If you watched till the end you’ll see that nothing made it to the F tier as there are plenty of misconceptions about nuclear energy out there and few are based on facts. Let me know down below what would your tier list look like?☢️👩🏽🔬 Thanks again for watching and don’t forget to like and subscribe and check out my support page for exclude content and early access ko-fi.com/elinacharatsidou
1. Steam from the stacks Since tritium is known to pass through the metallic structures of the reactor vessel and cooling loops in close proximity in the cooling block then we know it's making it to the stacks. This is known science and not in question. That H3O steam is making its way out the stacks and into the environment where it is taken up in plantlife and animals we eat were it transforms into organically bound tritium by bonding to the cells or replacing hydrogen in the cells to form organically bound tritium before we eat the plants and animals. Even after we prepare the food, the organically bound tritium is still inside and will be ingested by us where it to will bind to our cells replacing the hydrogen which is unlike just tritium which was thought to pass through the body in under a month. With this newer finding, we know that the amount of time that radioactive hydrogen as organically bound tritium will cause more damage than just tritium alone. There is a huge difference and you are not telling them about the tritium, plain and simple you're wrong Elina.
2. No Viable solution to nuclear waste. A repository like what Richard Muller wants to use is not a viable solution. The issues can be found in the technology they want to use in oil and gas technology. The easiest way to prove it shouldn't be done is to look at the disadvantages of drilling a borehole to begin with much less using one to fill with concrete of which who knows what type of PH moisture is in that and a possible redox issue along with concrete degradation and finding all the abandoned boreholes that have severely been affected and no longer able to contain it. The same will be true with Deep Isolation. Only true answer is to use Musks returning booster with the newer hardened capsule they will use to protect astronauts during a rocket explosion. Yes its expensive still, but it's better than letting it get into the aquifers. Not everywhere on the planet is suitable and we need to stop producing more like the cart in front of the horse until we develop a true viable solution. We've known about burying it since the bomb testing and exactly why it hasn't been done yet.
I remember a physics professor being asked about RF/EMF radiation during protests over a new power line. He said "Standing in sunlight complaining about the radiation you are getting from a power line is like calling your neighbor during a hurricane to complain that his cat is breathing on your tree." I feel this analogy works for cell phone "radiation."
Couldn't agree more, the logic/science is simple; 100% of people living around a nuclear powerplant will, with 100% certainty, die at some point in their life. Ergo, living near a 'NPP' will result in future death. /s
I realised that I used a sentence that might create some confusion. I mentioned that after shut down fission reactions continue to exists. This is not the case, what I meant to say is that decay heat is generated from radioactive nuclides that were produced by fission shortly before shut down. Hope you’re enjoying the video ☢️👩🏽🔬
@@adarshjha5159 This video already said cell phone radiation (= mobile tower radiation, it's the same) is not dangerous to human health. Unless you mean some other danger, like maybe social consequences or, perhaps, we haven't yet noticed some plant doesn't like it.
The cell phone radiation one has always bothered me. Even the highest bandwidth 5g phones we have emit wavelengths that are less energetic than visible light or infrared. I cannot imagine that there is any amount of danger present from that at all.
This is the type of situation where you can find a ton of studies not because there is some clue that indicates danger, but because there is missinformation around the topic. To me, having to do science to proof something we alrready know is a sad waste of resources. Luckily, something new can be learn from those
About the NPP go boom as a nuke i tried to explain to a slightly drunk friend once and found a simplified metaphor that made it in to his skull. -Its one part of the fuel that is highly reactive. A bomb contains >90% of it and NPP fuel 3-5%. Just cause (close to) pure alcohol is highly flammable it doesn't make beer burn.
Great video Elina ! So good to hear an expert s detailed opinion about everyday misconceptions. It wouldn t be a myth if anything made it to the F tier , right ?
I never really knew much about nuclear power, before finding your channel. All what I knew before is how dangerous nuclear materials are and that nuclear weapons have the potential to cause our extinction.
Hi Elina I worked on brazil's comunications agency as a intern, one of the jobs was to organise a spread sheet of radiation test from cellphone. So the amount of energy is really low, you have to hold it close to you for two years to be equal to a cup of water heated on microwave, unfortunately i cant remeber the time.
You can't use waste as fuel, to maintain chain reaction you need a controled amount of fertile isotope be it Uranium or Plutonium. But in a fast neutron reactor such as some Thorium designs you have enough neutron to maintain the chain reaction and provoke fissions in the waste. The goal is to get rid of the very big isotope that grow from U and Pu by fissionating them (Americium for example) because they are very radioactive and have a long half life. But you don't get rid of all the waste, you still have fission products that are very radioactive too but with shorter half life.
It would be nice to do a video on the different types of nuclear reactor that exists and how the new technologies overcome the problem of safety, etc that occurs for the old ones.
Old reactors are always upgraded. Just like the meter reader does not drive a 1955 Chevy. It is funny how people really think a plant based on 1950s or even 1980s technology would still be in operation.
Like a, “Why Chernobyl or 3 Mile Island” etc, wouldn’t happen today. Though Fukushima might be harder to address, as the answer seems to be it already happened, but there are other plants along the coast in Japan. What design changes have they made to them to avoid the same trail to event that Fukushima took.
@@StanSwan except that tech is still in operation depending on when the reactor was built. ripping out all the old tech to replace it with new tech can be prohibitively expensive. even then they can only be upgraded to a point, the mechanism of reactor operation however is a different beast, replace the entire core? containment vessel? the piping? better off building an entirely new reactor.
@@StanSwan no, it isn't all upgraded, so you're wrong there, not a pretty head and not a lady...that's three strikes kid. care to try again? or do you prefer lying to create your own fantasy world? make that 4, who says i was scared? strawman much? but of COURSE you do.
I just found your channel a few days ago and binge watched most of your stuff. I found it all to be very interesting and enjoyable. I like that you don't have a political slant to your content. I subscribed & hit the bell. Many thanks!
I really like your videos, they remind me of Dr. Becky and her astrophysics videos. Both are topics I don't know much about and that scare me, space and nuclear energy, so it's nice to have an enthusiastic and approachable scientist explain things in an understandable way :)
You are awesome. I would love to see a video more about the environmental radiation that we are exposed to every day, and we just don't know it. Like radon is something i have heard of, but I am not sure what it is or how to deal with it.
great video, but imho your explanation of cell phone "radiation" failed to take advantage of the opportunity to 1) differentiate between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, 2) emphasis that cell phones are simply advanced radios, and that 3) the "radiation" from cell phones is not the ionizing radiation that laypeople are thinking of when they use the word, and that instead radio signals are radiation in the same manner that your lamps emit "illuminating radiation", your stereo emits "sonic radiation", and your toaster creates "thermal radiation".
Playing devil's advocate: Fukushima proofs that modern NPPs aren't inherintly safe. While accidents of that nature are rare, the potential severity of the consequences (loosing large areas of inhatibale land or even widespread radioactive fallout) means we shouldn't risk it. In general Fukushima and Chernobyl are of interest to me since there still seem details unclear/vague/debated even decafes after. Like: What actully caused the explosion of Chernobyl, or how did that much radiation leak from the Fukushima NPP. Also, could you commen on german nuclear energy poitics/debates going on right now?
Hi Elina, I'm curious what your opinion on beta voltaic batteries is. Is this a viable method of energy production that can be safe? Are they a viable method of recycling some high level nuclear waste and extracting even more energy from it?
Besides being a pro-nuclear, arguably there isn't yet a true solution for waste (and I've watched your video about it already 😉) Burying the waste, even if it is in a stable soil isn't really sustainable. IMO, we could consider a "real" solution when we are able to either have no waste (make the most of uranium radioactivity til it reach levels where it isn't considered radioactive anymore) or recycle them (for example, re-enrich it so it can be used again). So perhaps a D instead?
I think with "real" you mean "better" solutions. Burying radioactive products in stable soil neutralize them. If that's not a real solution I dont know what's the meaning of "real" anymore.
There also is the trust issue. If we could fully trust prior analysis to be flawless and everyone handling radiactive waste with care, deep burring is a solution. Unfortunately this trust has vanished a long time ago. That means whereever we store radiactive waste it needs to be controllable and accessable making it much more challenging. It was said a couple of times that the waste issue was solved but I haven't seen anything that convinces me. If you burry something deep, you no longer have access and you can assume but never can be totally sure. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine
Exactly, it isn't a solution to bury the waste for 10k years, it's just kicking the can down the road. Let's use an analogy. Say you run a hospital, and you have ill people, injured people, pregnant people, etc... right. Now I move all the people with stab wounds out of the hospital to some other location, have I fixed the stab wounds? No, I just moved them somewhere else. An actual solution would be to have some kind of process that renders the waste inert. Even if it takes 20 years per trainload, that's still a solution over letting it sit around for thousands of years.
@@MarkLLawrence Render waste inert is a good dream, but physic laws have some things to say about that. I have a question that may give you some light about buring radioactive materials: Do you know way earth core keeps hot? Radiactive heating is about 50% of that, and yet we don't suffer radiation despite there are trillions of tons of uranium and thorium deep bellow us.
I do have an honest question about used fuel from nuclear power plants. My understanding is the used fuel still has some U-235 in it, but not in concentrations enough for efficient steam generation. Is there some scientific/chemistry reason why the spent fuel rods can't be put back into the refining process to become part of new fuel rods? Why can't spent fuel be considered synthetic uranium ore, available for reprocessing along side natural uranium ore? Or is my understanding wrong?
That's an interesting question - the uranium in spent fuel could be recovered by chemical reprocessing (most likely by the PUREX process). What is the ratio of U-235:U-238 in spent fuel? In a reactor that is fueled with unenriched UO2, such as a CANDU, the spent fuel would surely be low in U-235, but what about reactors that use enriched fuel?
Spent fuel can't be put in the same refining process as uranium ore because it's too radioactive to be handled that way owing to radioactive fission products, it can be reprocessed at reprocessing plants & what can be usefully reused pretty much already is as far as is practical.
Do a video on your thoughts of fusion! I'm in school right now for nuclear engineering and I want to go into the research and development of fusion reactors and would love to hear your thoughts!
Great ranking basically mirrors mine. I'd like to hear you discuss reactor designs although mine you that would be a huge video I will admit. Another thing I would add is uranium rods glow green some people still think they do (They don't they glow blue as it refers to Cherenkov Radiation)
Regarding safety, I’d say that if the design and operations of a plant are wholly in the hands of scientists and engineers then the plant is very safe. If business people or politicians get involved then it becomes much less safe. For example the Chernobyl fire was caused because the politicians over-ruled the engineers, the Three Mile Island leak happened because the managers over-ruled the engineers, Fukashima breach happened because politicians and business people over ruled the engineers and scientists &c.
Question... In a previous video about nuclear energy vs other green energy, you gave a vote to green energy for the waste category. Can you go further in depth on that, as when you finished your evidence for both, I thought nuclear was the clear winner since it's physical volume/area of waste was much smaller. Did I miss something? Thanks so much! I love your videos!
Can you do videos about the different types of nuclear reactors and the different generations of nuclear reactors. Also a video about Small Modular reactors
A friend of mine was born near Chernobyl. He is about a hundred times more radioactive than the average person. When you put a Geiger counter next to him, it's gonna tick a hundred times faster than next to most other people. Of course, a hundred times almost nothing can still be considered almost nothing.
It's called NORM (naturally occurring radioactive material), and yes, it gets concentrated in the remaining ash from burnt coal. the same with oil and gas production - equipment can be contaminated with radioactive material because it has experienced massive volumes of gas /oil through it over its lifetime. It's measurable, but not a problem with basic hygiene standards applied.
should add, it's a result of naturally occurring Potassium, Uranium, Thorium, Radium, Radon, Lead, and Polonium - and maybe some others. Measurement of natural Gamma radiation in rocks helps to identify sands (generally low gamma ray values), and other rocks like shale (higher gamma ray values) Spectral Gamma Ray looks at the different energy levels from K, U, and Th to help identify the environment in which the original sediments were deposited.
an interesting thing i learned relating to nuclear safety is that only a minority of serious nuclear accidents (those with fatalities) are actually related to nuclear power. the majority are related to orphan sources.
I have talked to a few people that think microwave ovens are dangerous. They think the food heated in the oven is radioactive, or somehow otherwise unhealthy.
Could you make a video about the different gen 4 power plants that are in development like Dual Fluid? So how far are they in development, how likely are they to work out, could some types be more suitable in the specific conditions of certain countries and so on. That would be very interesting!
I’m currently interested in getting into the field of nuclear physics I’m a freshman in high-school and wanted to know what you had to learn before you could become a physicist, thank you.
Living anywhere will lead to death as everyone dies at some point. Cell phone emit RF (radio frequency) radiation, but if you are working on a high powered radio tower near the antenna you can actually get RF burns.
The only problem with steam is that it can be considered as a green house gas as it traps heat. However, the amount of steam from a nuclear reactor is small when considered with other resources. I strongly believe though it should be considered as part of the footprint when measuring how "green" is nuclear energy
About the waste handling - what prevents countries (at a technical level) without the bedrock for geological disposal to separate (mechanically, chemically) the radioactive material, and then feed the troublesome isotopes into an accelator-driven system? (or "burn" them in a CANDU or any other system that can be caused to have an excess neutron inventory (final load transmuted in a country with disposal options and transmuted stuff given back)). (aside: would be interesting to see a video on both the subjects of accident prevention (expanding fuels and such) as well as accident mitigation (the MVSS for instance) - and also with comments about how long various stuff has been in use (I mean, a 1970s reactor is a very different thing from a 1990s reactor, or even just a fully upgraded 1970s reactor))
I'm sure you are not radioactive but you do have a pleasant glow about you anyway. Your videos are very interesting and I have a much clearer picture of what goes on in a reactor. Still have lots of questions though concerning molten salt reactors.
I knew about SL1, but I never knew about Lise Meitner. I know that often most folks developing technology aren't usually the people that develop the theory but build off of it. I agree this lady should be better known. I find it a tragedy that she is not getting her due. Farnsworth didn't get the credit for developing the first TV, and RCA used WW2 to take advantage of his patents. So many people are forgotten or misunderstand who actually had came up with the theories that others have applied.
There are solutions to nuclear waste, but are they good solutions? Is burying it really a good solution, or is it just an out of sight out of mind type of solution?
It's inbetween really. A lot of research and smart engineering went in to the current approaches, it's not like we just dump it somewhere random without any precautions. But of course it's still there, and still potentially dangerous for millenia. Personally, I think the most danger coming from them is that in the far future someones digs these things back up, and accidentially or deliberately causes harm by "unpacking" them.
From your name, I’m guessing you’re Romanian? Anyways, you have a great voice and a super-cute accent. I’ve watched a few of your vids. Very interesting stuff! Aloha from Hawai’i. 🤙☺️
I would have put the nuclear bomb explosion is the same as a reactor explosion into S Tier. From what i tead online a nuclear bomb is very complex and takes specialits in many scientific field to create. Other than that i think you are the most qualified person around to make up these Tiers.
We're all radioactive (a good song title:p), and we're all exposed to radiation every day. However, there are different levels of exposure. If you haven't done a video about The Demon Core, you should. In that case, we would be talking about truely being exposed to radiation.
Video idea: React to fictional depictions of radiation poisoning and rate their accuracy. Here's a couple for the list. - Farscape s3e15 -Expanse s1e10
Elina, can I ask if you could more completely define “radiation” for your viewers. For example you are usually talking about IONIZING radiation whereas the cell phone question relates to Radio Frequency (RF) Radiation. I only say this so people can understand radiation is not purely a nuclear byproduct. Not that it applies to this video, but also a broad definition of contamination as something not being where expected vs purely unwanted nuclear byproducts/waste products in unexpected/unwanted areas. Just a thought and I apologize in advance if you already made videos on these subjects.
Hmm I don't know if I'm being picky but there is a tonne of evidence that 'lower frequency' radiation can cause health issues, similar to ionising radiation. I agree with your outcome but a more correct statement is its a matter of dosage. Case in point your microwave is a similar frequency as your wifi.
I have a curiosity that is more linguistic than nuclear. Moderators are used to slow down neutrons; and, the slower neutrons increase the reaction. Indeed, the word "moderator" makes me think of slowing something down. So, my brain wants to think of moderators as things that slow down the reaction. I suspect that many people also get that backwards but don't realize it. I'm curious what words are use for the (neutron) moderators in languages other than English. Would you happen to know any of them and their English translations?
Also the first nuclear power plant was built in Russia, in Obninsk. There were experimental reactors in the US before that ofc, but none producing electricity for electrical networks.
"Working in a NPP = radioactive" only if your particles that you are made of decay . And as all particles decay (eventually), some will just take more than the heat death of the universe, so you are indeed radioactive.
Is it really true that nuclear is safest, if we consider the whole chain. The article I read considered solar as "less safe", because of the rare-Earth elements mining and deaths from installation (usually installed on rooftops). Is mining Uranium safer than mining rare-Earth elements?
Yes, largely because uranium mining mostly happens where mining is regulated, currently much of the rare earths are coming from places like the (Un)Democratic Republic of Congo, where there's zero regulation & child labour is rampant. The deposits are where they are, which doesn't match well with where there are decent safety regulations & enforcement of them.
Re: Nuclear Explosion and Power Plant Accident. Would if be more accurate to compare a Nuclear Reactor Accident with a "Dirty Bomb" rather than a high yield "Atomic or Thermonuclear Destination " ? It seems to a non scientist like me, that people imagine the high yield mushroom cloud as the only type of Atomic Bomb. Radioactive Materials are not just used in military weapons as sources of immense heat / blast. The military also use Radioactive Materials in weapons designed to minimise physical damage, maximise human casualties and create strategic "no go zones". With some extremely problematic materials having the potential to greatly enhance this effect such as Cobalt. So while the configuration of material in a Power Plant is NOT such that it can explode with that high yield mushroom cloud, it is (was) possible to have an accident something like a "dirty bomb".
I thought Heisenberg was the one who first created a fission reaction, because he sold the Nazi's on the idea of a nuclear fission weapon but wasn't able to actually deliver a bomb, but he was able to create a nuclear fission reaction in his lab and have an excess amount of neutrons before he and his lab assistants almost died when they were not able to control the reaction.
One environmental problem is caused by the heating of the water sources to the reactor. This problem has been addressed in the California Diablo Canyon reactor
this is an issue often cited by the anti nuclear greens here in Germany because they picked up that France had an issue last summer when their streams were already too warm. The plants could not release their water into the streams then because it would have damages wildlife… My response to that: Yeah but these reactors in France are super ancient and this is an issue easily fixed by technicalsolutions 🤷♂️
4:51 living leads to future death. Or at least that’s my understanding. 7:48 yes. That’s how we got canola oil. 9:03 yes, that’s why I can see my pistol sights in the dark. 11:45 things less safe than nuclear energy: Traveling by airplane Traveling by motor vehicle Living in a city Coal powered power plants Smoking Eating Living
Great video, I don’t understand why climate alarmists don’t lobby for more nuclear power with the same enthusiasm they have for shutting down fossil fuels.
To be fair to those who say there's no solution for dealing with the waste : while there is a perfectly good technical solution, in many places, politics prevent the solution from being applied.
I have a little addition to the nuclear waste section. As I assume we both know, not every country has the best options for storage, and somehow, the countries with the best storage does not necessarily have the best waste separation facilities. I would love if this world could come to a point where every country was allowed to perform in their own special field. But in nuclear terms, waste is something that the owner has to handle 100% from cradle to grave. Now, in Norway we have great geology for storing long term nuclear waste. But we have no facility to process it down to a manageable amount. Why can´t we be allowed to handle others waste safely in return for a reprocessing of our own waste?
The Fukashima reactors exploded, but the plant is still there. I didn't go high yeild. It was a steam explosion that released a lot of radiation, but not even on the scale of a convential bomb. That right there proves they don't explode like a nuke. I would have givent that an "S" as a superb example of a false idea.
4:35 - Hey, guys - I work at an experimental nuclear plant. That´s right! ENP for everyone that wants abbreviations all around. I don´t know if anyone else would use it, but we can make it work right here and now, can´t we? If you paid attention to that, one P actually disappeared. And it was intended, as we have never produced power at my plant, we´re purely experimental. But the rest is something a lot ask for. Is it safe to live close to this reactor? If you´re really worried about that, I suggest going over to your neighbour. Talk to them, and if they don´t work with me already, they know which of your neigbours that do. We live where you live. If you live close to a NPP, have you noticed that most of your neighbours work there? Go over, talk to them. They won´t bite. Unless you ask them to, and that´s a bit rowdy for this channel, I guess.
We already have fusion reactors. What you actually mean is a fusion power plant. Currently we cannot create a state which creates a chainreaction and generates more power that it uses at the same time. That is the issue.
Working at a lab or at a NPP is not going to increase you're radioactivity. However, all people *ARE* radioactive because we all contain isotopes of various elements that are radioactive. Fun fact, if you sleep in the bed with someone, you will get more radiation from the person sleeping with you than you would if you were alone due to things like K40. Overall, it's minimal, but to say that people aren't radioactive is also a misnomer. Also a quick note, the waste heat from fuel after a reactor has been shutdown is not coming from fissions (though some due still occur, you're in a subcritical state, so any neutrons coming off a fission are more likely to be absorbed in something other than fissile material), but really coming from decay of isotopes. The shorter the half-life, the more radioactive something is, and the radiation coming off the decay process is what is really driving the heat coming from the fuel rods once the reactor is in a shutdown state.
Radio frequency can absolutely cause health effects. It just has to be very intense. Think standing in front of a fighter jet radome. Very deadly because it will overheat you.
You should have specified that there are different types of radiation because most people think that all radiation is the same type. For example they think that microwave radiation is the same as nuclear bomb radiation.
If you watched till the end you’ll see that nothing made it to the F tier as there are plenty of misconceptions about nuclear energy out there and few are based on facts.
Let me know down below what would your tier list look like?☢️👩🏽🔬
Thanks again for watching and don’t forget to like and subscribe and check out my support page for exclude content and early access ko-fi.com/elinacharatsidou
I would have put most of the claims in this video several tiers above S.
Pls I would like you to tell me what university in the UK is best for studying nuclear engineering based on their nuclear research and facilities.
@Elina Charatsidou
Please make a video on LFTR's :D
1. Steam from the stacks
Since tritium is known to pass through the metallic structures of the reactor vessel and cooling loops in close proximity in the cooling block then we know it's making it to the stacks. This is known science and not in question. That H3O steam is making its way out the stacks and into the environment where it is taken up in plantlife and animals we eat were it transforms into organically bound tritium by bonding to the cells or replacing hydrogen in the cells to form organically bound tritium before we eat the plants and animals. Even after we prepare the food, the organically bound tritium is still inside and will be ingested by us where it to will bind to our cells replacing the hydrogen which is unlike just tritium which was thought to pass through the body in under a month. With this newer finding, we know that the amount of time that radioactive hydrogen as organically bound tritium will cause more damage than just tritium alone. There is a huge difference and you are not telling them about the tritium, plain and simple you're wrong Elina.
2. No Viable solution to nuclear waste. A repository like what Richard Muller wants to use is not a viable solution. The issues can be found in the technology they want to use in oil and gas technology. The easiest way to prove it shouldn't be done is to look at the disadvantages of drilling a borehole to begin with much less using one to fill with concrete of which who knows what type of PH moisture is in that and a possible redox issue along with concrete degradation and finding all the abandoned boreholes that have severely been affected and no longer able to contain it. The same will be true with Deep Isolation. Only true answer is to use Musks returning booster with the newer hardened capsule they will use to protect astronauts during a rocket explosion. Yes its expensive still, but it's better than letting it get into the aquifers. Not everywhere on the planet is suitable and we need to stop producing more like the cart in front of the horse until we develop a true viable solution. We've known about burying it since the bomb testing and exactly why it hasn't been done yet.
I remember a physics professor being asked about RF/EMF radiation during protests over a new power line. He said "Standing in sunlight complaining about the radiation you are getting from a power line is like calling your neighbor during a hurricane to complain that his cat is breathing on your tree."
I feel this analogy works for cell phone "radiation."
The statement “Living near a NPP = death” sounds to me like “100% of people who drink water will die” lol
Couldn't agree more, the logic/science is simple;
100% of people living around a nuclear powerplant will, with 100% certainty, die at some point in their life.
Ergo, living near a 'NPP' will result in future death.
/s
Dihydrogen monoxide is present in 100% of drowning accidents!
@@nlald Literally every person that has ever consumed dihydrogen monoxide has died or will die.
@@nlald when u say water by its real name, it realy sounds terrifying lmao
Oxygen reacts to fuckin' everything and definitely causes cancer :P
I realised that I used a sentence that might create some confusion. I mentioned that after shut down fission reactions continue to exists. This is not the case, what I meant to say is that decay heat is generated from radioactive nuclides that were produced by fission shortly before shut down.
Hope you’re enjoying the video ☢️👩🏽🔬
Can u make a video regarding mobile tower radiation and how dangerous it is?
Very misleading video, that jumps huge issues, & is reliant on information from lier's & decivers like tepco & IEA..
Spontaneous fission would be occurring at a small rate after shutdown. But, no self-sustaining chain reaction.
@@adarshjha5159 This video already said cell phone radiation (= mobile tower radiation, it's the same) is not dangerous to human health. Unless you mean some other danger, like maybe social consequences or, perhaps, we haven't yet noticed some plant doesn't like it.
I worked in a nuclear lab when I was an undergrad, and I glow in the dark so much that I've never had to buy light bulbs.
Pretty usefull.
Makes it a little hard to play hide and seek, though.
Okay Marie Currie🙈😛🤡
Sure
I’ve never worked in a nuclear lab or plant.
Still glow in the dark.
I blame my Nordic heritage, and nerd-level of Heliophobia.
The cell phone radiation one has always bothered me. Even the highest bandwidth 5g phones we have emit wavelengths that are less energetic than visible light or infrared. I cannot imagine that there is any amount of danger present from that at all.
This is the type of situation where you can find a ton of studies not because there is some clue that indicates danger, but because there is missinformation around the topic.
To me, having to do science to proof something we alrready know is a sad waste of resources. Luckily, something new can be learn from those
Its funny people are terrified of stupid 2mw waves, then they go bath IN THE FREAKING SUN and receive tons of UV, which is damaging
About the NPP go boom as a nuke i tried to explain to a slightly drunk friend once and found a simplified metaphor that made it in to his skull.
-Its one part of the fuel that is highly reactive. A bomb contains >90% of it and NPP fuel 3-5%. Just cause (close to) pure alcohol is highly flammable it doesn't make beer burn.
Great video Elina ! So good to hear an expert s detailed opinion about everyday misconceptions. It wouldn t be a myth if anything made it to the F tier , right ?
'If you work in a nuclear power plant you will become radioactive' was the funniest one
I never really knew much about nuclear power, before finding your channel. All what I knew before is how dangerous nuclear materials are and that nuclear weapons have the potential to cause our extinction.
Thank you for the comment! I hope you found some insightful info here that paint a more fair picture of nuclear energy. ☢️👩🏽🔬
Yeah exposure critics must've never heard of Radon(Rn. 86) gas off from Radium(Ra, 88).
Feels so good to be the first one to watch the video cause of the Kofi subscription ❤️❤️❤️ proud Neutron hihihi
Thank you! You’re the golden neutron since you were the first ever to become a member!☢️👩🏽🔬
Thank you for this; the tier list format is handy for examining each of these ideas. I'm glad I found your channel!
Thanks for making positive educational nuclear content. 👍 Cheers
The mini bloopers are fun, don’t hesitate to add more :)
Hi Elina
I worked on brazil's comunications agency as a intern, one of the jobs was to organise a spread sheet of radiation test from cellphone. So the amount of energy is really low, you have to hold it close to you for two years to be equal to a cup of water heated on microwave, unfortunately i cant remeber the time.
Hi Elina, Quick question concerning dealing with nuclear waste what are your opinions on using the waste to fuel Molten Salt Reactors?
You can't use waste as fuel, to maintain chain reaction you need a controled amount of fertile isotope be it Uranium or Plutonium. But in a fast neutron reactor such as some Thorium designs you have enough neutron to maintain the chain reaction and provoke fissions in the waste. The goal is to get rid of the very big isotope that grow from U and Pu by fissionating them (Americium for example) because they are very radioactive and have a long half life. But you don't get rid of all the waste, you still have fission products that are very radioactive too but with shorter half life.
I can't wait until people hear about FM radio and light bulbs.....
Alright, I'm subscribed. Fascinating material covered on this channel!
It would be nice to do a video on the different types of nuclear reactor that exists and how the new technologies overcome the problem of safety, etc that occurs for the old ones.
Old reactors are always upgraded. Just like the meter reader does not drive a 1955 Chevy. It is funny how people really think a plant based on 1950s or even 1980s technology would still be in operation.
Like a, “Why Chernobyl or 3 Mile Island” etc, wouldn’t happen today. Though Fukushima might be harder to address, as the answer seems to be it already happened, but there are other plants along the coast in Japan. What design changes have they made to them to avoid the same trail to event that Fukushima took.
@@StanSwan except that tech is still in operation depending on when the reactor was built. ripping out all the old tech to replace it with new tech can be prohibitively expensive. even then they can only be upgraded to a point, the mechanism of reactor operation however is a different beast, replace the entire core? containment vessel? the piping? better off building an entirely new reactor.
@@Joe-Dead It is all upgraded by law now. You have nothing to worry your pretty little head about lady.
@@StanSwan no, it isn't all upgraded, so you're wrong there, not a pretty head and not a lady...that's three strikes kid. care to try again? or do you prefer lying to create your own fantasy world?
make that 4, who says i was scared? strawman much? but of COURSE you do.
I just found your channel a few days ago and binge watched most of your stuff. I found it all to be very interesting and enjoyable. I like that you don't have a political slant to your content. I subscribed & hit the bell. Many thanks!
I really like your videos, they remind me of Dr. Becky and her astrophysics videos. Both are topics I don't know much about and that scare me, space and nuclear energy, so it's nice to have an enthusiastic and approachable scientist explain things in an understandable way :)
Your content is very informative and interesting love from India🇮🇳
You are awesome. I would love to see a video more about the environmental radiation that we are exposed to every day, and we just don't know it. Like radon is something i have heard of, but I am not sure what it is or how to deal with it.
great video, but imho your explanation of cell phone "radiation" failed to take advantage of the opportunity to 1) differentiate between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, 2) emphasis that cell phones are simply advanced radios, and that 3) the "radiation" from cell phones is not the ionizing radiation that laypeople are thinking of when they use the word, and that instead radio signals are radiation in the same manner that your lamps emit "illuminating radiation", your stereo emits "sonic radiation", and your toaster creates "thermal radiation".
Playing devil's advocate: Fukushima proofs that modern NPPs aren't inherintly safe. While accidents of that nature are rare, the potential severity of the consequences (loosing large areas of inhatibale land or even widespread radioactive fallout) means we shouldn't risk it.
In general Fukushima and Chernobyl are of interest to me since there still seem details unclear/vague/debated even decafes after. Like: What actully caused the explosion of Chernobyl, or how did that much radiation leak from the Fukushima NPP.
Also, could you commen on german nuclear energy poitics/debates going on right now?
Hi Elina,
I'm curious what your opinion on beta voltaic batteries is. Is this a viable method of energy production that can be safe?
Are they a viable method of recycling some high level nuclear waste and extracting even more energy from it?
Besides being a pro-nuclear, arguably there isn't yet a true solution for waste (and I've watched your video about it already 😉)
Burying the waste, even if it is in a stable soil isn't really sustainable. IMO, we could consider a "real" solution when we are able to either have no waste (make the most of uranium radioactivity til it reach levels where it isn't considered radioactive anymore) or recycle them (for example, re-enrich it so it can be used again). So perhaps a D instead?
I think with "real" you mean "better" solutions.
Burying radioactive products in stable soil neutralize them. If that's not a real solution I dont know what's the meaning of "real" anymore.
There also is the trust issue.
If we could fully trust prior analysis to be flawless and everyone handling radiactive waste with care, deep burring is a solution. Unfortunately this trust has vanished a long time ago. That means whereever we store radiactive waste it needs to be controllable and accessable making it much more challenging. It was said a couple of times that the waste issue was solved but I haven't seen anything that convinces me. If you burry something deep, you no longer have access and you can assume but never can be totally sure. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine
Exactly, it isn't a solution to bury the waste for 10k years, it's just kicking the can down the road. Let's use an analogy. Say you run a hospital, and you have ill people, injured people, pregnant people, etc... right. Now I move all the people with stab wounds out of the hospital to some other location, have I fixed the stab wounds? No, I just moved them somewhere else.
An actual solution would be to have some kind of process that renders the waste inert. Even if it takes 20 years per trainload, that's still a solution over letting it sit around for thousands of years.
@@MarkLLawrence Render waste inert is a good dream, but physic laws have some things to say about that.
I have a question that may give you some light about buring radioactive materials: Do you know way earth core keeps hot? Radiactive heating is about 50% of that, and yet we don't suffer radiation despite there are trillions of tons of uranium and thorium deep bellow us.
I do have an honest question about used fuel from nuclear power plants. My understanding is the used fuel still has some U-235 in it, but not in concentrations enough for efficient steam generation. Is there some scientific/chemistry reason why the spent fuel rods can't be put back into the refining process to become part of new fuel rods? Why can't spent fuel be considered synthetic uranium ore, available for reprocessing along side natural uranium ore? Or is my understanding wrong?
That's an interesting question - the uranium in spent fuel could be recovered by chemical reprocessing (most likely by the PUREX process). What is the ratio of U-235:U-238 in spent fuel? In a reactor that is fueled with unenriched UO2, such as a CANDU, the spent fuel would surely be low in U-235, but what about reactors that use enriched fuel?
Spent fuel can't be put in the same refining process as uranium ore because it's too radioactive to be handled that way owing to radioactive fission products, it can be reprocessed at reprocessing plants & what can be usefully reused pretty much already is as far as is practical.
Do a video on your thoughts of fusion! I'm in school right now for nuclear engineering and I want to go into the research and development of fusion reactors and would love to hear your thoughts!
It’s funny how EVERY statement requires so many asterisks (*) to give it any meaning context at all.
Great ranking basically mirrors mine. I'd like to hear you discuss reactor designs although mine you that would be a huge video I will admit. Another thing I would add is uranium rods glow green some people still think they do (They don't they glow blue as it refers to Cherenkov Radiation)
Lise Meitner was mentioned in science classes when I was in school. But then, she was still alive for most of my schooling.
Regarding safety, I’d say that if the design and operations of a plant are wholly in the hands of scientists and engineers then the plant is very safe. If business people or politicians get involved then it becomes much less safe. For example the Chernobyl fire was caused because the politicians over-ruled the engineers, the Three Mile Island leak happened because the managers over-ruled the engineers, Fukashima breach happened because politicians and business people over ruled the engineers and scientists &c.
Cell phone radiation C??? I'd put it in S, it's a ridiculous claim...lol
Μπορείς να κάνεις κάποιο βίντεο στα ελληνικά? Πολύ ωραίο αυτό το βίντεο σου συνέχισε έτσι!!!👏
Hello Elina. Could you make a video to debunk, or confirm, the hypothesis of "nuclear winter"? Love your content, from Brazil!
what is that hypothesis? you mean after a nuclear war doom?
@@alexber8838 yes. Debree locked up in the sky for years, enough to block the sun and lead to crop failures globally
good to know I am not radioactive :) thank you for sharing your thoughts on this.
Question... In a previous video about nuclear energy vs other green energy, you gave a vote to green energy for the waste category.
Can you go further in depth on that, as when you finished your evidence for both, I thought nuclear was the clear winner since it's physical volume/area of waste was much smaller. Did I miss something?
Thanks so much! I love your videos!
Can you do videos about the different types of nuclear reactors and the different generations of nuclear reactors. Also a video about Small Modular reactors
A friend of mine was born near Chernobyl. He is about a hundred times more radioactive than the average person. When you put a Geiger counter next to him, it's gonna tick a hundred times faster than next to most other people. Of course, a hundred times almost nothing can still be considered almost nothing.
Riveting tale, bro! Source? Your a$$?
@@dubistverrueckt source = friend of mine. Already implied that. Are you dyslexic?
I have heard there is more radiation around coal power plants (because of solid particles from coal) than you can find around nuclear power plant.
It's called NORM (naturally occurring radioactive material), and yes, it gets concentrated in the remaining ash from burnt coal. the same with oil and gas production - equipment can be contaminated with radioactive material because it has experienced massive volumes of gas /oil through it over its lifetime. It's measurable, but not a problem with basic hygiene standards applied.
should add, it's a result of naturally occurring Potassium, Uranium, Thorium, Radium, Radon, Lead, and Polonium - and maybe some others. Measurement of natural Gamma radiation in rocks helps to identify sands (generally low gamma ray values), and other rocks like shale (higher gamma ray values) Spectral Gamma Ray looks at the different energy levels from K, U, and Th to help identify the environment in which the original sediments were deposited.
The first one „Radioactive smoke from cooling tower“ i guess comes from Fukushima since they released pressure via the cooling towers
an interesting thing i learned relating to nuclear safety is that only a minority of serious nuclear accidents (those with fatalities) are actually related to nuclear power. the majority are related to orphan sources.
I have talked to a few people that think microwave ovens are dangerous. They think the food heated in the oven is radioactive, or somehow otherwise unhealthy.
📚 WIKIPEDIA
#education
Could you make a video about the different gen 4 power plants that are in development like Dual Fluid? So how far are they in development, how likely are they to work out, could some types be more suitable in the specific conditions of certain countries and so on. That would be very interesting!
I’m currently interested in getting into the field of nuclear physics I’m a freshman in high-school and wanted to know what you had to learn before you could become a physicist, thank you.
Living anywhere will lead to death as everyone dies at some point. Cell phone emit RF (radio frequency) radiation, but if you are working on a high powered radio tower near the antenna you can actually get RF burns.
The only problem with steam is that it can be considered as a green house gas as it traps heat. However, the amount of steam from a nuclear reactor is small when considered with other resources. I strongly believe though it should be considered as part of the footprint when measuring how "green" is nuclear energy
About the waste handling - what prevents countries (at a technical level) without the bedrock for geological disposal to separate (mechanically, chemically) the radioactive material, and then feed the troublesome isotopes into an accelator-driven system? (or "burn" them in a CANDU or any other system that can be caused to have an excess neutron inventory (final load transmuted in a country with disposal options and transmuted stuff given back)).
(aside: would be interesting to see a video on both the subjects of accident prevention (expanding fuels and such) as well as accident mitigation (the MVSS for instance) - and also with comments about how long various stuff has been in use (I mean, a 1970s reactor is a very different thing from a 1990s reactor, or even just a fully upgraded 1970s reactor))
I'm sure you are not radioactive but you do have a pleasant glow about you anyway. Your videos are very interesting and I have a much clearer picture of what goes on in a reactor. Still have lots of questions though concerning molten salt reactors.
I love your channel. Authors I have read more than once include Richard Rhodes and Gwenith Cravens. Big shout out to Lisa Mitner!
I knew about SL1, but I never knew about Lise Meitner. I know that often most folks developing technology aren't usually the people that develop the theory but build off of it. I agree this lady should be better known. I find it a tragedy that she is not getting her due. Farnsworth didn't get the credit for developing the first TV, and RCA used WW2 to take advantage of his patents. So many people are forgotten or misunderstand who actually had came up with the theories that others have applied.
Hi Elina. Could you make a video on HALEU fuels? Thank you, all the best!
About the last statement, as far as i know, everything is radio active (no exposure on radiation needed).
BTW i like your hair!
There are solutions to nuclear waste, but are they good solutions? Is burying it really a good solution, or is it just an out of sight out of mind type of solution?
It's inbetween really. A lot of research and smart engineering went in to the current approaches, it's not like we just dump it somewhere random without any precautions. But of course it's still there, and still potentially dangerous for millenia. Personally, I think the most danger coming from them is that in the far future someones digs these things back up, and accidentially or deliberately causes harm by "unpacking" them.
From your name, I’m guessing you’re Romanian? Anyways, you have a great voice and a super-cute accent. I’ve watched a few of your vids. Very interesting stuff! Aloha from Hawai’i. 🤙☺️
Not Romanian. But I’m glad you’re enjoying the videos ☢️👩🏽🔬
I would have put the nuclear bomb explosion is the same as a reactor explosion into S Tier. From what i tead online a nuclear bomb is very complex and takes specialits in many scientific field to create. Other than that i think you are the most qualified person around to make up these Tiers.
Elina: “So that means that I’m radioactive.”
*cues up Imagine Dragons*
What a great way to address misinformation :)
Just a samll correction: Lise Meitner, Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann. They worked on the topic parallelly.
We're all radioactive (a good song title:p), and we're all exposed to radiation every day. However, there are different levels of exposure. If you haven't done a video about The Demon Core, you should. In that case, we would be talking about truely being exposed to radiation.
Since there is a solution to nuclear waste please dispose of Chernobyl and Fukushima. That would be a big help. Thanks
I heard that if Grand Central Station was a NPP it would be shut down due to radiation emitted from the marble. Is this correct?
I'm sure everyone has said the RBM (Chernobyl type) reactor did NOT use the water as a moderator and had a positive void coefficient
Love these vids! Great info.
Video idea: React to fictional depictions of radiation poisoning and rate their accuracy.
Here's a couple for the list.
- Farscape s3e15
-Expanse s1e10
Great video, Elina.
Elina, can I ask if you could more completely define “radiation” for your viewers. For example you are usually talking about IONIZING radiation whereas the cell phone question relates to Radio Frequency (RF) Radiation. I only say this so people can understand radiation is not purely a nuclear byproduct. Not that it applies to this video, but also a broad definition of contamination as something not being where expected vs purely unwanted nuclear byproducts/waste products in unexpected/unwanted areas. Just a thought and I apologize in advance if you already made videos on these subjects.
Thanks for explaining these! :D
here comes the hydrogen without neutron😁😁😁😁
Maybe it’s just me but if I did a tier list based on myths I would’ve put the true ones at S and 100% false ones at F
Hmm I don't know if I'm being picky but there is a tonne of evidence that 'lower frequency' radiation can cause health issues, similar to ionising radiation. I agree with your outcome but a more correct statement is its a matter of dosage. Case in point your microwave is a similar frequency as your wifi.
I have a curiosity that is more linguistic than nuclear. Moderators are used to slow down neutrons; and, the slower neutrons increase the reaction. Indeed, the word "moderator" makes me think of slowing something down. So, my brain wants to think of moderators as things that slow down the reaction. I suspect that many people also get that backwards but don't realize it. I'm curious what words are use for the (neutron) moderators in languages other than English. Would you happen to know any of them and their English translations?
Also the first nuclear power plant was built in Russia, in Obninsk. There were experimental reactors in the US before that ofc, but none producing electricity for electrical networks.
"Working in a NPP = radioactive" only if your particles that you are made of decay .
And as all particles decay (eventually), some will just take more than the heat death of the universe, so you are indeed radioactive.
hello, thanks for the video. What about recycling spent nuclear fuel or waste?
I would love to send you my gierger counter, you could do a product review! (GQ electronics, gcm 500). I think... Do you have a PO box?
Is it really true that nuclear is safest, if we consider the whole chain. The article I read considered solar as "less safe", because of the rare-Earth elements mining and deaths from installation (usually installed on rooftops). Is mining Uranium safer than mining rare-Earth elements?
Yes, largely because uranium mining mostly happens where mining is regulated, currently much of the rare earths are coming from places like the (Un)Democratic Republic of Congo, where there's zero regulation & child labour is rampant. The deposits are where they are, which doesn't match well with where there are decent safety regulations & enforcement of them.
Re: Nuclear Explosion and Power Plant Accident.
Would if be more accurate to compare a Nuclear Reactor Accident with a "Dirty Bomb" rather than a high yield "Atomic or Thermonuclear Destination " ?
It seems to a non scientist like me, that people imagine the high yield mushroom cloud as the only type of Atomic Bomb.
Radioactive Materials are not just used in military weapons as sources of immense heat / blast.
The military also use Radioactive Materials in weapons designed to minimise physical damage, maximise human casualties and create strategic "no go zones".
With some extremely problematic materials having the potential to greatly enhance this effect such as Cobalt.
So while the configuration of material in a Power Plant is NOT such that it can explode with that high yield mushroom cloud, it is (was) possible to have an accident something like a "dirty bomb".
I thought Heisenberg was the one who first created a fission reaction, because he sold the Nazi's on the idea of a nuclear fission weapon but wasn't able to actually deliver a bomb, but he was able to create a nuclear fission reaction in his lab and have an excess amount of neutrons before he and his lab assistants almost died when they were not able to control the reaction.
One environmental problem is caused by the heating of the water sources to the reactor. This problem has been addressed in the California Diablo Canyon reactor
this is an issue often cited by the anti nuclear greens here in Germany because they picked up that France had an issue last summer when their streams were already too warm. The plants could not release their water into the streams then because it would have damages wildlife…
My response to that: Yeah but these reactors in France are super ancient and this is an issue easily fixed by technicalsolutions 🤷♂️
What are the most effective actions (monetary or otherwise) one can do to support development of nuclear power?
4:51 living leads to future death. Or at least that’s my understanding.
7:48 yes. That’s how we got canola oil.
9:03 yes, that’s why I can see my pistol sights in the dark.
11:45 things less safe than nuclear energy:
Traveling by airplane
Traveling by motor vehicle
Living in a city
Coal powered power plants
Smoking
Eating
Living
Great video, I don’t understand why climate alarmists don’t lobby for more nuclear power with the same enthusiasm they have for shutting down fossil fuels.
You deserve some much more subs on your channel, and you have a very pretty face 😍 Thanks for the info
Excellent Elina!
To be fair to those who say there's no solution for dealing with the waste : while there is a perfectly good technical solution, in many places, politics prevent the solution from being applied.
I have a little addition to the nuclear waste section. As I assume we both know, not every country has the best options for storage, and somehow, the countries with the best storage does not necessarily have the best waste separation facilities. I would love if this world could come to a point where every country was allowed to perform in their own special field. But in nuclear terms, waste is something that the owner has to handle 100% from cradle to grave.
Now, in Norway we have great geology for storing long term nuclear waste. But we have no facility to process it down to a manageable amount. Why can´t we be allowed to handle others waste safely in return for a reprocessing of our own waste?
The Fukashima reactors exploded, but the plant is still there. I didn't go high yeild. It was a steam explosion that released a lot of radiation, but not even on the scale of a convential bomb. That right there proves they don't explode like a nuke. I would have givent that an "S" as a superb example of a false idea.
Lise Meitner not winning the Nobel Prize is one of the greatest injustices in the world, imo.
Enrico fermi was the first to develop nuclear fission, it is certainly a fundamental contribution.
4:35 - Hey, guys - I work at an experimental nuclear plant. That´s right! ENP for everyone that wants abbreviations all around. I don´t know if anyone else would use it, but we can make it work right here and now, can´t we? If you paid attention to that, one P actually disappeared. And it was intended, as we have never produced power at my plant, we´re purely experimental. But the rest is something a lot ask for. Is it safe to live close to this reactor? If you´re really worried about that, I suggest going over to your neighbour. Talk to them, and if they don´t work with me already, they know which of your neigbours that do. We live where you live. If you live close to a NPP, have you noticed that most of your neighbours work there? Go over, talk to them. They won´t bite. Unless you ask them to, and that´s a bit rowdy for this channel, I guess.
13:28 Radiologists and fruit vendors (bananas) are exposed to more radiation than Homer and his coworkers
So after a reactor shuts down, it generates heat, does that heat stay on earth and make it hotter?
I have one for you similar to the last one. PET scan = radioactive. I find medical imaging imteresting🤷🏼♂️
Fission reactor is cool! But what about fusion reactor? When are we going to invent one and how would it look in your opinion? ☺️
We already have fusion reactors. What you actually mean is a fusion power plant. Currently we cannot create a state which creates a chainreaction and generates more power that it uses at the same time. That is the issue.
Working at a lab or at a NPP is not going to increase you're radioactivity. However, all people *ARE* radioactive because we all contain isotopes of various elements that are radioactive. Fun fact, if you sleep in the bed with someone, you will get more radiation from the person sleeping with you than you would if you were alone due to things like K40. Overall, it's minimal, but to say that people aren't radioactive is also a misnomer.
Also a quick note, the waste heat from fuel after a reactor has been shutdown is not coming from fissions (though some due still occur, you're in a subcritical state, so any neutrons coming off a fission are more likely to be absorbed in something other than fissile material), but really coming from decay of isotopes. The shorter the half-life, the more radioactive something is, and the radiation coming off the decay process is what is really driving the heat coming from the fuel rods once the reactor is in a shutdown state.
Radio frequency can absolutely cause health effects. It just has to be very intense. Think standing in front of a fighter jet radome. Very deadly because it will overheat you.
You should have specified that there are different types of radiation because most people think that all radiation is the same type. For example they think that microwave radiation is the same as nuclear bomb radiation.