Nuclear Physicist DEBUNKS Greenpeace Nuclear Energy LIES
Nuclear Physicist DEBUNKS Greenpeace Nuclear Energy LIES
Nuclear Physicist DEBUNKS Greenpeace Nuclear Energy LIES
For exclusive content as well as to support the channel, join my
Support page - https://ko-fi.com/elinacharatsidou
Join the friendly Nuclear subReddit to discuss nuclear energy, ask questions and share memes - r/friendlynuclearfamily
Instagram - @elinacharatsidou
TikTok - @elinacharatsidou
In today’s eye-opening video, I, as a nuclear physicist, tackle some of the biggest misconceptions and outright falsehoods about nuclear energy perpetuated by Greenpeace on their website. Join me as I debunk their misleading claims with facts, logic, and scientific evidence. This is a must-watch for anyone interested in the truth about nuclear power and its role in our quest for clean energy. Don’t forget to LIKE, SHARE, and SUBSCRIBE for more credible and insightful content!
🔗 Relevant links and resources:
Nuclear Energy Agency: https://www.oecd-nea.org/
International Atomic Energy Agency: https://www.iaea.org/
World Nuclear Association: https://www.world-nuclear.org/
👇 Join the conversation! Comment your thoughts on nuclear energy, and let me know if you have any questions or concerns. I’ll be happy to address them.
Hope you like the video about Nuclear Physicist DEBUNKS Greenpeace Nuclear Energy LIES. Don’t forget to like, subscribe, and share with friends and family.
#NuclearPhysicist #GreenpeaceDebunked #NuclearEnergyFacts #CleanEnergyFuture
Content
0 -> oh I don't think Greenpeace
people are gonna like this video
4.92 -> Greenpeace has had a lot to say over the past
years about nuclear energy so I think it's about
9.42 -> time and nuclear physicist fact checks their
website and their statements without further
13.8 -> ado let's get into it okay so let's first start
from I guess the general website right read a
20.58 -> little bit about Greenpeace and what they have
been doing I see already the moment I opened
24.78 -> the website the first thing I see is give to
Greenpeace 25 a month relax you're making millions
33.84 -> to push for a non-profit organization okay it's
fun how it doesn't say donate or something it
45.42 -> says give to Greenpeace 25 and then the button
next to it is not donate or pay it's GIVE in
53.4 -> capital letters I'm not gonna GIVE but if the
information is impressive enough maybe I'll
58.5 -> consider GIVING so let's see General website
what we're doing we've been campaigning for
64.86 -> green and peaceful future 50 years and we're not
stopping now aggressive straight to the point it's
70.08 -> time to rise up like never before and fight for a
climate and Community I'm all for that let's do it
75.72 -> let's see how you do that we defend the
natural world promote peace by investigating
81.78 -> key exploring confronting environmental abuse
championing environmental responsible solutions
87.12 -> and advocating for the right and well-being
of all people I absolutely agree with all of
91.44 -> these statements that's nice we take action only
where we and our supporters can make the biggest
96.84 -> impacts where people's lives are most affected and
whatever risks are most dire the problems we're
102.12 -> tackling are big it takes a huge effort a bit of
bragging here and there to justify the 25 a month
109.26 -> it takes a huge effort to make possible by
people all over the world that's where we
114.48 -> come in our movement is inclusive people powered
and Collective with people like you at the center
120.54 -> like me did already become a part of it without
even consenting we care just as much as about
126.54 -> big political and corporate changes as we do
about empowering people to act in their homes
131.64 -> and communities empowerment goes both ways the
weight and resources that we are able to devote to
138.12 -> pushing for a greener and more peaceful world are
only made possible because of the courage heart
143.94 -> and collective power of the people like you okay
well all in all I see that in the front page they
149.52 -> are very active activism is definitely the key of
what they're doing and they seem to be very eager
156.06 -> about it and not easily stoppable and if they
are doing it for the right cause then I don't
162.06 -> see the problem with that but let's move on and go
a little bit more in depth so I opened up a page
170.82 -> about nuclear energy and under the title nuclear
energy first thing that we read is nuclear power
177.18 -> is dirty dangerous and expensive saying no to new
nukes and I have a lot to say about this sentence
186 -> to be honest I kind of expected this treatment
let's say of Greenpeace towards nuclear even
192.66 -> though I didn't expect it to be so forward but I
expected these to be their statements but dirty
199.74 -> dangerous and expensive say no to new nukes I want
to see how they explore these definitions but only
208.02 -> the fact that they use the word nukes to describe
nuclear energy even though it's usually referred
212.82 -> to nuclear weapons is already quite misleading and
is using basically terminology that is not usually
218.94 -> applied to nuclear energy in the nuclear industry
in order to promote this kind of let's say
224.52 -> negative image that they are planning to picture
about nuclear but let me not be too biased right
232.62 -> this is just one sentence maybe they will clear
out in the rest of the text nuclear energy has no
238.86 -> place in a safe clean and sustainable future says
green fish nuclear energy is both expensive and
245.4 -> dangerous and just because nuclear pollution
is visible doesn't mean it's clean renewable
249.78 -> energy is better for the environment yeah I
would have no doubt the economy interesting
256.8 -> I want to see the numbers and doesn't come with
the risk of a nuclear meltdown uh Greenpeace got
262.32 -> its start protesting nuclear weapons starting
back in 1971 and I like how immediately from
268.86 -> the nuclear energy the first paragraph they
are talking about is about nuclear weapons
274.44 -> so it's literally like trying to make it as one
thing even though they are completely separate
279.84 -> the non-proliferation section and the nuclear
weapons section and Industry are not related
284.58 -> to each other maybe they were when nuclear started
but they're definitely not in the 21st century and
291.78 -> it's interesting how they keep promoting that same
idea and belief to the people who might not have
296.4 -> as let's say advanced knowledge on the nuclear
energy and get these kind of things as facts from
302.16 -> the Greenpeace website we've been fighting against
nuclear weapons and nuclear power ever since
307.14 -> yeah fighting against nuclear weapons I agree
fighting against nuclear energy which is a
312.96 -> title of your blog post how is that relevant high
profile disasters in Chernobyl Ukraine in 1986
320.28 -> in Fukushima Japan 2011 had raised public
awareness of the dangers of nuclear power
324.48 -> consequently zeal for nuclear energy has fizzled
the catastrophic risk of nuclear energy like the
329.94 -> mountains of nuclear dragons in Japan and Ukraine
far outweigh the potential benefits new nuclear
334.2 -> plants are more expensive and take longer to build
on a renewable energy sources like wind or solar
339.12 -> if we are to avoid the most damaging impact of
climate change we need solutions that are fast
344.04 -> and affordable nuclear power is neither we can do
better than trading off one disaster for another
348.78 -> the nuclear age is over and the age of Renewables
has begun this is a very one-sided approach to
354.54 -> the whole topic which I kind of expected and
that was going to happen let's say pushing
359.94 -> all the negative and disadvantages of the one
energy source and very strongly and one-sidedly
366.6 -> promoting only the positive stuff of the other
energy source which in this case is Renewables
371.76 -> I don't disagree that the nuclear accidents that
happened in are detrimental and the industry has
380.94 -> learned from them and has moved on to better and
safer constructions and even modifications of the
386.4 -> Gen III reactors which are not mentioned
here and yes the nuclear industry has
393.36 -> fizzled and their interest for it has went down
after these accidents because people were scared
399.18 -> and people were falling back and trying to fix the
problems that they currently were facing in order
403.92 -> to even move forward and develop new technology
in the nuclear industry but currently the nuclear
408.54 -> industry is pretty much booming and there is a
lot of interest and a lot of research and from
415.32 -> the industry and the research and academia side
both development for the nuclear energy is quite
422.1 -> strong at the moment so I'm not sure where
this information is taken from or if maybe
427.2 -> the information is dating at the same time that
Greenpeace started protesting which is around the
432.42 -> 70s but it's definitely not the case in 2023 and
I don't disagree with the fact that the renewable
441 -> energies are seemed to be by Greenpeace solely
the solution for a clean and affordable and the
447.3 -> sustainable environmental energy solution because
we do know very well that they are good and they
453.06 -> have their advantages however they are detrimental
and do destroy the environment and have weapons of
459.9 -> the environment in their own way besides the
fact that the efficiency of the Renewables
466.74 -> are quite low that they cannot currently be used
sustainably by themselves meaning that they always
472.74 -> need the backup energy in order to facilitate
that extra energy Supply that is necessary when
478.38 -> the Renewables are not performing for example
during the night if you have solar or when it's
482.34 -> not blowing wind during any time of the day for
the wind power and so on so yes I do agree that
490.56 -> renewables of course have their advantages and
this is the reason why they are being promoted
494.58 -> and people are working on them so strongly and
they are being employed in part of the world that
498.06 -> it makes sense but at the same time it's not only
negative stuff that are associated with nuclear
503.04 -> power there's a lot of positive things such as
the efficiency of the energy production that you
507.18 -> can get the installation in remote areas and even
more things that you can do besides electricity
514.62 -> production with nuclear energy that are not
merely mentioned here in order for you to make a
521.34 -> well-rounded and objective opinion about the
nuclear energy and the renewable energy of their
527.46 -> whole the dangers of nuclear energy I wonder
if any of these paragraphs has as a title the
532.62 -> advantages of nuclear energy just to see I'm not
saying that you should necessarily be pro-nuclear
537.48 -> but even if you are against or if you're neutral
you still should be able to present all the facts
543.24 -> if you're presenting part of the facts even not
even though you know that other facts exist then
548.52 -> you're basically hiding part of the truth which
is not really so nice image that the Greenpeace
556.2 -> portrays of themselves of a company that is
so big and even a question to pay them 25 a
561.66 -> month for this kind of information let's see so
meltdowns like The Wanted fuchsia Noble release
567.42 -> enormous amount of radiation into the surrounding
commit communities forcing hundreds of thousands
571.5 -> of people to evacuate many of them may never
come back if the industry is current track
576.24 -> record is any indication we can expect a major
meltdown about once a decade the possibility of
581.76 -> catastrophic accident that the U.S meltdown cannot
be dismissed there is still no safe reliable
587.34 -> solution for dealing with radioactive waste
actually there is produced by nuclear power plants
592.8 -> every waste dumped in the U.S leaks radiation into
the environment the nuclear plants themselves are
597.96 -> running out of ways to store highly radioactive
waste on side the side selected to store the US's
602.76 -> radioactive waste a Yucca Mountain and Nevada
is both volcanically and seismically active
608.04 -> beyond the risk associated with nuclear power
in radioactive waste the threat of nuclear power
613.08 -> nuclear weapons looms large the spread of
nuclear technology nuclear weapons is a
618.36 -> threat for National Security and the safety of
the entire planet it's interesting how if you
623.4 -> take the sentence separately and you would like
to discuss every sentence by itself then it does
629.22 -> make sense and there is facts and true statements
in the sentences themselves but the fact how they
634.32 -> cleverly mix up a whole paragraph with some
sentences that make sense and some others
638.94 -> that are way unrealistic exaggerated or not even
factual and they try to make it all make sense
644.88 -> so a reader can read and be like okay that's not
very far from the truth I guess they have a point
650.88 -> it is really intellectually dishonest it goes
back to what I said before that it would be nice
658.26 -> first of all to have a whole another blog post
discussing about nuclear weapons if that would
662.7 -> be a discussion that you would like to have and
a different one for nuclear energy and combining
666.6 -> them both together but even here in the nuclear
energy a section that I hope will come later on
672.96 -> that will be about the positive outcomes that
nuclear has been contributing to the world and
679.14 -> even about these accidents that they are referring
to they don't really give much information about
682.5 -> how they happen because we do know for
example that the Fukushima accident was not
686.94 -> uh did not happen because of nuclear
malfunctioners I mean nuclear problem it was a
693.18 -> natural disaster that led into a nuclear accident
and it's quite important for people to know and to
698.52 -> separate that I'm not taking away from the fact
that it is an important accident that it did
702.66 -> happen but I'm just saying that it is important
for all the information to be present for the
706.62 -> people to know and understand the situation in a
whole well-rounded way nuclear energy is true cost
714.18 -> nuclear energy isn't just bad for the environment
okay let me go back to that because I actually
718.86 -> forgot to comment on something it says that
there is still no safe reliable solution for
722.52 -> dealing with a radioactive waste produced
by nuclear power plants I wonder this post
726.54 -> when was it written because there is reliable and
safe solution about dealing with the radioactive
735.48 -> waste coming out of the nuclear power plants we
have geological permanent repository facilities
742.02 -> in which the nuclear waste will be stored several
countries are already building them some countries
747.6 -> like Finland already have them established and are
ready to be used quite soon so it would be nice to
753.48 -> go here and update those information but I'm not
sure if that would be of the benefit of Greenpeace
758.34 -> to for example even put the countries that have
an idea on how to deal with this waste and not
762.6 -> just an idea but an implementation and a plan in
place and put a couple of links of this website
767.46 -> that exactly and accurately describe of how the
process will be done and what will be the effect
771.78 -> of the environment which is none too minimal in
case of an accident instead of just intellectually
780.18 -> this honestly showing this kind of information and
presenting them as facts even though they are not
789.24 -> nuclear energy is true cause nuclear energy
isn't just bad for the environment it's bad
793.26 -> for our economy nuclear power plants are
expensive to build promoting prompting
798 -> Wall Street to call a new nuclear a bet of
the farm risks every nuclear power plant and
804.24 -> the construction in the United States is
well behind schedule at least one billion
807.84 -> over budget this is even before taking into
account the solution cleanup and health costs
812.76 -> caused by radioactive waste pollution and nuclear
meltdowns cleaning up Fukushima if ever possible
817.2 -> will cost at least 100 billion and could be
more than double that why invest money in a
823.68 -> dangerous unsustainable form of energy when
we can have clean renewable energy for Less
829.02 -> what we need no new nukes and I'm assuming
Greenpeace refers to nuclear power plants as
837.12 -> nukes which is misleading in itself and quite uh
frustrating let's say nuclear energy is diverting
846 -> attention and investment from the sustainable
energy solutions we need it sounds almost as if
853.38 -> they have something to gain out of this sentence
it's time to stop building new nuclear facilities
859.92 -> so is it that nuclear facilities are not being
built and there are not of Interest anymore to
865.08 -> the society in the economy or is it that they
are being built and take out the money from the
869.28 -> sustainable development so which is it Green Peace
you need to decide on what statement you cannot
875.16 -> contradict yourself in two different
paragraphs of the same blog post
879.72 -> phase out the ones that exist and
focus on clean energy for the future
884.64 -> so it is clear that Greenpeace doesn't consider
nuclear a clean energy neither sustainable or a
892.38 -> financially viable solution even though living in
the U.S they do know quite well that a substantial
898.38 -> percentage of their energy and electricity
comes from the use of nuclear energy and just
905.16 -> for interest we are going to check CO2 emissions
per energy source okay so someone from this very
917.1 -> quick search you saw me it took me probably a
few seconds to find it out there is much more
921.24 -> information about it that would show that you know
it wouldn't take that much time for Greenpeace
925.74 -> to update these statements is that a greenhouse
emissions for renewable and not renewable energy
933.24 -> sources and you can see of course as expected
coal oil and natural gas it's in the high and they
939.3 -> produce close to a thousand or over a thousand
uh in the scale that they are portraying here
944.52 -> however as you can see for the nuclear which is
in purple because in this post it's not considered
949.92 -> renewable which technically it is not because
we don't have an unlimited supply of uranium
954.9 -> or thorium so eventually we will run out of it
even though with a new energy technologies and
960.72 -> a new technologies for the new types of reactors
we will probably have it for for quite some years
966.72 -> to come but this is a story for another time
you can see that nuclear here has number 13
971.94 -> and this is compared to which is also 39 is the
lowest one it is lower than any other renewable
981 -> energy source such as hydropower that has almost
double solar power that has double the nuclear
987.9 -> and even higher geothermal photovoltaic biomass
all of these sources are considered renewable
993.42 -> therefore they based on Greenpeace should be
more environmentally sustainable than nuclear
1000.68 -> but we very well see that they are not so what
I'm trying to show here is that not saying that
1007.22 -> nuclear is the better option than all of these but
it is important to put them all into perspective
1012.62 -> and discuss the pros and cons of every energy
source and consider which one would make more
1017.72 -> sense or which combination of sources would make
more sense for each country to implement for the
1023.18 -> best outcome in terms of finances environmental
sustainability economics and everything that would
1028.88 -> make sense for that country so not impressed
Greenpeace I'm not impressed at all I didn't
1034.76 -> expect much but I also didn't expect that little
that was a very thorough digging into the nuclear
1043.28 -> energy perspective from the Greenpeace side and
to be honest I'm quite disappointed I expected
1051.14 -> a little bit more I expect it a little bit
more on the neutral side I never expected
1055.52 -> that Greenpeace would actually be for nuclear but
I expected them to provide some more objective
1060.86 -> information because it's important to give the
factual objective information to the public so
1065.84 -> they can make their own decision but it seems
that cream pieces message is brainwashing which
1073.4 -> I don't agree with let me know what you think
down in the comments and if you support more the
1078.74 -> Greenpeace side or are you more on the neutral and
objective side or maybe you do think that the the
1084.62 -> way that Greenpeace projects things is actually
neutral so I would like to know your thoughts in
1089.84 -> the comments down below thanks for watching don't
forget to like and subscribe and turn on the bell
1094.16 -> notification icon it's been Elina your friendly
nuclear physicist and until next time see you soon
1100.22 -> and then the button next to it
is not donate or pay it's GIVE!
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpMNgTB8Zd4