALTER THE WAY WE LIVE IN THE

MOST FUNDAMENTAL WAY OF ALL.

THAT PROSPECT IS A NEW FACTOR

IN HUMAN AFFAIRS.

IT'S COMPARABLE IN ITS

IMPLICATIONS TO THE DISCOVERY OF

HOW TO SPLIT THE ATOM.

INDEED, ITS RESULTS COULD BE

EVEN MORE FAR-REACHING.

WE CAN'T JUST DO NOTHING.

[ SUSPENSEFUL MUSIC PLAYS ]

>> ONE OF THE KEY ARGUMENTS

THAT -- THAT CLIMATE DENIERS USE

IS, "OH, LOOK, YOU KNOW, THE

CLIMATE'S A HUGE THING.

YOU REALLY SAY WE'RE AFFECTING

THE WEATHER -- JUST US?

YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST LITTLE

PEOPLE," BUT WE ARE.

WE'RE BEGINNING TO SEE THE KIND

OF DESTABILIZATION AND CHAOS

THAT YOU GET, ACTUALLY, WHEN YOU

SEE THIS TRANSITION TO MUCH

WARMER GLOBAL TEMPERATURES.

AND THAT PROCESS OF CHANGE, OF

VERY, VERY RAPID CLIMATE CHANGE,

IS GOING TO WREAK HAVOC ON HUMAN

SOCIETY.

[ INDISTINCT CONVERSATION ]

HAVING CHILDREN HAS MADE ME EVEN

MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE FUTURE.

SO IT'S -- IT'S SORT OF DEEPENED

MY COMMITMENT TO -- TO TACKLING

GLOBAL WARMING.

[ INDISTINCT CONVERSATION ]

LOVING YOUR CHILDREN IS ABOUT

LOVING THE FUTURE AND LOVING THE

WORLD THAT THEY'RE GOING TO

INHERIT.

AND SO YOU'VE GOT TO MAKE SURE

THAT THAT'S RIGHT.

>> AHHH!

AHHH!

>> I HAD A SNEAKING SUSPICION

THAT NUCLEAR WAS GONNA HAVE TO

BE PART OF THE SOLUTION, SIMPLY

BECAUSE IT'S -- IT'S -- IT

DOESN'T PRODUCE CARBON DIOXIDE.

[ CHUCKLES ]

BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO GO THERE.

>> WHY?

>> WELL, I WAS TOO SCARED.

I MEAN, IT'S -- IT'S PATHETIC,

REALLY, BUT -- LOOKING BACK.

BUT, YOU KNOW, YEAH.

YOU DON'T WANT TO MAKE ENEMIES

OF YOUR MAIN ALLIES IN THE

ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT BY

TACKLING SOMETHING WHICH IS

DIFFICULT, CONTROVERSIAL.

[ MID-TEMPO MUSIC PLAYS ]

>> TED AND I SPENT BASICALLY

THE ENTIRETY OF OUR PROFESSIONAL

CAREERS WORKING FOR THE BIG

ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS.

I MEAN, YOU NAME IT --

SIERRA CLUB, NRDC.

WE EVEN WORKED WITH EARTH FIRST!

ON A CAMPAIGN TO SAVE THE LAST

ANCIENT REDWOODS IN CALIFORNIA.

WE WERE MOVEMENT GUYS.

I MEAN, WE WERE CONSULTANTS TO

THE BIG GREEN GROUPS.

WE REALLY ACCEPTED MOST OF THE

BASIC IDEAS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL

MOVEMENT.

AND I THINK, OVER TIME, WE,

YOU KNOW, BECAME GRADUALLY

DISILLUSIONED WITH THE

TRADITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL

APPROACHES TO -- TO CLIMATE

CHANGE.

>> IT'S MY ASSESSMENT THAT WE

HAVE NO CONSENSUS HERE FOR

ARTICLE 10, THEN WE ARE GOING TO

DELETE ARTICLE 10 FROM THE

PROTOCOL.

IT'S SO DECIDED.

>> PEOPLE WOULD TELL YOU THAT,

"OH, EVERYTHING IS GONNA CHANGE.

THE WORLD IS GONNA IMPLEMENT

THE KYOTO TREATY ON GLOBAL

WARMING.

WE'RE ALL GONNA START USING

SOLAR AND WIND FOR OUR ENERGY."

IT WAS A VERY SEDUCTIVE

NARRATIVE.

>> THEN, PARAGRAPH (A) IS

ADOPTED.

THERE IS AGREEMENT ON

PARAGRAPH (C) ON THIS ARTICLE.

PARAGRAPH (C) IS ADOPTED.

MAY I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS

AGREEMENT ON PARAGRAPH (D), (E),

(F), AND (G)?

>> THE IDEA WAS THAT THE U.S.

WAS GONNA SIGN KYOTO, AND THEN

ALL THE COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD

WERE GONNA JUST START RATCHETING

DOWN THEIR EMISSIONS, YEAR AFTER

YEAR, JUST LIKE THEY DID IN

THEIR EXCEL SPREADSHEETS.

>> LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT

PARAGRAPH (B).

>> THE PROBLEM IS THESE WERE ALL

PROPOSALS BASED ON MAKING FOSSIL

FUELS MORE EXPENSIVE.

AND I THINK IT'S PRETTY SAFE TO

SAY THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

>> THE ADOPTION OF THIS PROTOCOL

TO THE CONFERENCE BY UNANIMITY.

[ APPLAUSE ]

>> THERE'S NOT GONNA BE A GLOBAL

TREATY ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

THE UNITED NATIONS' TREATY

PROCESS HAS BASICALLY RUN

AGROUND.

WE JUST WALKED AWAY BEING LIKE,

"NOBODY HAS A CLUE AS TO HOW TO

DO THIS."

SO, WE WROTE THIS ESSAY,

"THE DEATH OF ENVIRONMENTALISM,"

THAT ARGUED THAT, IF

ENVIRONMENTALISM IS THAT KIND OF

SMALL-BORE, THEN WE NEED

SOMETHING BEYOND

ENVIRONMENTALISM.

>> MODERN ENVIRONMENTALISM, WITH

ALL OF ITS UNEXAMINED

ASSUMPTIONS, OUTDATED CONCEPTS,

AND EXHAUSTED STRATEGIES MUST

DIE SO THAT SOMETHING NEW CAN

LIVE.

>> I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IT WILL

TAKE MORE THAN DEAD PENGUINS AND

MELTING ICE CAPS TO GET

AMERICANS TO FUNDAMENTALLY GET

INVOLVED IN THIS POLITICAL

TRANSFORMATION OF OUR ENERGY

ECONOMY.

WE STILL DIDN'T THINK WE NEEDED

NUCLEAR POWER.

IT REALLY TOOK US GETTING CLEAR

ABOUT HOW BIG THE GAP WAS

BETWEEN FOSSIL FUELS AND

RENEWABLES FOR US TO TAKE A

SECOND LOOK AT NUCLEAR.

>> PART OF THE PROBLEM IS

INTERMITTENCY, AND THAT HASN'T

BEEN SOLVED.

IT'S NOT ALWAYS SUNNY, AND IT'S

NOT ALWAYS WINDY, AND THERE ARE

LONG PERIODS OF TIME WHEN

RENEWABLES WOULD DELIVER NO

POWER AT ALL INTO A GRID.

THEY HAVE TO HAVE NATURAL-GAS

BACKUP.

>> SO WHAT YOU END UP GETTING

WITH RENEWABLES IS A PRETTY BIG

EXPANSION OF NATURAL GAS.

YOU KNOW, I'M SURE PEOPLE HAD

TOLD ME THAT, AND I DIDN'T

BELIEVE THEM.

>> WE'RE BUILDING THESE ALL OVER

THE COUNTRY, AND ONE OF THE

QUESTIONS WE ASK -- WE NEED

ABOUT 3,000 FOOT IN ALTITUDE.

WE NEED FLAT LAND.

WE NEED 300 DAYS OF SUNLIGHT.

AND WE NEED TO BE NEAR A GAS

PIPE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, FOR ALL

OF THESE BIG UTILITY-SCALE POWER

PLANTS, WHETHER IT'S WIND OR

SOLAR, EVERYBODY IS LOOKING AT

GAS AS THE SUPPLEMENTARY FUEL.

THE -- THE PLANTS THAT WE'RE

BUILDING, THE WIND PLANTS AND

THE SOLAR PLANTS, ARE GAS

PLANTS.

>> I ENDED UP FEELING LIKE A

SUCKER.

I ENDED UP FEELING LIKE I WAS A

SUCKER.

THE IDEA THAT WE'RE GONNA

REPLACE OIL AND COAL AND NATURAL

GAS WITH SOLAR AND WIND AND

NOTHING ELSE IS A HALLUCINATORY

DELUSION.

YOU KNOW, YOU FIND YOURSELF

FEELING, I THINK, QUITE --

I FOUND MYSELF QUITE

DISAPPOINTED IN MYSELF AND --

AND HONESTLY, QUITE ANGRY AT

OTHERS WHO WERE PROPAGATING THAT

MYTH.

>> THIS LIGHT BULB, WHEN

EVERYBODY'S GOT 'EM, IS A

QUADRUPLE EFFICIENCY BULB.

THAT'LL DISPLACE TWO DOZEN

POWER PLANTS.

THIS THING FOR FLUORESCENT

LIGHTS WILL DISPLACE 60 BIG

POWER PLANTS.

THIS MOTOR CONTROLLER CHIP AND

ABOUT 10 OTHER THINGS YOU DO TO

MOTORS SAVES 70 BIG POWER

PLANTS.

JUST THESE THREE THINGS -- THERE

GOES EVERY NUCLEAR PLANT WE

HAVE.

>> I HAD GOTTEN THE RELIGION

ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND

RENEWABLES IN COLLEGE WHEN I

FIRST READ AMORY LOVINS.

AMORY LOVINS IS STILL TAUGHT IN

MAYBE EVERY LIBERAL ARTS

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES CLASS IN

AMERICA.

YOU KNOW, HE HAS ARTICLE AFTER

ARTICLE EXPLAINING WHY SOLAR AND

WIND ARE CHEAPER THAN FOSSIL

FUELS AND WHY YOU DON'T NEED TO

BUILD NUCLEAR PLANTS BECAUSE WE

CAN USE ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

IT'S A VERY APPEALING, SEDUCTIVE

MESSAGE.

>> THEY'RE GETTING SMALLER.

HERE'S A LITTLE OSRAM 11

REPLACING A 50.

>> AND I BOUGHT IT.

MY PARENTS, MY FAMILY BOUGHT IT.

REALLY, EVERYBODY I KNOW

BELIEVED THIS.

>> THE STANDARD SORT OF GREEN

ENVIRONMENTALIST NARRATIVE HAS

BEEN THAT WE CAN ALL USE LESS

ENERGY.

SO, WE CAN BE RENEWABLE.

WE CAN GO FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY,

THE IDEA THAT HUMANKIND IS

SIMPLY WASTING AND USING TOO

MUCH.

NOW, I HAVE A LOT OF TIME FOR

THAT ARGUMENT, BUT YOU CAN'T

KEEP USING LESS ENERGY FOREVER.

[ BRAKES SQUEAL ]

[ HORN HONKS ]

>> MOST PEOPLE KIND OF THINK

THAT, SOMEHOW, WE'RE GONNA BE

REDUCING OUR ENERGY CONSUMPTION.

ACTUALLY, WE JUST FIND MORE AND

MORE USES FOR IT.

IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE ENERGY

THAT IS USED BY AN iPHONE -- NOT

JUST TO MAKE IT AND TO POWER IT,

BUT, ALSO, TO POWER ALL THE

SERVERS, ALL OF THE STUFF THAT

YOU DON'T SEE THAT THE iPHONE IS

CONNECTED TO, IT USES AS MUCH

ENERGY AS A REFRIGERATOR.

>> THERE'S A DIRECT CORRELATION

BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY

AVAILABLE TO A CIVILIZATION AND

THAT CIVILIZATION'S QUALITY OF

LIFE.

UNLESS YOU WANT TO CONDEMN MORE

THAN HALF THE POPULATION OF THE

EARTH TO POVERTY AND SICKNESS

AND SHORT LIVES, WE'RE GOING TO

HAVE TO PRODUCE MORE ENERGY.

>> IN REGIONS THAT DON'T HAVE

ELECTRICITY OR VERY LITTLE

ELECTRICITY, THE LIFE SPAN IS

MUCH SHORTER.

CLINICS, SCHOOLS,

REFRIGERATION -- ALL OF THESE

THINGS RELY ON ELECTRICITY.

AND JUST A FEW WATTS MAKE A BIG

DIFFERENCE.

AS SOON AS YOU GET ELECTRICITY,

YOU IMPROVE PEOPLE'S LIVES.

SO, THAT'S HUMAN LIFE.

FIRST OF ALL, WE'RE TALKING

ABOUT HUMAN -- JUST QUALITY OF

LIFE.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE COUNTRIES

WITH THE BEST QUALITY OF LIFE,

THEY ARE THE COUNTRIES THAT

CONSUME THE MOST ELECTRICITY --

RAIN OR SHINE, 24 HOURS A DAY, A

STEADY STREAM OF POWER.

[ CHILD SHOUTING IN NATIVE

LANGUAGE ]

>> THE GLOBAL SOUTH IS PRETTY

WARM, AND THEY WOULD LIKE

AIR-CONDITIONING.

AND UP TILL NOW, THEY'VE NOT

BEEN ABLE TO AFFORD IT, BUT NOW

THEY CAN.

THEY'RE GETTING OUT OF POVERTY,

AND THEY NEED GRID ELECTRICITY

TO RUN THEIR AIR CONDITIONERS.

AND, OF COURSE, VARIOUS

ENVIRONMENTALISTS FREAK OUT AT

THAT POINT.

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, IF YOU

COULD HAVE VAST QUANTITIES OF

REALLY, REALLY CLEAN ENERGY IN

THE DEVELOPING WORLD IN THE NEXT

DECADE OR SO, THAT IS SUCH AN

IMPROVED WORLD, IT TAKES YOUR

BREATH AWAY.

[ HORNS HONKING ]

>> ASSUMING THAT THE WORLD

CONTINUES TO DEVELOP AND THAT

CHINA AND INDIA AND BRAZIL

BECOME RICH COUNTRIES OVER THE

NEXT HALF CENTURY OR CENTURY,

HOW MUCH ENERGY IS THE WORLD

GONNA USE?

WHEN YOU START RUNNING THOSE

NUMBERS, IT'S A SOBERING

EXERCISE.

AND YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GET

THAT NUMBER EXACTLY RIGHT, BUT

YOU REALIZE WE'RE GONNA

BASICALLY DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF

ENERGY WE CONSUME BY 2050.

WE'RE PROBABLY GONNA TRIPLE IT

OR QUADRUPLE IT BY THE END OF

THE CENTURY.

AND MEANWHILE, IF YOU WANT TO

STABILIZE EMISSIONS AT SOME

REASONABLE LEVEL, ALMOST ALL OF

THAT ENERGY HAS TO BE CLEAN

ENERGY.

YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT TO NOT

ONLY, YOU KNOW, CREATE A CLEAN

ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE TO REPLACE

THE FOSSIL FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE

WE HAVE, BUT WE HAVE TO CREATE

YET ANOTHER ONE, OR MAYBE TWO OF

THEM, BETWEEN NOW AND 2050 OR

2100 IN ORDER TO REDUCE OUR

EMISSIONS TO STABILIZE THE

CLIMATE.

AND THAT IS JUST NOTHING THAT

ANYBODY HAS REALLY BEEN TALKING

ABOUT OR DEALING WITH OVER THE

LAST 20 YEARS.

IT COMES AS A SHOCK TO A LOT OF

ENVIRONMENTALISTS TO HEAR THIS,

BUT COAL IS NOT ONLY THE MOST

WIDELY USED SOURCE OF ENERGY IN

THE WORLD -- IT'S ALSO THE

FASTEST-GROWING SOURCE OF

ENERGY.

ITS USE IS ACCELERATING

WORLDWIDE FASTER THAN NATURAL

GAS, FASTER THAN RENEWABLES,

FASTER THAN ANYTHING ELSE.

>> WHEN I HAVE SPOKEN TO WOMEN'S

GROUPS, NONE OF THEM KNEW HOW

BAD COAL WAS.

THEY DIDN'T KNOW IT KILLED

PEOPLE.

IF YOU ADD UP ALL FOSSIL FUEL

COMBUSTION IN THE UNITED STATES,

JUST FROM POWER PLANTS, YOU'LL

FIND PARTICULATES ALONE KILL

13,000 PEOPLE A YEAR.

WORLDWIDE, 3 MILLION PEOPLE DIE

A YEAR FROM AIR POLLUTION FROM

FOSSIL FUEL PLANTS.

>> ONE OF THE BIG SURPRISES FOR

ME WHEN I STARTED LOOKING INTO

THE MORTALITY DATA, THE DEATH

RATES, ASSOCIATED WITH EACH

ENERGY TECHNOLOGY PER AMOUNT OF

ENERGY THEY MAKE, IS THAT

NUCLEAR IS THE SECOND SAFEST

AFTER WIND.

AND IN FACT, TO ADD TO THE

IRONY OF IT, NUCLEAR POWER IS

EVEN SAFER THAN SOLAR PANELS.

[ CHUCKLES ]

MAKING SOLAR PANELS IS AN

INCREDIBLY TOXIC PROCESS.

BUT, I MEAN, I THOUGHT THAT

PEOPLE DIED AT

THREE MILE ISLAND.

I THOUGHT THAT HUNDREDS OF

THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE DIED AT

CHERNOBYL.

I THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS NUCLEAR

WASTE SCATTERED ALL AROUND THE

COUNTRY AND THAT IT WAS SEEPING

INTO OUR WATER SYSTEMS.

I BELIEVED ALL THAT STUFF.

AND I -- AND I THOUGHT, EVEN IF

MAYBE IT WAS GETTING A LITTLE

BIT BETTER OR MAYBE IF IT

WERE -- IF THE PROBLEMS OF IT

WERE EXAGGERATED A LITTLE BIT BY

MY FELLOW ENVIRONMENTALISTS THAT

IT WAS STILL A RISK THAT WE

DIDN'T NEED TO TAKE.

[ "WHEN THE SAINTS GO MARCHING

IN" PLAYS ]

>> THERE HASN'T BEEN A SINGLE

DEATH FROM THE OPERATION OF

COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR REACTORS IN

THE UNITED STATES -- NOT ONE

DEATH IN THE HISTORY OF NUCLEAR

POWER IN THIS COUNTRY.

AT VERMONT YANKEE, WHICH

ANTINUCLEAR PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO

SHUT DOWN, PROTESTERS KEEP

SAYING IT'S CAUSING PUBLIC

HEALTH PROBLEMS.

IT'S NOT.

>> BUT IT'S LEAKING TRITIUM.

>> IT'S LEAKING TRITIUM --

THAT'S TRUE.

>> BANANA BREAK?

>> OH, I'D LOVE ONE.

>> SURE.

>> THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

>> IF YOU ATE ONE BANANA...

>> BANANA BREAK?

>> ...WHICH HAVE A POTASSIUM

ISOTOPE THAT'S A LITTLE HOT, YOU

WOULD GET MORE RADIATION

EXPOSURE...

>> BANANA BREAK?

>> ...THAN YOU WOULD IF YOU

DRANK...

>> BANANA BREAK!

>> ...ALL THE WATER...

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> ...THAT COMES OUT OF THE

PLANT IN ONE DAY.

>> BANANA BREAK!

>> TRITIUM IS A NATURALLY

OCCURRING HYDROGEN ISOTOPE.

>> WE'RE GOING TO ASK THAT ALL

OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING

TO RISK ARREST REMAIN IN THIS

SAFETY ZONE UNTIL THE REST OF

THE PEOPLE HAVE MOVED UP.

[ CROWD CHANTS "SHUT IT DOWN" ]

>> IN NEW MEXICO, WHERE I GREW

UP, THERE'S RADIUM SPRINGS.

AND...I HAD A FRIEND WHO WENT

WITH HIS GEIGER COUNTER.

AND THE -- THESE HIPPIES WERE

THERE, SOAKING IN THE BATHS.

AND HE GOT OUT HIS GEIGER

COUNTER AND SAID, "YOU KNOW,

THIS IS RADIOACTIVE."

AND THEY SAID, "YEAH, MAN, BUT

IT'S NATURAL."

[ BIRD CALLING ]

>> IT'S TRUE TO SAY THAT WE'RE

ALL BATHED IN NATURAL

RADIOACTIVITY.

IT'S AFFECTING ALL OF US ALL THE

TIME.

IT COMES FROM THE ROCKS AND THE

AIR AND EVEN FROM SPACE.

IT'S IN OUR FOOD, IN OUR WATER,

IN OUR TEETH.

SO, RADIATION ISN'T DANGEROUS IN

AN EVERYDAY SENSE.

AND THERE'S ENORMOUS VARIATION

IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY NUMBERS, JUST

TO PUT THAT IN A KIND OF A

CONTEXT?

>> WELL, THE NUMBERS -- I MEAN,

THE UNITS ARE DIFFICULT.

IT'S GRAYS AND MILLIREMS AND ALL

THIS KIND OF THING.

>> RIGHT.

>> YOU KNOW, SO THE NUMBERS ARE

NOT FAMILIAR TO PEOPLE IN ANY

WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.

IF I SAY TO YOU, "THE

RADIOACTIVITY -- OH, IT'S ONLY

ANOTHER 4 MICROSIEVERTS," ARE

YOU GONNA FEEL BETTER ABOUT

THAT?

OF COURSE YOU'RE NOT, 'CAUSE YOU

DON'T KNOW WHAT ON EARTH I'M

TALKING ABOUT.

>> THIS -- IODINE 131.

>> ANYWHERE...

>> THE REPORTING OF RADIATION

LEVELS ARE AS CONFUSING AS THEY

COULD POSSIBLY BE.

>> ...HAS JUST ABOUT 0.7 REM.

YOU HAVE TO GET UP TO

50 TO 75 REM TO GET...

>> WE HEAR ABOUT REMS AND

MILLIREMS AND MICROREMS.

AND THEN -- OH, NOW THERE'S

SIEVERTS.

WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT SIEVERTS AND

MICROSIEVERTS, MILLISIEVERTS.

AND YOU'RE -- YOU'RE LOOKING AND

SQUINTING AND, "OKAY, THAT

LOOKS LIKE A LARGE NUMBER.

IS -- IS THAT A NUMBER I SHOULD

WORRY ABOUT?

AND COMPARED TO WHAT?"

[ BEEPING ]

WHAT'S THE BACKGROUND RADIATION

LEVEL RELATIVE TO ALL THIS?

>> [ Chuckling ] I DIDN'T EVEN

KNOW THERE WAS SUCH A THING AS

NATURAL BACKGROUND RADIATION,

ACTUALLY.

I HAD ASSUMED THAT RADIATION WAS

SOMETHING WHICH HUMANS HAD

ARTIFICIALLY INTRODUCED INTO THE

ENVIRONMENT, WHICH WAS DOING US

HARM.

[ BEEPING ]

THERE'S BACKGROUND RADIOACTIVITY

AFFECTING ALL OF US ALL THE

TIME, WHICH IS MANY, MANY TIMES

MORE POWERFUL THAN -- THAN

ARTIFICIAL RADIOACTIVITY, IN

TERMS OF HOW WE'RE AFFECTED.

SO, ZERO TOLERANCE OF RADIATION

DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

[ BEEPING ]

RADIATION INCREASES WITH

ALTITUDE, SO PEOPLE WHO LIVE AT

HIGH ALTITUDE GET A HIGHER DOSE

THAN PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN

LOW-LYING AREAS.

AND IF YOU'RE TRAVELING ON AN

AIRPLANE -- SAY IF YOU'RE GOING

FROM NEW YORK TO TOKYO -- YOU'LL

GET 20 TIMES THE AVERAGE

BACKGROUND LEVEL DURING THAT

FLIGHT.

[ BEEPING ]

FOR EXAMPLE, IN GUARAPARI BEACH

IN BRAZIL, THE NATURAL

BACKGROUND RADIATION THERE IS

WAY ABOVE PERMITTED LEVELS IN

TERMS OF WHAT THE PUBLIC CAN BE

EXPOSED TO, AND THAT'S WHAT'S

COMING OUT OF THE SOIL --

IT'S ON THE BEACH.

>> [ SPEAKING NATIVE LANGUAGE ]

>> CAN YOU ASK HIM WHY HE DOES

THIS?

>> [ SPEAKING NATIVE LANGUAGE ]

>> YOU KNOW?

>> AND THIS HELPS?

IT HELPS.

>> AND WHAT'S REALLY STRIKING IS

THAT THERE'S NO CORRELATION

BETWEEN LEVELS OF BACKGROUND

RADIOACTIVITY, WHICH VARY BY

SUCH ENORMOUS AMOUNTS, AND HIGH

LEVELS OF CANCER.

CANCER IS SOMETHING WHICH IS --

IS THE GREATEST FEAR OF MOST

PEOPLE IN RICH COUNTRIES BECAUSE

IT KILLS 20% OF PEOPLE, ANYWAY.

WE ALL KNOW PEOPLE WHO'VE DIED

OF CANCER, AND SO THIS IDEA THAT

RADIOACTIVITY IS A CAUSE OF

CANCER IS PROBABLY THE

NUMBER-ONE REASON WHY PEOPLE ARE

SCARED OF IT.

[ BIRDS CHIRPING ]

YOU CAN'T GO TO CHERNOBYL AND

NOT RE-EXAMINE YOUR CORE BELIEFS

ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER.

I MEAN, YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE

REALLY THICKHEADED NOT -- NOT TO

LOOK AT THAT AND LOOK AT THE

DAMAGE THAT WAS DONE AND SAY,

"ALL RIGHT.

WHEN IT GOES WRONG -- YOU KNOW,

WE KNOW THAT WE DO EVERYTHING WE

CAN TO MAKE IT GO RIGHT.

BUT WHEN IT GOES WRONG, IT CAN

GO REALLY VERY WRONG, INDEED."

CHERNOBYL WAS A -- A REAL-WORLD

EXPERIMENT OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN

YOU IRRADIATE A VERY LARGE

POPULATION.

BUT 1986 WAS A LONG TIME AGO.

SO, WE'VE GOT THE PERSPECTIVE

AND THE DISTANCE TO BE ABLE TO

ASSESS WHAT THE REAL IMPACTS OF

THAT WERE.

[ BEEPING ]

AND THEY'RE NOTHING -- NOTHING

LIKE WHAT -- WHAT WAS EXPECTED.

THE REACTOR THAT EXPLODED IN

CHERNOBYL IN APRIL 1986 WAS

ACTUALLY NUMBER 4, REACTOR

NUMBER 4 OF A WHOLE SET OF THEM.

NO ONE REALLY REALIZES IT --

THE THREE OTHER UNITS, WHICH ARE

IN THE SAME BUILDING, CARRIED ON

OPERATING AND GENERATING

ELECTRICITY RIGHT UP UNTIL THE

MID-'90s.

AND PEOPLE JUST WENT TO WORK

THERE EVERY DAY.

ISN'T THAT AMAZING?

>> OUTSIDE OF THE OLD

SOVIET UNION, WE DIDN'T USE THE

REACTOR DESIGN THAT CHERNOBYL

HAD.

AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE

CHERNOBYL REACTOR HAD NO

CONTAINMENT BUILDING.

IT WAS IN VIRTUALLY A QUONSET

HUT.

SO, WHEN THERE WAS A FIRE AND AN

EXPLOSION, THERE WAS NOTHING TO

CONTAIN IT.

>> CHERNOBYL WAS A DIFFERENT

KIND OF REACTOR.

IT WAS INHERENTLY UNSAFE.

IT WAS PRIMARILY DESIGNED TO

MAKE PLUTONIUM FOR BOMBS.

NO CHERNOBYL-STYLE REACTORS WERE

EVER BUILT IN THE WEST.

BUT IF YOU COULD THEN POINT TO

OTHER NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS AND

SAY, "EACH OF THOSE COULD BE A

CHERNOBYL," THEN YOU'VE GOT A

PRETTY POWERFUL ARGUMENT AGAINST

NUCLEAR POWER.

THE CITY NEARBY CALLED

"PRIPYAT" -- THE ENTIRE PLACE

WAS EVACUATED WHEN CHERNOBYL

BLEW UP.

IT'S JUST FASCINATING TO SEE

SOMEPLACE WHICH IS FROZEN IN

TIME, IN THIS -- AT THE VERY END

OF THE ERA OF THE SOVIET UNION.

IT'S AN EXTRAORDINARY PLACE.

I-I REALLY CAN'T EVEN DESCRIBE

IT.

IT'S A BIT LIKE THE FUKUSHIMA

THING IN THE SENSE THAT YOU'RE

TRAMPING AROUND ON THIS DEBRIS

OF BROKEN GLASS AND BROKEN

EVERYTHING, AND -- AND IT'S

ALMOST AS IF THE EXPLOSION AT

CHERNOBYL HAD SOMEHOW CAUSED

THIS...

BUT, OF COURSE, IT DIDN'T.

IT'S JUST THE DECAY OF TIME AND

THINGS HAVE BEEN BROKEN.

OBVIOUSLY, WHAT PEOPLE ARE

CONCERNED ABOUT WITH CHERNOBYL

IS THE -- IS THE RADIOACTIVITY.

[ BELLS TOLLING ]

I NEVER KNEW UNTIL I WENT TO

CHERNOBYL THAT THERE ARE PLACES

FULL OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE JUST

DECIDED TO IGNORE THE

RESTRICTIONS AND JUST MOVED BACK

TO THEIR HOUSES.

AND YOU CAN GO TO THIS OLD

CHURCH, AND YOU CAN MEET THEM.

[ CHANTING ]

[ BEEPING ]

>> LET'S ASK HIM WHEN AND WHY

DID HE DECIDE TO COME BACK AND

HOW MANY -- HOW MANY PEOPLE CAME

WITH HIM?

>> [ SPEAKING NATIVE LANGUAGE ]

[ BEEPING ]

>> THE EXPLOSION OF THE REACTOR

AT CHERNOBYL HAD ENORMOUS

CONSEQUENCES, BUT NOT THE ONES I

THINK MANY PEOPLE EXPECT.

I FOLLOWED THE STUDIES THAT HAVE

BEEN DONE BY INTERNATIONAL

EXPERTS IN RADIATION AND

ONCOLOGY THAT FOLLOWED THE

DAMAGE AT CHERNOBYL FOR ALL THE

YEARS SINCE.

THE DAMAGE THAT WAS CAUSED TO

PEOPLE BY THE FALLOUT FROM THAT

WORST OF ALL NUCLEAR POWER

ACCIDENTS HAS BEEN REMARKABLY

LIMITED.

YOU CAN LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE.

IT'S ALL BEEN PUBLISHED.

IT'S BEEN CERTIFIED BY

THE UNITED NATIONS AND

THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION.

>> WHAT'S SO STRIKING IS JUST TO

GO READ THE ORIGINAL

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION

DOCUMENTS, THEN READ THE PUBLIC

HEALTH REPORTS.

>> WAS THAT A SHOCK TO YOU?

>> IT WAS A COMPLETE SHOCK TO

ME.

I MEAN, I -- THERE WAS A PERIOD

WHERE I'M READING ALL THE

CHERNOBYL STUFF AND I -- I'M --

I KIND OF AM NOT BELIEVING IT

BECAUSE IT WAS SO OUT OF SYNC

WITH WHAT I HAD COME TO BELIEVE.

>> LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF

THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WERE

INVOLVED IN THE CLEAR-UP

OPERATION.

THEY'RE KNOWN AS "LIQUIDATORS."

AND THEY GOT SOME REALLY

SIGNIFICANT DOSES OF RADIATION.

THEIR DOSES ARE KNOWN, AND THEIR

HEALTH HAS BEEN STUDIED EVER

SINCE.

AND EVEN IN THAT LARGE NUMBER OF

PEOPLE WHO WERE VERY HEAVILY

IRRADIATED, 40 OR 50 PEOPLE HAVE

DIED SO FAR AND A FEW THOUSAND

MAY HAVE SHORTENED LIFE-SPANS

DUE TO CANCER IN FUTURE DECADES.

AND THERE HAVE NEVER BEEN ANY

CHILDREN BORN DEFORMED FROM

CHERNOBYL, ACCORDING TO THE BEST

AUTHORITATIVE SCIENCE WE'VE GOT

FROM THE UNITED NATIONS.

SO, PEOPLE HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY

BEEN FED AN URBAN MYTH, REALLY,

ABOUT WHAT THE IMPACTS OF

CHERNOBYL ACTUALLY WERE.

>> I MEAN, I'VE GOT BOOKS FULL

OF IT -- A MILLION PEOPLE DYING

RIGHT NOW OR HAVE DIED BECAUSE

OF CHERNOBYL.

AND IT'S ONLY 25 YEARS AGO.

HOW MANY MILLIONS MORE WILL

CHERNOBYL KILL?

40% OF THE EUROPEAN LANDMASS IS

RADIOACTIVE, WILL BE FOR

HUNDREDS OF YEARS.

>> IN ORDER TO BELIEVE THAT MORE

THAN 56 PEOPLE WERE KILLED AT

CHERNOBYL OR MORE THAN THE MAYBE

4,000 WHO COULD EVENTUALLY DIE

OF CANCER -- IN ORDER TO BELIEVE

THAT A MILLION PEOPLE WERE

KILLED BY CHERNOBYL, WHICH IS

WHAT GREENPEACE AND

HELEN CALDICOTT, A NUMBER OF

OTHER PEOPLE CLAIM, YOU HAVE TO

BELIEVE THERE WAS A COVER-UP OF

JUST MASSIVE PROPORTIONS BY THE

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, BY

THE UNITED NATIONS, BY LITERALLY

HUNDREDS OF THE WORLD'S TOP

PUBLIC HEALTH EXPERTS.

IT'S SO ABSURD OF AN IDEA, AND

IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME THING

GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS THINK.

>> HELEN, WHAT...

>> I DON'T KNOW.

I'M NOT PRIVY TO THEIR

MOTIVATIONS.

WELL, THEY SHOULD LOOK AT THE

LITERATURE.

THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT

STUDY, ALMOST, THAT'S EVER BEEN

DONE.

THIS IS THE BIGGEST COVER-UP IN

THE HISTORY OF MEDICINE.

>> HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN...

>> MANY OF THE -- THE TACTICS

AND THE ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN

USED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS

AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER ARE

EXACTLY THE SAME TACTICS AND

ARGUMENTS THAT ARE USED BY

CLIMATE SKEPTICS...

>> THE UNITED NATIONS -- THAT'S

WHERE ALL THIS STARTED.

IT WAS THE IPCC IN

THE UNITED NATIONS SAID THAT

THE WORLD'S GONNA COME TO AN END

BECAUSE OF THE EMISSIONS OF CO2.

>> ...SO, THE CHERRY-PICKING OF

SCIENTIFIC DATA, THE NURTURING

OF -- OF -- OF SCIENTISTS WHO

HAPPEN TO BELIEVE YOUR

IDEOLOGICAL POSITION, AND THE

PRODUCTION OF REPORTS WHICH

ARE -- WHICH APPARENTLY ARE

AUTHORITATIVE AND SCIENTIFIC,

BUT ACTUALLY ARE JUST

IDEOLOGICAL PROPAGANDA,

BASICALLY.

>> 41% OF THE PEOPLE BELIEVE

THAT GLOBAL WARMING CLAIMS ARE

EXAGGERATED.

>> CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS ARE

IDIOTS.

I DON'T CARE ABOUT THEM.

THEY -- THEY -- THEY ARE DENYING

SCIENCE.

WE'RE GOING BACK INTO

THE DARK AGES.

HOW DARE -- HOW DARE THEY DENY

SCIENCE!

NOT TO UNDERSTAND SCIENCE AND

MEDICINE IN THIS DAY AND AGE IS

MORE THAN IRRESPONSIBLE.

I CAN'T.

>> YOU KNOW, WE THINK OF JAPAN,

WE THINK OF HIROSHIMA, THOSE

PICTURES -- HORRIBLE AFTER THE

EVENT THAT HAPPENED...

>> NO RADIATION IS SAFE, BUT,

GENERALLY SPEAKING, AMERICANS

DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO WORRY

ABOUT --

>> WELL, WE HAVE THIS MAP HERE,

AND WE'RE SHOWING, OBVIOUSLY,

THE PATH, SOME 5,000 MILES,

FIRST TO THE ALEUTIAN ISLANDS --

THIS IS WHERE THEY EXPECT THIS

TO GO.

>> YOU CAN'T REASSURE PEOPLE.

PEOPLE ARE SO TERRIFIED THAT

ANYTHING YOU SAY, BECAUSE THEY

DON'T HAVE THAT BACKGROUND

CONTEXT, THAT UNDERSTANDING OF

WHAT RADIATION IS AND WHAT IT

MEANS, THEY CAN'T ACTUALLY

DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHAT'S

SAFE AND RISK THEY WANT TO BEAR.

AND I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE

REAL PROBLEMS OF FUKUSHIMA.

THERE'S NO WAY FOR THE EXPERTS

TO ACTUALLY COMMUNICATE WHAT IS

SAFE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

[ BEEPING ]

>> [ SPEAKING JAPANESE ]

[ CONVERSATIONS IN JAPANESE ]

>> IF YOU WERE EXPOSED TO THE

FALLOUT FROM FUKUSHIMA AND

ACCORDING TO THE

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION,

THE U.N., GENERALLY, THE

INCREASED RISK OF GETTING CANCER

IS ESTIMATED TO BE SO

INFINITESIMALLY SMALL, GIVEN THE

LARGE POPULATION, THAT YOU WILL

NEVER BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THIS

IMPACT, EPIDEMIOLOGICALLY.

[ BEEPING ]

I JUST WON THE BET.

THIS -- THIS PARTICULAR WEED

HERE IS MORE RADIOACTIVE THAN

GUARAPARI BEACH IN BRAZIL.

SO, WE'VE GOT -- WHAT DID WE

GET -- 44?

>> NOW WE'VE SEEN WHAT THE WORST

IS THAT CAN HAPPEN WITH A

1960s-ERA WESTERN-DESIGNED

REACTOR, WHICH DOES HAVE A

CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE, WHICH

CHERNOBYL DIDN'T.

BUT THIS ISN'T JUST SOMETHING

YOU CAN BRUSH AWAY.

THIS WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN

TO A REACTOR.

[ BIRDS CALLING ]

[ MID-TEMPO MUSIC PLAYS ]

>> BACK IN THE '80s, IT WAS

CLEAR TO ME THAT SOMETHING HAD

TO BE DONE, SOMETHING BETTER

THAN PRESENT DAY, ABOUT SAFETY.

AND IT WASN'T ONLY IN SAFETY.

IT WAS IN MATTERS OF WASTE, AS

WELL, AND IN PROLIFERATION

MATTERS, AND OVER ALL OF THOSE

THINGS, THE MATTER OF ECONOMICS.

YOU CAN'T MAKE THE PLANT

IMPOSSIBLY EXPENSIVE BY MAKING

IT TOO COMPLICATED.

>> JUST GO AHEAD AND GO UP TO

THE MAIN PARKING LOT THERE,

THEN.

>> ALL RIGHT.

THANKS VERY MUCH.

SO, IN 1980, I WAS GIVEN THE JOB

OF DIRECTING THE ENTIRE PROGRAM

OF ADVANCED REACTOR DEVELOPMENT

AT ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY.

OUR GOAL WAS TO DESIGN A NEW

TYPE OF REACTOR WHERE THE VERY

PHYSICS OF IT WOULD BE SUCH THAT

IT COULD WITHSTAND ALMOST ANY

TYPE OF ACCIDENT THAT NUCLEAR

PLANTS CAN BE SUBJECT TO.

IT WAS CALLED THE IFR, THE

INTEGRAL FAST REACTOR.

THE BUDGET WAS ABOUT

$100 MILLION A YEAR.

1,500 PEOPLE -- SCIENTISTS,

ENGINEERS, SUPPORTING STAFF.

THIS WAS A VERY BIG DEVELOPMENT

PROGRAM.

BUT YOU'VE GOT TO TEST IT.

CALCULATIONS DON'T TELL YOU

EVERYTHING.

YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE THE BIG

FACILITIES THAT SAY, "IF WE HAVE

AN ACCIDENT OF THIS KIND, WHAT

WILL HAPPEN?"

>> WE WILL NOW START TO SET UP

FOR THE TEST.

>> WE DID TWO EXPERIMENTS TO

DEMONSTRATE SOME UNIQUE SAFETY

FEATURES THAT THAT REACTOR HAS

THAT OTHERS DON'T HAVE AND

INVITED PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER THE

WORLD TO COME AND WITNESS IT.

>> T-MINUS TWO MINUTES.

"STATION BLACKOUT" IS A TERM

THAT'S USED BY NRC, THE SAFETY

FOLKS, TO DESCRIBE THE SITUATION

WHERE ONE LOSES ALL BULK A.C.

POWER.

YOU ASSUME THAT YOU LOSE

OFF-SITE POWER.

YOU ASSUME THAT YOU'RE GETTING

NO A.C. POWER FROM YOUR OWN

TURBOGENERATOR.

YOU ASSUME THAT YOUR FIRST

DIESEL STARTED UP AND IT FAILED

TO START UP, THE SECOND ONE

STARTED TO START UP, AND IT ALSO

FAILED, SO YOU END UP DEAD IN

THE WATER WITH NO A.C. POWER.

>> THIS EXPERIMENT WAS ALMOST A

DIRECT PARALLEL TO WHAT HAPPENED

AT FUKUSHIMA.

IT WAS EERILY SIMILAR.

>> MARK.

>> WE RAN THE REACTOR AT FULL

POWER...

[ ALARM BLARING ]

...DISABLED THE SHUT-DOWN SYSTEM

SO THE OPERATORS HAD NO ABILITY

TO SHUT THE REACTOR DOWN...

AND WE SHUT OFF THE COOLING

SYSTEM -- DIDN'T EXTRACT THE

HEAT.

SO WE JUST LET THINGS GET

HOTTER.

IN MOST REACTORS, YOU CAN'T DO

IT.

NO REACTOR I KNOW OF WOULD

SURVIVE THAT ACCIDENT.

YOU'D -- YOU'D HAVE A MELTDOWN.

>> THE INTERNATIONAL AUDIENCE

WERE WATCHING THE TEMPERATURE

GOING UP LIKE THAT, STRAIGHT UP.

THEY TURNED AROUND, LIKE SO, TO

SEE IF I WAS OR IF THE ARGONNE

GUYS WERE RUNNING.

[ LAUGHS ]

AND BY THE TIME THEY LOOKED UP

AGAIN, THE -- THE TRACE HAD

TURNED LIKE SO AND IT WAS ON ITS

WAY DOWN AND THE -- THE REACTOR

JUST QUIETLY SHUT ITSELF DOWN.

NO ACTION REQUIRED OF THE

OPERATORS, NO ACTION REQUIRED OF

THE SAFETY SYSTEMS -- NOTHING.

YOU COULD JUST STAND BACK LIKE

THIS, WATCH THE DIALS IF YOU

WISHED, AND THE REACTOR SHUT

ITSELF DOWN.

>> 30 SECONDS.

>> 30 SECONDS TILL TEST TIME.

>> WELL, IN THE AFTERNOON, WE

STARTED THE REACTOR UP AGAIN AND

CARRIED OUT THE CONDITIONS

RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCIDENT AT

THREE MILE ISLAND.

>> 5...4...3...

>> WE SHUT OFF THE PUMPS.

>> ...2...1.

>> JUST SHUT OFF THE PUMPS.

[ ALARM BLARING ]

ALL MAJOR REACTOR ACCIDENTS

HAPPEN BECAUSE OF ONE THING --

INADEQUATE COOLING.

THE IFR-TYPE REACTOR, WHICH

EBR-II WAS A PROTOTYPE FOR, IF

YOU CUT IT OFF FROM THE STEAM

SYSTEM SO IT CANNOT REJECT ITS

HEAT, IT WILL JUST SHUT ITSELF

DOWN.

>> SO IT CAN'T MELT DOWN?

>> NO, IT CAN'T MELT DOWN.

WE'RE NOW IN THE FACILITY THAT

COMPLETES THE CIRCLE, IF YOU

LIKE, OF THE INTEGRAL FAST

REACTOR.

WE'VE COME OUT OF THE REACTOR

BUILDING.

WE'RE NOW IN THE FUEL CYCLE

PART.

>> THIS IS TRAVIS AT

WINDOW THREE.

>> THE INTEGRAL PART OF IT WAS

THAT EVERY PART OF A COMPLETE

NUCLEAR REACTOR SYSTEM, NOT THE

REACTOR ITSELF, BUT, ALSO, THE

FACILITIES FOR TREATING THE

SPENT FUEL, FOR TREATING THE

WASTE, WOULD ALL BE AN INTEGRAL

PART OF THE SAME SYSTEM.

>> AND JUST BRING IT OVER TO...

>> WHAT THIS ENABLES YOU TO DO

IS YOU CAN TAKE THE SPENT FUEL,

CHOP IT UP, AND BACK IT GOES

INTO THE REACTOR AGAIN.

YOU CAN RECYCLE THE FUEL AGAIN

AND AGAIN UNTIL THE END OF PLANT

LIFE.

>> READY TO RECEIVE THE FUEL

ASSEMBLY.

[ BEEPS ]

>> THE OTHER THING I -- THAT

NEEDS TO BE SAID ABOUT ALL OF

THIS TECHNOLOGY IS THAT THIS IS

NOT...A DREAM.

THIS IS NOT SOMEBODY'S

CALCULATIONS ON A PIECE OF

PAPER.

THIS IS REAL.

WE KNOW HOW TO DO THESE THINGS.

>> NOW, LET ME FRAME THIS

DEBATE, IF I MAY, BY READING A

LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT

OF THE UNITED STATES SENT TO ME

YESTERDAY.

"THANK YOU FOR YOUR LETTER

SUPPORTING OUR DECISION TO

TERMINATE THE DEPARTMENT OF

ENERGY'S ADVANCED LIQUID METAL

REACTOR PROGRAM, INCLUDING THE

INTEGRAL FAST REACTOR.

I WANT TO ASSURE YOU THAT THIS

ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT SUPPORT

THE IFR AND WILL OPPOSE ANY

EFFORTS TO CONTINUE THE FUNDING

FOR THIS REACTOR PROJECT."

>> DEMOCRATS HAVE GOTTEN

THEMSELVES ON THE WRONG SIDE, IN

MY OPINION, IN THIS ISSUE, BEING

OPPOSED TO NUCLEAR POWER FOR, I

THINK, NO GOOD REASON OTHER THAN

THAT IT'S VERY HIGH ON THE LIST

OF WHAT REPUBLICANS LIKE.

>> WE KNOW THAT NUCLEAR ENERGY

IS CLEAN.

WE KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T POLLUTE

THE AIR.

WE KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T DAMAGE

THE OZONE.

WE KNOW THAT IT IS A TREMENDOUS

PRODUCER OF ENERGY IN A CLEAN

SENSE.

AND OUR ONLY PROBLEM IS THAT WE

CANNOT COME TO POLITICAL TERMS

ON HOW TO HANDLE THE WASTE

STREAM.

>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT IT'S

GONNA COST IF WE GO THAT FAR AND

CONTINUE OUR OBSESSION WITH

NUCLEAR POWER.

>> IFR WASTE STREAMS LOSE THEIR

RADIOACTIVITY TO BACKGROUND

LEVEL IN ABOUT 800 YEARS,

LIGHT WATER REACTOR IN NEARLY

10,000.

>> I SHARE WITH MY COLLEAGUES

SOME OF THE PUBLIC OPINION ON

THIS.

THE WASHINGTON POST --

"THE WRONG REACTOR."

THE OREGONIAN --

"GIVE UP NUCLEAR BREEDER DREAM."

THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONIC --

"SAYING NO TO NUCLEAR PORK."

>> THE IFR PROGRAM WAS SHUT

DOWN, AND THE PROJECT WENT DOWN

THE -- THE -- THE BLACK HOLE OF

GOVERNMENT POLITICS.

[ VEHICLE APPROACHING ]

[ VEHICLE DEPARTING ]

>> IT WAS BY CHANCE THAT, IN

ABOUT THE YEAR 2000, I THINK, I

WOUND UP IN THE DESERT ON A

VISIT TO YUCCA MOUNTAIN,

AMERICA'S PLANNED NUCLEAR WASTE

REPOSITORY 100 MILES NORTH OF

LAS VEGAS...

A HOLE IN THE GROUND WHERE

10 PLUS BILLION DOLLARS WERE

SPENT ON VASTLY EXPENSIVE

EXPERIMENTS TRYING TO PROVE THAT

THIS PLACE IS GONNA BE

ABSOLUTELY "SAFE" -- QUOTE --

FOR THE NEXT 10,000 YEARS.

AND SO, IT JUST FELT LIKE, "WAIT

A MINUTE, PEOPLE.

THIS IS -- THIS IS NUTS."

AMONG OTHER THINGS, HAVE YOU

EVEN THOUGHT" -- YOU KNOW, WE

ARE PROFESSIONAL FUTURISTS, MANY

OF US WHO WERE ON THIS TRIP --

"WHAT EXACTLY IS THIS WORLD

10,000 YEARS FROM NOW THAT WE'RE

TRYING TO PROTECT?"

[ CHUCKLES ]

SCIENCE FICTION [LAUGHS] IS WHAT

WE WERE PLAYING OUT AT VAST

EXPENSE AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN.

THE KINDS OF EXPERIMENTS THEY

WERE DOING IN THAT MOUNTAIN --

IT'S NOT A MOUNTAIN.

IT'S JUST A RIDGE -- CERTAINLY

DIDN'T PERSUADE ANYBODY.

FOR POLITICAL REASONS,

YUCCA MOUNTAIN WAS NOT OPENED

AND WILL PROBABLY NEVER BE

OPENED.

THEN, I STARTED TO LOOK AT,

"WELL, WHAT ACTUALLY IS THE

AMOUNT OF HAZARD THAT COMES FROM

NUCLEAR WASTE?"

AND THE FIRST THING I FOUND OUT

IS WHAT PEOPLE WERE ACTUALLY

DOING WITH THE NUCLEAR WASTE,

WHICH IS BEING GENERATED ALL

THIS TIME BY EVERY NUCLEAR POWER

PLANT, TURNS OUT TO BE PRETTY

GOOD.

THEY JUST PUT IT IN THIS PRETTY

SIMPLE BUT VERY WORKABLE

DRY-CASK STORAGE, AND THEY PARK

IT OUT BACK OF THE PARKING LOT.

AND YOU CAN GO THERE AND SEE IT.

THERE'S THE NATION'S NUCLEAR

WASTE.

IS IT CAUSING ANY PROBLEMS?

NO.

[ BEEPING ]

THE OTHER REALIZATION FOR ME --

AND IT TOOK A WHILE TO GET

THROUGH -- IS THAT BY NOT

PUTTING IT IN THE GROUND, YOU'VE

GOT THE OPTION TO USE IT AS FUEL

IN FOURTH-GENERATION REACTORS.

WOW. WE CAN TAKE THIS WASTE FROM

THE NUCLEAR PLANT AND RECYCLE IT

INTO FUEL, EITHER BY

REPROCESSING OR BY HAVING A NEW

KIND OF REACTOR THAT USES THIS

FUEL.

[ Chuckling ] THAT LOOKS VERY

MUCH LIKE A RENEWABLE RESOURCE.

>> PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS TALKING

ABOUT NUCLEAR WASTE, THE

ACCUMULATION OF NUCLEAR WASTE,

AND I DID, TOO.

I THINK IT'S AROUND 70,000 TONS

HAVE ACCUMULATED OF USED FUEL IN

THE UNITED STATES.

I THOUGHT THE QUANTITY WAS

STAGGERING.

IN FACT, ALL THE SPENT NUCLEAR

FUEL FROM COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR

PLANTS IN THE UNITED STATES

COULD FIT IN A SINGLE FOOTBALL

FIELD IF YOU STACKED THE FUEL

RODS TO A HEIGHT OF ABOUT

3 METERS -- THAT'S IT.

BUT OF THAT, ONLY A VERY SMALL

FRACTION, MAINLY PLUTONIUM, IS

LONG-LIVED.

BY LONG-LIVED, I MEAN WOULD

STILL BE HOT THOUSANDS OF YEARS

FROM NOW, STILL BE HIGHLY

RADIOACTIVE.

>> VOLUMETRICALLY, NUCLEAR

PRODUCES TINY AMOUNTS OF WASTE.

THE ENTIRE WASTE PRODUCTION

FROM FRANCE'S 50 NUCLEAR POWER

STATIONS, WHICH PRODUCE 80% OF

THE COUNTRY'S ELECTRICITY, ARE

UNDER THE FLOOR IN ONE ROOM.

COMPARE THAT WITH THE BILLIONS

OF TONS OF WASTE PRODUCED BY

COAL-FIRED POWER STATIONS.

IT COMPLETELY BLOWS AWAY MOST OF

THE ANTINUCLEAR ARGUMENTS.

SO, IT'S -- IT'S NOT -- NUCLEAR

WASTE IS NOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL

ISSUE.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING WHICH, AS AN

ENVIRONMENTALIST, I'M CONCERNED

ABOUT.

[ CARNIVAL MUSIC PLAYS ]

>> ONE OF THE MOST INSPIRING

STORIES ANYWHERE IS THE STORY OF

FRANCE.

HERE'S A COUNTRY IN THE EARLY

'70s THAT IS BURNING OIL FOR

ELECTRICITY.

IT DOESN'T HAVE COAL RESERVES.

IT DOESN'T WANT TO BE DEPENDENT

ON GAS COMING FROM

NORTHERN EUROPE AND RUSSIA.

BUT WHEN THE OIL SHOCKS HAPPENED

AND THE PRICES WENT UP

DRAMATICALLY, THE FRENCH

REALIZED THEY NEEDED TO GET

SERIOUS ABOUT A DIFFERENT SOURCE

OF ENERGY.

>> THEY SAID, "THIS IS SERIOUS,

AND IT HAS TO DO WITH NATIONAL

SECURITY."

SO THEY FOCUSED ON MAKING SURE

THAT THEY HAD THE BEST NUCLEAR

ENGINEERS AND A STANDARD DESIGN

FOR THE REACTORS AND JUST ROLL

IT OUT.

>> WHAT'S SO SIGNIFICANT ABOUT

WHAT THE FRENCH DID IS THAT THEY

DID IT SO QUICKLY, AND THEY

SCALED UP ALMOST EXACTLY AT THE

PACE THAT WE NEED TO SCALE UP

NUCLEAR POWER GLOBALLY.

>> THEY NOW HAVE 80% OF THEIR

ELECTRICITY COMING FROM NUCLEAR.

THEIR TRAINS ARE

ELECTRIC-POWERED.

THEY HAVE CLEAN AIR.

THEY HAVE THE CHEAPEST ENERGY IN

EUROPE.

THEY'RE SELLING IT TO EVERYBODY

ELSE.

AND THEY ARE GREENER THAN

GREEN DENMARK, GREENER THAN

GREEN GERMANY.

>> I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT FRENCH

PER CAPITA CARBON DIOXIDE

EMISSIONS WERE, WHICH IS

ACTUALLY THE MOST IMPORTANT

QUESTION TO ASK.

THE ANSWER IS THEY'RE ABOUT

5 TONS PER PERSON, PER YEAR.

GERMANY'S ABOUT 10 TONS PER

YEAR.

SO, GERMANY HAS MUCH, MUCH

HIGHER PER-PERSON EMISSIONS OF

CARBON DIOXIDE THAN NEIGHBORING

FRANCE BECAUSE FRANCE IS NUCLEAR

AND GERMANY IS TRYING TO GET OUT

OF NUCLEAR.

>> WHEN WE LOOK AT NUCLEAR, WE

HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE

MAKING A LONG-TERM INVESTMENT.

NOW, IT'S A BIG UP-FRONT CAPITAL

COST, BUT THESE ARE PLANTS THAT

ARE GONNA LAST 60, 80, MAYBE

EVEN 100 YEARS.

AND MUCH OF THE OTHER

INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S BEING

BUILT WILL LAST FAR LONGER THAN

THAT.

AND WHEN YOU REALLY LOOK AT IT

THAT WAY, THERE'S JUST REALLY NO

QUESTION.

IT'S A MUCH MORE ECONOMICAL

ALTERNATIVE TO VERY EXPENSIVE

SOLAR PANELS OR VERY EXPENSIVE

WIND TURBINES THAT REQUIRE

BACKUP POWER.

>> THE CURRENT GENERATION OF

REACTORS WE'RE BUILDING NOW ARE

THIRD-GENERATION REACTORS.

THIS TECHNOLOGY IS MUCH SAFER.

BUT FOURTH-GENERATION REACTORS,

LIKE THE INTEGRAL FAST REACTORS,

CAN USE THE WASTE FROM THE FIRST

THREE GENERATIONS AS FUEL.

THE GREAT PHILANTHROPIST

BILL GATES HAS PUT MONEY AND

TIME INTO A TRAVELING WAVE

REACTOR THAT YOU BASICALLY STICK

IN THE GROUND, AND IT GOES

THROUGH ITS BODY OF FUEL OVER A

PERIOD OF 60 YEARS.

YOU DON'T NEED TO REFUEL IT.

THERE'S A THORIUM REACTOR THE

SAME GROUP IS WORKING ON.

OTHER FOURTH-GENERATION COMING

ALONG ARE THE SMALL MODULAR

REACTORS.

THEY LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THE KIND

OF LOCAL POWER SOURCE THAT

ENVIRONMENTALISTS HAVE

INCREASINGLY BEEN SAYING WE

SHOULD HAVE.

SO, THERE'S A RENAISSANCE IN

REACTOR DESIGN THAT THOSE ARE

JUST THE FIRST GLIMPSES OF.

[ ELECTRICITY POWERING UP ]

>> FOR SOME PEOPLE WHO, PERHAPS,

ACCEPT MOST OF THESE ARGUMENTS

IN FAVOR OF NUCLEAR POWER, THE

ULTIMATE ARGUMENT IS, "BUT

KNOWLEDGE OF THIS TECHNOLOGY IS

ALSO THE KIND OF KNOWLEDGE YOU

CAN USE TO MAKE NUCLEAR

WEAPONS."

AND THAT'S QUITE TRUE.

IT IS.

THERE ARE, BY THE CIA's

ESTIMATE, ABOUT 37 COUNTRIES IN

THE WORLD TODAY THAT, IF THEY

WANTED TO, COULD DEVELOP NUCLEAR

WEAPONS.

THEY HAVE THE TECHNICAL AND

SCIENTIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE

ABLE TO DO THAT.

HOW MANY COUNTRIES ACTUALLY HAVE

NUCLEAR WEAPONS?

NINE.

WHICH, I THINK, BEGINS TO POINT

OUT THE FUNDAMENTAL FLAW IN THE

CONCERN -- WE WON'T GET RID OF

NUCLEAR WEAPONS BY FORGETTING

HOW TO MAKE THEM.

WE WILL GET RID OF NUCLEAR

WEAPONS BY DECIDING WE DON'T

WANT THEM AROUND ANYMORE.

>> IT TURNS OUT THAT

THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN

BUYING UP NUCLEAR WARHEADS FROM

THE RUSSIANS FOR OVER 10 YEARS

NOW -- 16,000 NUCLEAR WARHEADS,

AND WE'RE RECYCLING ALL OF THESE

NUCLEAR WARHEADS INTO ENERGY,

ELECTRICITY, AND NUCLEAR POWER.

AND SO NUCLEAR POWER IS DOING

MORE TO DE-NUCLEAR-WEAPONIZE THE

WORLD THAN ANY OTHER THING THAT

WE DO.

POETICALLY, IT'S RATHER

BEAUTIFUL.

THE VERY THINGS THAT WERE

DESIGNED TO BLOW UP OUR CITIES

ARE NOW LIGHTING UP OUR CITIES.

AND AMAZINGLY, 10% OF AMERICAN

ELECTRICITY, HALF OF OUR NUCLEAR

POWER, COMES FROM REPROCESSED

RUSSIAN WARHEADS.

WELL, IDEALLY, EVERY SINGLE

NUCLEAR WEAPON IN THE WORLD

EVENTUALLY CAN GET TURNED INTO

ELECTRICITY.

>> I BELIEVE THAT, WHILE MUCH OF

THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT THAT

CAME OF AGE IN THE '60s WILL

NEVER CHANGE, I FEEL VERY

CONFIDENT THAT THE NEXT

GENERATION WILL.

THEY'RE GONNA UNDERSTAND THE

CHALLENGES THEY FACE IN AN

ENERGY-HUNGRY WORLD, AND THEY'RE

GONNA PUT NUCLEAR IN ITS PROPER

CONTEXT.

WE CAN HAVE A WORLD OF

7 BILLION, 8 BILLION, 9 BILLION,

EVEN 10 BILLION PEOPLE THAT ARE

LIVING HIGH-ENERGY,

RESOURCE-INTENSIVE, MODERN LIVES

WITHOUT KILLING THE CLIMATE...

AND THAT'S EXCITING.

I HAVE -- I HAVE A SENSE THAT

THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF

SOMETHING REALLY BEAUTIFUL.

[ ALL SPEAKING NATIVE LANGUAGE ]

YOU ACTUALLY DO FEEL LIKE THIS

IS THE BEGINNING OF A MOVEMENT.

[ MID-TEMPO MUSIC PLAYS ]