flatland has been accused of an adequately representing egyptian culture. egyptian antiquity services reported have gone as far as to say, the event falsified history. and the band comes with a major blow to the dutch team. it has been active and excavations in egypt for decades. however, the response from the netherlands has been swift. better, some decent. this exhibition has been made with great care. scientists don't blame each other like that's why therefore one that qualification to be taken back, we're not going to make excuses and we will not to just the exhibition we heard from egyptologist as i'll be how us for my i think, what is minister. he says that some museums are simply trying to rewrite history. i do think that some means the who are really good. i do believe some of the people by making that the origin of ancient egypt was black already had like a decent look through. they made this exhibit

a mother to show to me that if it did the was black. and if it was the black on the last time that it's an ocean, netflix, well they did show, can you about the rise black? was that just look through those people? i g t they i looked at, i think history directly. because if you look at the black, getting to them goes there on the egypt indemnity $25.00 at the end of the egyptian history. they have nothing to do with the origin of isn't these are but this type of reasons. i really think that i, that i'm not are accurate. that make sense. and therefore, it does get good for each of these or type in the relation with this kind of people, but they cannot realize history because history is dated on fact.

and those people out of wrote using facts. and that story does continue right now online at c thought. com. if they call and get to that though, you can always check out the guy motor seat. and i like round to joining the counter offensive. what counter offensive was the cranes weights in the tackle on 5 sections of the front, merely an expensive p r. done? it would seem so washington has no interest in seeing this homepage and this votes badly for ukraine. manufacturing the, the,

the hello, i'm manila chan you are tuned into modus operandi as the us doubles down on it's backing of ukraine, as joe biden says, for as long as it takes many others around the world. fear this is pushing the world to the brink of nuclear war. so with a dues de clock the closest it's ever been to midnight. and the collapse of several nuclear proliferation treaties will explore whether or not these fears are warranted. all right, let's get into the m o the,

despite what the mainstream media tells you, the conflict in ukraine is unprovoked. if you've been paying attention, you know this to be a false statement. the slow brewing, coo and ukraine under obama, which then led to the my down massacre. the us withdrawal from the iran nuclear deal. and i n f. under trump, the phony baloney minsk agreement. now add the accession of finland into nato. further and circling russia who has stated time and time again, that having native weapons along its borders is an existential dilemma for them. that brings us to where we are today, the risk of nuclear catastrophe, whether due to war or to meet energy needs around the world. to help us better

understand the new, clear risk will bring in an expert in the field. a kevin camp is a radioactive waste expert at beyond nuclear. he is joining us out from florida. so kevin, earlier this year, russia suspended, it's participation in the new start treaty. that was the last remaining nuclear weapons treaty between the us and russia. even though the expiration was set for february of 2026, but one of our opponents seemed to be making a distinction between suspension and abandoning the treaty, citing that russia would not be expanding its nuclear arsenal. this announcement comes 4 years after donald trump withdrew the us from the i n f, the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty. how do you or be on nuclear read what is tantamount to the collapse of all of these treaties? well, it's a very dire situation. the collapse of the treaty agreements about nuclear weapons

between the united states and russia. i mean, the bulletin of atomic scientists when it sat it's doomsday clock in january edits closest point ever since 1947, just 90 seconds to midnight. which means doomsday. risk had only cited the prospect of russia withdrawn from the new start treaty as one of the reasons why that set the clock so close to doomsday. and now, unfortunately, russia has gone ahead and at least suspended years early before the expiration of the treaty. so, um, it is unfortunate um those were very hard one treaties and i'm taken back to my use a part of why i do this work and have for the past 30 years was growing up in constant fear of the risk of nuclear warfare as a small child and of course it's not just me, it's not just beyond nuclear,

it's people all around the world who are kind of holding their breath as a nuclear sabres are rattled on a more and more regular basis. so this is kind of a thrill back to the height of the cold war, which is no fun for anybody because one long move one mistake, and it could be a catastrophic for the entire world. so a few weeks ago, joe biden made a deal with australia to sell the aussies. a number of us made nuclear powered submarines as part of the new august packed the president and made it a point to say that these aren't nuclear subs per say that they wouldn't be, you know, launching nukes under water. i'm paraphrasing, of course, but these are nuclear power and subs. what is that exactly? mean in terms of safety, like what would happen if one of these subs wrapped well, it's um, perhaps true that nuclear weapons would not be supplied to the australians to mount

on these nuclear power nuclear propelled submarines. but your point is a good one. i'll just quickly add that having such long range and such ability to stay under water quietly for such long periods of time does give australia a new military capability, which is long distance to climate. the ability to launch conventional weapons all be it anywhere in the world. because that's where the subs can't go on nuclear propulsion. but your point, your question about the new crew nuclear propulsion itself is a very good one. there have the nuclear powered submarines last us us last week. we are powered submarines to the bottom of the sea. so as russia and certainly one it usually means is the dock of the entire crew for one thing. but beyond that, you do have atomic reactors on board which are fuels with highly enriched uranium and the high level radioactive waste that builds up in the nuclear fuel. so what

that means for the ocean, once a nuclear saw, is lost to the sea floor or it explodes. our implodes is that the sea cannot habits way with those radioactive poisons. and so there's going to be a release of the radioactive poisons into the ocean. yes, it's a big ocean, but these are alter hazardous those that instead of deluding to lower and lower concentrations. unfortunately, because we live in a biological planet, they actually re concentrate up the food chain. so c, food could be um, contaminated with radioactivity and then consumed by humans from such radio, active poisoning of the oceans. and you know, just to raise another radioactive risk to the oceans right now, the focusing by the h e. japan, nuclear catastrophe has been bad enough already in the past dozen years. but unfortunately, the japanese government scan, tokyo electric power company are talking about implanting. anytime. now it could

happen is soon as the spring, which is now they're talking about beginning to dispose of radioactive waste water into the ocean on purpose and various governments, the russian government, the chinese government, pre and government, and others have objected to this radioactive waste water dumping plan and they have close to 1500000 tons of radioactive waste water that they want to dump into the ocean over many years. but they don't need to be doing this just a cost saving measure. they should be storing this radioactive wastewater until it radioactively the case. one of the worst ingredients in there is radioactive, tritium, which is radioactive hydrogen. it's very difficult to impossible to filter out because it's so small in size, but you could store it and it has a hazardous persistence of a 123 years. so if you store it for just over

a century radioactive treaty, m world k. and won't be there anymore. and so that's what they should do instead of treating the ocean like a radioactive industrial sewer. but in addition, i mean there are a lot of radioactive poisons and this waste lateral progressing that h. e a. and the same would be true on a nuclear powered supp marine in the fuel itself. if you were to lose the south and the core would to flow into the ocean eventually overtime or right away, you have more than 200 radioactive poisons in there. some of the more well known ones are things like to tony m, several this different isotopes, which are much longer lasting than trudy. i'm trudy. i'm with a 123 years of hazard, but an element like to sodium 239 has 240000 years of hazard. so russia, it has just made a deal with its neighbor bell, a roof to build a storage facility for russian tactical nukes,

near the bell of russian western border and exchange for russia, helping them to modern, modernize versus war plains, the surrounding nato. countries like last the lithuania and poland, they are uneasy about this to put it mildly. what are your thoughts on that? oh, it's another drawback to the height of the cold war. i mean, it was such a wonderful day in the early 1990 is when not only dollars, but also ukraine agreed to return the nuclear weapons of the soviet union, stored on their own soil. back to russia, making valerie, some ukraine, nuclear weapons free countries, which was a wonderful thing, was real progress towards the ultimate abolition of nuclear weapons. which is what has to happen as called for by the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. so for russian nuclear weaponry to return to the russian soil is not

a good thing. it's very provocative. it increases the risks as the international coalition of the abolition of nuclear weapons. i can as pointed out, the 2017 winters of the nobel peace prize along with the body shop, the survivors of hiroshima and nagasaki. so unfortunately, the more nuclear saber rattling that happens in the world, the greater the tensions escalate. the more to unity for mistakes or intentional use of nuclear was coming up next, the u. k. is providing the key of regime with depleted uranium shells. what does this mean for the long term health of those exposed to it and the environment will discuss it when we return more with kevin temps. sit tight and we'll, we'll be right back the

the acceptance. and i'm here to plan with you whatever you do. do not watch my new show . seriously. why watch something that's so different. whitelisted of opinions that he won't get anywhere else work of it. please do have the state department, the c i a weapons, bankers, multi 1000000000 dollar corporations. choose your fax for you. go ahead. change and whatever you do, don't want my show stay main street because i'm probably going to make you uncomfortable. my show is called stretching. but again, you probably don't want to watch it because it might just change the way you think the,

[000:00:00;00] the the walking back to the m. o, i'm the know a chance in conflict zones. a lot of things could go wrong. as you might imagine.

things don't always go according to plan, so why then is the u. k, providing a new cancer causing carcinogen to key of forces to use as weapons? kevin caps, or radioactive waste expert from beyond nuclear, is back with us to discuss. thank you for sticking around with us, kevin. so recently your organization beyond new, clear published an article regarding the u. k. government sending depleted uranium shelves to ukraine for use in the challenger to tax. can you talk to us about that