Nuclear

We are taken on a tour of fissions past, when all we ever knew was just a blast, of how a power could just smash, turning the world into cheap trash, while extra fingers, toes and eyes could be amassed; we all know the world is ending due to fossils, we didn't pay too much regard to the apostles, who couldn't break oil cartels, who lied, misled about their wells, with an event of extinction, that is colossal; so what to do, and in essence, who to believe, as we know that everyone will cheat, deceive, it looks like nukes are the escape, to stop environmental rape, until the atoms find a way to make escape!

You know, the problem is, you don't really know, and this is more than likely sponsored by groups with an interest, so keep an open mind, and investigate for yourself.

This well-organized argument for the increased use of nuclear energy, to cope with the climate change problem, could be shown as a part of a double feature with Al Gore's far more popular film, "An Inconvenient Truth" (2006). Oliver Stone confronts the old objections to nuclear power plants and points out the increasing need for this type of energy production going forward. He points out the minimal effect of so-called clean energy and dispenses with the problem of nuclear waste. He points out that China, with its 1.5 billion population, pledges, by going nuclear, a carbon footprint of zero by 2060. This convenient truth is convincing.

I recently watched an interview with Oliver Stone on Breaking Points, and it piqued my interest enough to pay $3.99 to watch his movie on Amazon Prime Video. I am even considering purchasing it for $12. The movie is available on various platforms, including YouTube. It adopts a sober, somber, educational, and calm tone. It is highly informative and makes an effort not to denigrate other forms of energy. Instead, it highlights how there has been a lot of misinformation about nuclear power, and how many people are confused, believing that nuclear power is more dangerous than coal, gas, pollution, climate change, or oil. This is not the case, as is evident even in the events of Chernobyl or Fukushima. The movie presents its case persuasively, seeking your support without being overbearing or aggressive. I urge everyone to support this film and Oliver Stone for his courage and for epitomizing the true essence of a heterodox hero.

I have always been curious about why we don't build more nuclear reactors. One of my main concerns has been the issue of nuclear waste and the limited lifespan of these reactors. However, after watching this insightful documentary, narrated by Oliver Stone, I have come to appreciate the potential benefits of expanding nuclear power. Stone's argument that increasing the number of nuclear reactors can effectively address global warming seems to hold merit. This documentary delves into many aspects beyond what I have mentioned here, making it a truly engaging watch. I highly recommend it to open-minded individuals who are willing to approach the subject without injecting politics into the discussion. True to Oliver Stone's reputation, the film's quality is unquestionable. What I particularly enjoyed was how the documentary acknowledges the possibility of viewer bias, stemming from Hollywood's portrayal of events, and guides us through facts. While I eagerly await the emergence of the next breakthrough in power technology, the urgency of the issue at hand necessitates that we base our decisions on information rather than misguided beliefs. It is crucial that we proceed with a well-informed approach to address the challenges of our energy needs.

Keep in mind that this documentary is fully founded and promoted by a company specialized in the construction of nuclear reactors (Newcleo). The primary focus of this recently (2021) created organization is to advocate for the construction of new nuclear reactors and to influence energy policies across Europe, such as in Italy, where nuclear energy is presently prohibited.

Newcleo, in the next 7-8 years, plans to develop two reactors in France and the United Kingdom, with a non-nuclear prototype in the study phase in Italy. Additionally, they intend to establish a nuclear fuel factory producing mixed plutonium-uranium oxides (MOX). The concept for the MOX facility emerged after the conflict in Ukraine, driven by the demand for radioactive fuel independent of uranium sourced from Russia, one of the world's major producers. The company will require capital in the range of 3-4 billion euros to accomplish these endeavors. For these reasons, probably, they have produced a documentary to support their cause, shift public opinion on the subject and seek funding.

Throughout the entire duration of the documentary, not a single mention is made of any drawbacks associated with nuclear energy. Is nuclear energy so flawless that it possesses no disadvantages? Not quite. For instance, uranium mining causes lung cancer in large numbers of miners because uranium mines contain natural radon gas, some of whose decay products are carcinogenic. Clean, renewable energy does not have this risk because (a) it does not require the continuous mining of any material, only one-time mining to produce the energy generators; and (b) the mining does not carry the same lung cancer risk that uranium mining does. Additionally, uranium, the fuel for nuclear reactors, is energy-intensive to mine, and deposits discovered in the future are likely to be harder to access. As a result, much of the net energy created would be offset by the energy input required to build and decommission plants and to mine and process uranium ore. Then there's the significant issue of nuclear waste, which is only superficially addressed. New storage systems are being designed, but a completely safe and efficient 100% solution has not been found yet.

I am not against nuclear energy, but I would like to hear a more impartial and objective perspective on the topic, or at least hear the opposing viewpoint before drawing my conclusions.