19, all of this was really more and more disturbed by climate change and warming warnings of all the confusion in the media. i mean up me and 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 self 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 cist. 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 is made . it works. it's worth to a degree in united states and in russia and in china and 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, in pin shopping. it legislating against and supporting environmental groups or legislating for an enormous amount of regulations that balloon the price up at least in the united states affairs. nothing is all about you have to, you've told us this truth in films before about vietnam, about central america, the us roland central america, about what happened in ukraine, the key, the key of cool in 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 the tell us a lot of truths about vietnam and ralph native, perhaps even more people than anyone in history individually for his fight with the

comic is on the one seat belt. i mean, you're going up against with jane fonda and ralph nader say as well. absolutely. uh, but you know, i admire the both of them. no, i much for what they get to mr. nate are brought to our attention to automobile safety and seat belts. and so forth. and uh, jane is an advocate passion and advocate against vietnam and i admire her courage and i supported her all the way through. but she's dead wrong on nuclear energy. and so it was ralph nader and there's no reason to, to, to harbor these mess we have to move on because the last, 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 and large body has warned us repeatedly since 1980 that we're reaching a point of 0 tolerance early where the part of the plan it's 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 talked about it endlessly blah, blah, blah. nothing is happening. it's not getting better. and by 2015 we're,

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 the disconnection size, or 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, and i'm interpreting. i think i'm making it more simple because they're scientists and they can distract. 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, like, 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 when do they find some chairs about, i mean there's this fil a closure program as 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 buying gas about it? do you think by the cares 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 it come in like a leaks all along the line. we know that proven, 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. the maximum capacity in germany for example, is about 2012 percent of the sun came out in that is on the high side window 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, renewables don't believe it. that's advertising, and they're very good at it. they make it sound like it's easy. oh yeah, we'll just put some gas in and it also. so this ties into it, i think by and cares about the environment. and i think he's obviously had political challenges getting it through 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? you know, i believe the united states has something very mr. bind farm is that it would not exist before it happened. you know, as you saw as a pronouncement, he had a smirk on his face. so, and he was pretty sure that he was going to end the thread of the pipeline. but what he's done is 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 want to get completely mad because i know you are ukraine on fire film, which i think is believe the back of the, the film is accurate. it was owned by ukrainian man who lee lives through this thing. that war started just to repeat in 2014, it did not start in 2020. but why did the pen to kind of contract a google banner from youtube and why is netflix banning this? well, because it's a strange world we're living and they really are scared. netflix isn't bad and you know, kind of like the new one and netflix yelling and screaming, he just rejected or they rejected it. i don't know what my system is that you need to do with new cream it, it's really about it's about the shortage of clean energy in the future. and right now, and we have to do something about it. that's what the film is about. and that's what gives it as 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're talking about? china is expansion of nuclear, i mean is happening. other countries are listening to the arguments of this film already clearly on that they understand what you're talking about. and then it brings, you know, just say that one of the reasons i just 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 favors 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 h. b. oh, good turbo. which was not accurate, we go into that in the field that 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 his tragedy. no question. and it was badly handled. but we go into the detail, the scientists whose action involved is a very broken man, and he explains what really happened. and he interviewed test the professionalism of the soviet crew. there was never any intent to, to see the i a e a. and when 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 the soviet government, the guy died. and that was a shame. but the u. n. 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 links between when you look cancer and radiation, radiation, we have a lot of it in the world. all of us done, i'll stop you there. more from the oscar winning film director after this break. the case of china, it's the, the us for the elevator ty, ones, international status. you see you have no c, lucy's visits, which already crazed crisis, and the lincoln short, china wheels thoughts a military operation. there was, i haven't even have notes. i don't have even doubts about

the time 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. several opinions that he won't get anywhere else. welcome to please or do have the state department c i a weapons, bankers, multi 1000000000 dollar corporations. choose your facts 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 time, but again, you probably don't wanna watch it because it might just change the waiting thing the,

the welcome back to going on the ground. i'm still here with also winning film director. all of a sudden on this new release. and you can now, i have noticed that the, some of the scientific a scholarly papers are reducing the numbers previously, photo of as being affected by radiation near nuclear 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 the congressional panel. they biden is refusing to release the papers. clearly, i was talking about the conspiracy in your film, which is um, which is quite something, the 7 system oil companies, with hollywood, you mentioned the story altogether, 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 from ron adams and in 1956. the new york times published a study done by the rockefeller foundation, rockefeller foundation, remember, is the john rock, john d rockefeller, and the biggest well magnate of our time. they found that any level of radiation is harmful to the human body. it was a 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 philip 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 store radiation men became even more scary to more people because we have the world war 2 experience in the or she but where indeed it was a dangerous level of radiation because it was an enrich mom. we were dropping bombs with 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

referred to asian. and that is what people have is terrified is because of all the fears stoped by the rockefeller foundation and the environmentalist. and i think you go into it's 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 from an ice 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 i can tell them to you as well as to really, i mean, you can get money if anyone watching who is serving who has of delegates of rain. you can get a reimbursement from the u. s. federal government. well, nobody has, as we say, and there has been no major,

no accident significance in the navy that was on the accident is the lower level of radiation. you're continually exposed to over time. well, serving in a new one, your submarine as well as i answered that it does. i think my problem with my problem with it was the film was the risk of terror attack. nuclear waste with yours, you say is very safe. usually waste is clearly know what to say because it has the bearings, it was already say, if 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.