the cold, the amount is going up, not down. if we do not cut carbon emissions by nearly 100 percent, the world will suffer serious damage. this isn't even bigger problems than we thought the answer to solving climate change is very straightforward. what's the best solution in your mind, largely nuclear, nuclear, nuclear, nuclear. we've been trained from the very beginning to fear nuclear power. the very thing that we fear is what a save us. what scary is not the same as what's dangerous. coal is dangerous. more people die from cold in a couple of weeks than i've ever died from nuclear, which is all from the one accident turnover. first question is, what about the waste nuclear waste is nothing compared to climate. you can watch new k a now and video on demand, but now they also go in and create your films like solvable to tune j. f. k. nixon, snowden, and wall street, all of a sudden joins me from los angeles. all of

a welcome back to the show. you know, i wanted to speak you about joey, go dar, his dad. i wanted to speak to you about ukraine on the fire. and then you come up with a film that, arguably amongst all the old great films, maybe the most important film you've ever made. i mean global media focusing on nuclear power, perhaps perhaps in a way that actually the fill. your film uh shows is a part of the conspiracy against nuclear power. so tell me, tell me a, tell me what the films about as well and you know, you with your c store and allow me about the stairs. it's not based on conspiracy because we don't know that we know that it could include off. if not, it could just be business as usual, you know, which is competitive. but anyway, uh, starting at the beginning. uh, let's say that uh, i haven't seen you in, in about 2 or 3 years and you see over that period of time 2019 on this i

was really more and more disturbed by climate change and warming warnings of all the confusion in the media i mean out, they had us from different sources saying this and then and this, and this is a solution that's a, that's not the solution, etc. i wanted to find out as i for my own sale, if i wanted to go to the bottom of this. so i went to little book that i came out in 2019 called bright future, a bright future by josh goldstein who was a up international public relations professor and his partner stefan fist. screw this toes, a swedish nuclear engineer. it's called a bright future and it lays out very practical economic terms. the point about nuclear energy works. it's always worked. france has made it work sweet and has made it works. it's worth to a degree in the united states and in russia and in china, re a and so forth and so on. and it still works. it's been working for 50 or 60 years

. in some cases, reactors have been built. and because of a few one major accident and a few mishaps and we have to really talk about each of those actions to understand . because of that, the psychology has turned against the nuclear power because of fear. and that is a huge factor, of course, and pin stopping it and legislating against it, supporting environmental groups or legislating for an enormous amount of regulations that balloon the price up at least in the united states. here's the thing is all about you have to, you've told us this truth since elizabeth for about vietnam, about central america, the u. s. roland central america, about what happened in ukraine, the key, the key of coo and 2014. you've told us stories about the plight of the vulnerable and the dispossessed, over so many decades. but you know, jane fonda did tell us a lot of truths about vietnam and ralph native, perhaps a more people than anyone in history individually for his fight with the comic as

on the seat belt. i mean, you're going up against what jane funder and ralph nader say as well. absolutely. uh, but you know, i admire the both of them very much for what they did to mr. nate or brought the our attention to automobile safety and seat belts and so forth. and jane is an advocate, passionate advocate against vietnam. and i am myra courage and i supported her all the way through. but she's dead wrong on nuclear energy. and so is ralph nader's and there's no reason to, to, to harbor these mess. we have to move on because the life of the life of the plan is at stake. so this is far more important than the protests against it. and that goes back to the 19 seventy's and eighty's. of course, things have changed so much that we didn't even know about climate change when people were easily protesting nuclear power among them. i didn't protest, but i was, i went along with the i said ok. they may have appointments. we don't need nuclear power,

but that was back in 8070. we now know that we need clean energy because the atmosphere is poisoning itself. and we don't know how badly this is going to happen. but the i p. c. c, the international government, intergovernmental panel on climate control, new in as large body of scientists in large body. it has warned us repeatedly since 1980 that we're reaching a point of 0 tolerance early where the part of the plan is going to be poisoned really forever. and it's not going to stop the warming is going to keep going. and it seems to be evidently true from all the graphs from 1980 to 2000 and from the 2000 to 2020 period. which was alarming because nothing is improved. the carbon dioxide and i should include methane gas, which c h 4. that's poisoning the whole. the whole show is we're not getting better any better. we're putting a 1000000 streams of dollars into renewables. we talk about it endlessly blah, blah, blah. nothing is happening. it's not getting better,

and by 2015 or we're going to be really screwed. so we set the guidelines and on sale that 30 years from 20202015. we're talking about those 30 years practically. what can we do as a race, as a human race, the whole global, not just the united states, and we come, we come to the very strong conclusion. we're going to need nuclear power, and we and we support renewables, that's fine. we can keep doing it. but we're gonna need nuclear power to close the gap that's coming. and we're gonna need a lot of it, which means building building nuclear plants everywhere in all countries, like airline production. yeah, and i should say the film goes clearly through solar and wind and the logo, or did you just exercise this film is fact oriented. it's not me writing what i believe i have. i am not assigned this. i don't claim any expert knowledge. i'm going off experts, i'm going to them and asking them,

let me interpreting. i think i'm making it more simple because they're scientists and they can go, you extract and it's sometimes difficult to read and understand. but i think what i've been able to do is interpret what they're saying for a large audience i, my goal was to teach myself, which is to say, to make it available to a 9th grader or an 8th grader, which is what i feel sometimes will do they find cares about, i mean they're, they're still a close. your program is i understand it of nuclear power stations. although in your film you show that the one in california where there's never been an accident of any guide is i think got a reprieve. do you think bible is about it? do you think by the kids about the environment then ultimately, i mean you mentioned l n g and they're increasing fact l n g. and of course, as we know, the north stream pipeline blowing up was the largest single event of it. me saying the mission ever in history? absolutely, absolutely. the l n g is the liquid natural gas and gas is not the solution. gas

has nothing in it. and they come in like a leaks all along the line. we know that we're moving and it's poisoning the m s. u . in in the short term is that we say it's far worse, even then. and then carbon dioxide is far worse. but it's the long term, it does drop off. so what we have is the situation with the downside and on top of it, they put renewables in, but renewables they'll work all the time. so it is not always there. it's winter, it's night. it's cold. the solar sun doesn't always come out, it's the maximum capacity in germany, for example, is about 2012 percent of the sun came on in. that is on the high side of the wind is a little bit more like 22 percent. but we need to get up to 90 percent, to have nuclear works around the clock and it works efficiently and not. it's not costly once it's built. so nuclear is a 90 percent plus solution it and it's clean and that you don't need to backup like

renewables need to backup, which is gas and we always, so that's why these gas but when they say their partner is perfect partners for renewables, don't believe it that's advertising, and they're very good at it and make it sound like it's easy. oh yeah, we'll just put some gas in. and it also. so this ties angeles, i think buying cares about the environment. and i think he's obviously had political challenges. she's getting it from congress because will be showing people still believe that there's no climate warming, but that doesn't matter. listen to the account. he really doesn't care about it. if we set off the north street pipeline, which isn't for you know, what i was getting, you know, you know, i agree with you. i agree with you and he's done completely destroyed. you believe that story? no, i believe the united states has something very mr. bind promised that it would not exist before it happened. you know, if you saw it was a pronouncement he had a smirk on his face, so he was pretty sure that he was going to and the thread of the pipeline. but what he's done as far worse than that,

what he's done is the stabilize the whole world without. he blames the russians and it's easy to do so because that's the boogeyman right now. but the truth is, who set off the war, you know, who you have to go back to 2014, but we're talking about in here. yeah, i want to keep the film. i want to give you the film and we don't wanna get completely mad because i know you are ukraine on fire film, which i think is believe the lab back is to be the film is accurate. it was owned by ukrainian man, lee living through this thing. and that war started just to repeat in 2014. it did not start in 2020 mile wide. it depends. it kind of contract a google banner from youtube and why is netflix binding? this will because it's a strange world we're living and they really are scared. netflix isn't bad in your pallet. the new one and netflix really didn't screening so you just rejected it and they rejected it. i don't know what my film is and you do with new cream it. it's really about. it's about the shortage of clean energy in the future. and right now i, we have to do something about it. that's what the film is about and that's what gives it is urgency a. i don't looks like it distracted, but, but absolutely be, i mean,

i know the time just wondering, is it you showed and is it a possibility that you actually go around russian nuclear power stations you talk about china is expansion of nuclear. i mean, it's happening of the countries and listening to the arguments of this film already clearly on that they understand what you're talking about. well then brings, you know, just say that one of the reasons i do that film is because so much of the material machine in the movies, television and in, in news is so depressing and disturb you. and it's always about a negative future, especially movies, movies have done no favorites to nuclear energy. they may have was made at the intimate, as you know, from china syndrome silkwood and the data that horrible tv series at hbo just terrible, which was not accurate. we go into that in the field, they made it so it works is drama because it's sensational and upstairs is out of you, but that is not true. the terrible thing was,

it was this tragedy. no question and it was badly handled. but we go into the detail design, this was actually involved is a very broken man, and he explains what really happened and he hit test, the professionalism of the soviet crew. there was never any intent to, to see the i a e, a. and he talks about, i'm gonna let him say it, but the truth is that because of that accident, which was the only fatal accident in the history of the nuclear. and i was 50 people who died. first responders were badly protected, they were sent in. and then on top of that, there are some, there was a large release of the low level radiation in the northern europe, which initially a government a good time. and that was a shame. but the un went in there exhaustively, as did the don't real house organization and they tested tested the they, they, they said, possibly 4000 people died of casters after that. but it's hard to trace the link

between the, the cancer and radiation radiation. we have a lot of it in the world. all of us done. i'll stop you. the more from the oscar winning film director after this break, the the, [000:00:00;00] the scenes, the beginning of its history. the united states of america has officially declared

this driving for freedom and people's rights to happiness. however, in reality, having won independence, american calling is tested for the total extermination of the indigenous population of the continent. american indians were deprived of their land. local residents were driven into reservation, given the worst agricultural territories, while the best land was appropriated by white colonizers, the strongest blow to american indian tribes was the extermination of bites of native americans lived by hunting these wild animals. colonists slaughtered the bivens and in fact, made them nearly extinct. every buffalo dead is in india and gone, said colonel richard, a veteran of the bloody and vicious indian wars cynically. the indigenous population was simply exterminated us army general phillips sheridan express the evidence of this policy in the infamous words, the only good india is

a debt. indeed, the genocide of native americans of north america lead to a demographic catastrophe. the exact number of deaths is still unknown, but the number of victims is in millions. having been a majority on the continent before the indigenous people make up less than 3 percent of the us population today. the the, the,

[000:00:00;00] the, the welcome back to going underground. i'm still here with all school winning film director. all of us go known as new release, new k. and now i have noticed that the some scientific of scholarly papers are reducing the numbers previously thought of as being affected by radiation near the power stations. but when i said conspiracy earlier, i didn't mean of course, last time you were on, i think you were talking about j f k. the film that, you know, created a congressional panel and a bite and is refusing to release the papers really. i was talking about the conspiracy in your film, which is um, which is quite something, the 7 system oil companies, you know, with hollywood,

you've been interesting story altogether and the press all coming together. so the generations on from these great oil companies, rockefeller and his alliance, has a very significant, very significant article night. i know i learned about it of courses, ron adams, in 1956. the new york times published a study done by the rockefeller foundation, rockefeller foundation, remember, is the john rugged on the rock controller and the biggest well magnate of our time . they found that any level of radiation is harmful to the human body. as it was in the 1956. that report was released front page new york times. not a big publisher in your times was of course on the board of the roger feller foundation. so, you know, you see the connections at a high level, and once they put that news out, you know, to advertise and it was just the front page story. radiation men became even more scary to more people because we have the world war 2 experience in the regime of where we indeed it was

a dangerous level of radiation because it was an enrich mom and were dropping bombs with a rich plutonium uranium. so people were dying from radiation boys, no question, but this is a different kind of radiation as low level as back what they called background read pretty ation. and that is what people have is terrified else because of all the fuse stoped by the rockefeller foundation and the environmentalist. i mean, i understand and i think you go into it in such detail and people can watch it on, on a video on demand. the fact that the radiation risks of ionizing radiation are exaggerated . i would say that you, as a veteran affairs department, still recognizes increased cancer risk on those. so having a nuclear submarines they do that. they do the risk panel, 85000 nuclear submarine cruise between 69 and 82. there is increased cancer for him and as ation radiation at low doses. but um, just what i'd like, i don't know about that report, but i'd love to know exactly. i'd like to know the more it's on the us master list . i mean,

you can get money if anyone watching who is having has done any good summary and you can get a reimbursement from the u. s. federal government. so nobody has, as we say, and there has been no major, no accident, no significance in the navy that was on the accident. it's a low level radiation. you're continually exposed to over time. well, serving in a new one, your submarine as well as i answered that, but i think my problem, my problem with it was the film was the risk of terror attack. nuclear waste with yours, you say is very safe, a nuclear waste is clearly not safe because it has to keep bearings. it was very safe. we say it was very well handled and it was washed and mont, and one of the terrorists blows it up. one of these concrete steel, as soon as you know there is, if you are in a nuclear tech or the safest place you could be as inside one of those concrete tests, they're really well done. and it's, you know, you can never have perfect. you're never going to be perfectly safe,

blowing up something up and you blow up in a blue. we did have a hybrid. we had a nuclear explosion. at journal age. 50 people went in to clean it up and died as a result. and there was a radiation the but that compared, how does that compare to the gas blowing up in both hall which kills $18000.00 people. chemicals? gas. uh oh the the hydro, even one and 18000 with birth defects. i'm talking about dad. i'm telling me that there was about a 100000 wounded as far as i know. yeah. china and there was a hydro electric and that that the sailed in 201975200000 get. i mean, you understand when, when it rains, when you come in, i'm just thinking the front of more. it was the front of the climate change before ukraine. but now everyone is worried about nuclear war actually. yes, yes, yes, yes, this goes on and on and looks by us. yesterday i asked an expert what's really going

on. he wrote municipalities of each reactor as a containment structure to begin with. all 6 reactors are shut down, but still putting the residual heat from radio to any, not a fission chain reaction. the plant has its own cooling pond, which will continue to work without the reservoir a little you can get on twitter. but if you have to go to a site and just to understand what's really happening, you can't deal with the newspapers because a lot of sensationalism sure. the threat of another journal sounds horrible, but it's even jermel was not nothing compared to hiroshima and nagasaki. that's the point. no, no, of course is of course, but we didn't think 911. it was possible that film, i know you made it were in it's own that i'm telling you and your smart man, you can have an explosion and it's not going to be as bad as you think it is. why, why did the, why did the pro nato pro zalinski greens oppose me about what's happened to the green movie? maybe you want to just tell me what,

what the green movement is completely supportive of, of the military industrial complex in your country. it seems like can't be, excuse me, one sec james water. excuse me for that. so i just have, i don't know what's in your politics of the green party, but it's so disappointing to me like starting the 1980s that they really change the world. but they have become pro anti nuclear energy. you mentioned green piece in the film. green piece. we showed one of the scientists who found it, po, found it, and he says, very clearly says bring peace has done a lot of good saving the wells, leading of toxic waste, opposing nuclear bombs. but we got one thing wrong. that was nuclear energy. and he was very forthright about it, and yet green piece continues to, to act out and make a sensational claims that they never back up and mean they never happen. but they

always say, well, when the russians floated that barge to pep, back in the arctic was a nuclear barge. s m ok? small modular reactor. when they slowed his ad barge, they said it was gonna be a nuclear titanic never happened. they went through all the icebergs and its functioning beautifully in a small town, medium size town, and you're in the arctic. this is what the beauty of nuclear is, even floating on on barges. you can put it up and down the coast. there's another way of approaching it on water. and i should say also that is a natural, natural partner with brand new i give you actually talk about small businesses being able to make scalable nuclear power decisions in the united states. if, if the federal authorities continue to be um, uh, believing that the nuclear is, is a little evil. but you know, this week it was an advisor then the ukranian deputy pm, and this was quoted across the whole u. s. news. we can see the, the active is

a dam breach an act of terrorism. the consequences on the scale of to know bill, which you already have exploded are not actually ideally as bad as you say in the field as coal fired gas stations in their effect on breathing. but uh, this is what the deputy m b m, the system does it landscape. what is it with the power of nature, the scale of how many people should leave their homes? it's always new. clear. now alexi re option is the guy that's going to do about it is we actually know is a, you know, there's a war on and you, once you get into a war situation is ukraine. you have so much probably getting it from especially from the western side. it's so one sided that everything becomes an anti russian issue. obviously they're there this stronger country. they're winning the war. they're actually kicking ass, but we don't know that in the west, we have no realization that was really going on because there's been no military honesty. it's

a completely corrupt process in united states and it runs and you have to run everything through the white house because the white house is fighting the war and they are telling you the russians are evil in brutal all this stuff. but it's not fair because we're not getting the truth and american people are blind to like, live by like sheep to a conclusion. well, how come we can't get both sides? how can we can hear your, your show in england or in america? you can't even hear it. it's ridiculous. you don't, you're the right to speak. you're an intelligent man. our team was a good network. and it doesn't mean you have to buy everything they say, but they did a good job. they got cameraman to those places. and they continue to be good and there's other outlets that should be promoted and allowed, but you can't say anything apparently in the united states. it's really on speaking to you because you're in dubai, which is what you're trying to make is that yes, they're gonna, they're going to exaggerate everything possible against the russians, including anything that happens nuclear. anything will be built up into some sensational event,

although there is in fact no actual threat. what's happened with the damage ration and you know, nobody's cleaned it, but it's clearly motivated. the, the motive for doing it is new training and ukrainian motivates to rach, they're losing badly. they want to wreck the land before the russians take care. so on, the russians are predicted to take that area because it's a russian, basically a russian speaking area, russian ethnic. so the ones that are pointed out and seems to me successfully to the american people. and the european especially in the remainder of the distance