0:00

on april 26th, 1986

0:03

and uncontrolled nuclear chain,

0:05

reaction blew a hole in the roof of

0:07

chernobyl reactor number for the

0:10

explosion and fires released,

0:13

huge amount radioactive contamination into

0:15

the atmosphere blanketing nearby

0:18

towns in ukraine before

0:20

eventually spreading across europe and

0:23

what is still considered the worst nuclear

0:25

accident in history can

0:27

be chalked up to a series of human errors

0:30

and judgment for

0:32

one the reactor

0:34

using a flawed design which scientists

0:36

were aware of well before the accident

0:39

the , didn't fully understand how

0:41

the reactor worked or what to seek to protocol

0:44

from work work on the night of the accident

0:46

so be it officials ignored signs

0:48

that the reactor had become unstable and

0:51

kept going with the schedule the schedule had

0:54

the government address these issues they

0:56

probably could have averted could doesn't twenty

0:59

five years later in march two thousand

1:02

and eleven a giant tsunami triggered

1:04

by an earthquake swamps the fukushima

1:06

reactor swamps northern japan was

1:09

a reactor safely shut themselves down

1:11

the wall of water flooded the backup generators

1:14

the powered the cooling systems for those

1:16

reactors causing them to overheat

1:18

and personally melt down to damage

1:21

and nice and media lot of material

1:23

forced tens of thousands of people

1:25

tens evacuate the area many

1:27

experts agree that this incident could

1:29

have been prevented entirely is

1:31

officials hadn't ignored suggestions

1:33

for improving the safety of the reactor

1:36

including study that showed how that tsunami

1:38

could flood the plant and shut down

1:40

those emergency backup generators which

1:43

is exactly what happened your

1:45

noble and fukushima are obviously

1:47

some of the most dramatic examples of nuclear

1:49

disasters major ,

1:52

happen across all industries including

1:54

other suppliers of energy like coal

1:56

and oil but when we make mistakes

1:59

nuclear power

1:59

they kinda stand out

2:02

i'm laura trends and this is wild

2:05

thing going nuclear a series

2:07

about the power of the universe contained

2:09

in the tiny little package of the

2:11

adam you

2:14

and i are living are living atomic

2:16

the endless debates over harnessing the power

2:20

whether we humans are responsible

2:23

enough to mess with it of benefits

2:25

viruses

2:27

the good

2:28

already

2:30

one didn't blow up on it's own

2:33

everything because that disaster least

2:35

squarely in the realm of human error

2:38

it was poorly designed and not well maintained

2:40

the rod stuck there were problems with the welds

2:43

and the metals

2:44

when the men working there reported these

2:46

problems officials told them to work around

2:48

the us

2:49

on top of that relatively inexperienced

2:52

young men staff the reactor

2:54

man who had their own personal problems and

2:56

made their own mistakes like pulling control

2:58

rod nine out too far

3:01

what are all these accidents emblematic

3:03

of the risks because you could

3:05

argue that we have actually had a pretty

3:07

good safety record when it comes to nuclear

3:10

energy one

3:11

the problems with been as safe

3:13

as nuclear has been the

3:15

bike accidents haven't been normalized

3:17

ted nord house is the founder

3:19

the breakthrough instead

3:20

shoot i think tank that focuses on

3:22

technological solutions to environmental

3:24

problem if nuclear accidents

3:26

happened as frequently

3:29

the refinery accidents

3:31

are you know we would probably just be like okay

3:34

it happens and there's some clean up in there some cost

3:36

and whatever and like as far as i can

3:38

tell no one died from it and it's

3:40

okay but it's just such a

3:42

rare and exceptional circumstance

3:46

that kind of when it happens everyone freaks out

3:48

we'll hear more from ted in the next episode

3:51

but he raises an interesting point that

3:53

these events are so uncommon thankfully

3:56

that their rarity makes them more alarming

3:59

i'm nervous

3:59

we be about potential nuclear disasters

4:02

the risks as bad as we think

4:04

and how good are we at assessing those risks

4:07

think

4:07

that naturally occurring environments and how

4:10

we react to the

4:12

threats and risks that we confirm

4:13

leave then boom and is

4:15

a professor of psychology at the university

4:18

of colorado boulder she studies

4:20

human judgment and decision making especially

4:22

about environmental with him and

4:24

he's trying to explain to me how humans think

4:26

about risks

4:27

typically what we do is we

4:30

would notice when something mixes afraid humbling

4:33

my the kind of attract our attention and we

4:35

start to pay attention to that that makes us feel

4:37

a little bit more afraid of the thing we're paying

4:40

attention to a ,

4:42

prophecies occur really really fast

4:45

and the kind of

4:47

know just to avoid

4:49

those risks

4:50

the classic example is seeing a lion

4:53

on the savannah but , switch

4:55

it up and say oh i don't know bigfoot

4:57

and forests you're just going

4:59

about your day harvesting berries catching

5:01

fish and then you see this big

5:03

shadowy creature with your whole

5:05

system is wired and such and way that the only

5:08

thing you're really paying

5:09

into his the danger the kind

5:11

of want to have an

5:14

overreaction to that and

5:16

avoid it until you know that it's and

5:19

so or psychological system is

5:21

really nice be consumed response

5:25

and normally that would be really really

5:28

healthy waiting indeed with the and

5:31

it works really really well in

5:33

certain situations but the modern

5:35

world poses kind of situations problem for of

5:38

the way to we engage with information

5:41

in of modern environment the hijack some

5:43

of those naturally occurring process and

5:47

our reactions don't have

5:49

an opportunity to correct themselves and so

5:51

we end up being over afraid

5:54

of things that we really shouldn't be all that afraid

5:56

of like say a terrorist

5:58

attack and window completely

6:02

not bothered by results that are actually

6:04

really really dangerous like driving

6:06

a car

6:07

why is that why are we so bad

6:10

it actually understanding risk

6:11

in reality what most of us do

6:14

is we have some quick off an

6:16

emotional response to

6:18

these potential threats than

6:20

that responds directly translates

6:22

into behavior the behaviors

6:25

often just an aversion like i'm i'm not gonna do

6:27

that i'm not interested in investing in that it

6:29

terrifies me that

6:32

kind of where the conversation stamps

6:34

if someone told you about a technology

6:36

that would reduce carbon emissions help

6:38

deal with climate change and provide

6:40

abundant amounts of energy they

6:42

laid out the numbers just the numbers

6:45

you would probably think

6:47

that looks pretty good

6:49

then you learn that we're talking about nuclear

6:51

energy

6:51

give me i don't like out why don't

6:53

i like it modern know but now i can

6:56

make up some reasons my gut tells me and

6:59

it's not that people are just completely

7:01

irrational and thoughtless it's

7:04

just that the way we naturally respond

7:06

the way we're built his to have that quick

7:08

emotional response we were

7:09

hi on our gut feelings those emotions

7:12

that instinctively a rise to form

7:14

a snap judgment is this good

7:16

or bad helpful or harmful

7:19

potentially kill me

7:21

of course many of these feelings are

7:23

influenced by what

7:24

we already know

7:25

i think we now

7:27

in in the case of nuclear power we

7:29

almost immediately recall all the

7:31

bad stuff that happened

7:32

the scary stories

7:34

of heart easy to imagine

7:37

most of us probably don't really know

7:39

about the details of chernobyl

7:41

or three mile island but ,

7:43

haven't and emotional response to that

7:46

where does that emotional response come from it's not

7:48

because i know know lost all the

7:50

documentaries and read the wikipedia page

7:52

and now years my valued assessment

7:55

get somehow this has become a thing in

7:57

culture that

7:59

is

7:59

haggard these negative associations

8:02

and

8:03

i don't know exactly what that means but it's

8:05

something scary and uncertain

8:08

and dreaded and even went wrong as be

8:10

go really really wrong that

8:12

causes me to have this immediate emotional reaction

8:15

there are good reasons for this emotional response

8:18

the story of

8:18

noble is the stuff of bad dreams not

8:21

to mention all the post apocalyptic science

8:23

fiction tales out there

8:25

then there are concerns about health and the environment

8:28

and a long term repercussions of nuclear meltdown

8:31

which leaves says taps into a

8:33

sort of a neat fear we have of contaminate

8:35

again evolutionarily this makes

8:37

a lot of sense to you you really want

8:39

to be on guard

8:42

against things that might contaminate the

8:44

body things that make contaminate food

8:47

you consume

8:48

because i can kill you can kill you quickly and

8:51

so we have this very

8:53

strong

8:54

i disgust response

8:56

that becomes moralized in

8:59

the context of contamination

9:01

and radioactive contamination conjures

9:03

up even more fierce what if

9:05

it gets in the

9:06

water any air

9:07

in our dna in our children's

9:10

dna

9:11

if we don't actually understand the underlying

9:13

principles of a technology it makes

9:16

it all the more frightening and nuclear

9:18

is definitely one of those things that we may

9:20

not really understand we

9:22

meaning the general public i'm pretty sure scientists

9:25

have a grasp on

9:26

the most was just we don't understand

9:28

how nuclear really operates

9:30

it outside of our control and

9:33

there's some can have negative

9:35

storytelling around it they combine

9:38

to give us as immediate strong fear response

9:40

we're living at a time when nuclear energy

9:43

is a big topic of conversation the

9:45

most of us only have a vague understanding

9:47

of how it works i'll be the first the

9:49

copter this until this started doing

9:51

this project this had no idea how idea

9:53

reactor functions reactor functions knew

9:55

wouldn't adam was

9:56

many of you are probably more educated than

9:58

i was but i'm

9:59

then there are a fair number of you in the same boat

10:02

so when someone says nuclear those gaps

10:05

in our knowledge get filled in by pop culture

10:07

history and dramatic news stories

10:10

the our evolutionary snap judgment taking

10:12

into gear because this is

10:14

risk we don't fully understand

10:16

then of course there are also the issues

10:19

of trust and familiarity

10:21

nuclear energy has been around for over sixty

10:23

years now but because most of us

10:25

aren't really familiar with the technology we

10:28

have to trust experts to tell us if it's safe

10:30

this

10:31

really way

10:33

those me with some dread because

10:36

we as as

10:38

are losing our shared

10:40

sources of trust whether it's media

10:42

or government for scientists

10:45

or some set of experts

10:47

that everyone recognizes is

10:49

trustworthy and telling us what is dangerous and

10:51

was not dangerous

10:53

i mean they experts have always

10:55

done themselves a lot of favors given the stories

10:57

of how waste has been mishandled and

10:59

other problems in our history for

11:01

example what happened in march of nineteen seventy

11:04

nine an accident that most americans

11:06

know by name

11:07

three mile island

11:10

this was a big commercial reactor operated

11:12

by the metropolitan edison utility

11:14

company that experienced what's called

11:16

a loss of cool and accident

11:19

the water used to cool the reactor leaked

11:21

and the reactor began to overheat

11:24

historian natasha zaretsky details

11:26

what happened in her book radiation nation

11:28

it took several days to

11:32

ring the reactor core temperature

11:34

down and the fear at the

11:36

time which really lasted over several days

11:39

with that there would be either

11:41

an explosion or a

11:43

full meltdown where you would have

11:46

kind of man

11:47

the radiation leaking from the

11:49

harm and it didn't happen in the remote

11:51

desert of idaho but in middletown pennsylvania

11:54

the middle of a very popular

11:56

the part of the east coast

11:58

thankfully the reactors

11:59

meltdown

12:01

and follow up studies by both federal and state

12:03

officials found that very little radio

12:05

an escape plan

12:07

i'm an industry standpoint this was a huge

12:09

success

12:10

the safety features had ultimately worked

12:12

and they reverted a potential crisis

12:15

the people in that area so understandably

12:17

rattle

12:18

in part because they didn't feel officials had

12:20

given them the full story

12:22

i think that that's a big problem like

12:24

there's really there's inconsistency

12:27

is right out of the gate and terms

12:29

of how serious the accident as has

12:31

radiation leak from the plant

12:34

there's just a tremendous amount of confusion

12:36

that i think creates a climate

12:38

of distrust from really early on

12:41

at press conferences officials dodged

12:43

questions sometimes because they didn't want

12:45

to answer them

12:46

it also because they didn't want to admit

12:49

not knowing the answer they didn't

12:51

want to panic people unnecessarily

12:53

ultimately their tactics made people

12:55

feel less confident people had really

12:58

practical questions should

13:00

i leave my money and my bank account to

13:02

i need to evacuate my home will

13:04

i ever be able to come back people

13:07

were calling radio stations people were

13:09

calling their doctors offices people were calling

13:11

the governor's office says

13:13

they were really trying to get very

13:16

very practical

13:17

the actual information about what they

13:19

needed to do and it's

13:22

extremely confusing

13:24

as you feel like you're not getting consistent

13:26

guidance and given the growing

13:28

body of evidence that radioactive exposure

13:31

could cause health issues what

13:33

people really wanted to know about was the

13:35

threat to their help

13:37

authorities claims that very little radiation

13:39

leaked out and in there were certainly some

13:41

people who were willing do it except

13:43

the official story but there were

13:45

also a lot of people in the

13:47

community who were skeptical

13:50

you know the government might say that

13:52

at radiation emissions from the plan

13:54

will be so tiny as have no

13:56

and fact i'm our house but can

13:59

we really believe

13:59

if you need another example take

14:02

a look around of what has happened during the cold

14:04

nineteen pandemic the lack of

14:06

trust in x it's is obvious those

14:09

people already have this emotional reaction

14:11

to the idea of nuclear can we ever get

14:13

past that

14:14

what makes people change their minds about things

14:16

they think are risk least then

14:19

boom and again

14:20

getting of it appears not impossible

14:23

it will be extremely difficult and will

14:25

be an uphill battle hand we

14:28

have to think about addressing

14:30

people's fears strategies

14:34

i didn't just facts and figures

14:35

you know the various reports about climate

14:38

change more numbers than you can shake a stick

14:40

at

14:40

but they don't really carry the emotional swayed

14:42

i don't really change the

14:45

stories the people tell in the

14:47

way that directly impacts them and

14:50

, think the same is true with nuclear

14:52

that it's it's become tainted

14:54

chronically right it's it's the ideas

14:57

have become weaponized

14:59

sad thing apart because they have

15:02

tied to weapons historically and we

15:04

can't quite get over that thought

15:06

one way we might get over our fears

15:08

is if we see the benefits that nuclear energy

15:10

can have

15:11

we're not too keen on building the reactors

15:14

that could demonstrate this because of our concerns

15:16

about the risks the round

15:18

and round we go the with

15:20

this in mind the company's behind some

15:22

of the new types of reactors are trying to

15:24

anticipate these fears everyone's hazard

15:27

the perception of risk as some folks

15:29

are afraid to fly and even though it's very safe

15:32

but , willing to drive hundred busy highway

15:35

which is a higher risk for perception

15:37

of risk perception is risk

15:38

doctor who they re as is the chief technology

15:41

officer and cofounder of new scale power

15:44

new skill is a private company on the leading

15:46

edge of the next generation of nuclear reactors

15:48

specifically small modular reactors

15:51

small because they are considerably

15:53

smaller than considerably

15:54

the commercial reactor what we've

15:56

designed is a a small

15:58

reactor which sits inside

16:00

of a small containment vessel so says big

16:03

concrete the dome set your for me with we've

16:05

gone to a small steel containment vessel and

16:08

that's that's module it's about seventy

16:10

six feet in length about fifteen feet diameter

16:12

is like a tall cylinder when you when you look at

16:15

imagine a really big soda can

16:17

then like any good soda

16:20

you can get a four pack a six pack or

16:22

a twelve pack this is what makes this

16:24

design modular be

16:26

the fact the six pack we have different numbers

16:28

by the yes so deal the six module plant

16:31

will produce four hundred and sixty two megawatts looked

16:33

really good size for cool therapy replacements

16:36

to continue with this metaphor

16:38

the soda cans the reactor modules

16:40

she'll in a cooling pond that is

16:42

almost entirely below ground with

16:44

just the tops of the reactors about the water

16:47

the whole setup fits inside a massive

16:49

reactor building nuscale

16:51

installs the reactors after building them

16:53

off site in a factory on a sort of assembly

16:56

line

16:56

somewhat like the boy model for airplanes

16:58

you know you're you're building these things in a factory

17:01

it's a very controlled environment and

17:03

as you get the benefit of standardized

17:05

design we want to have the ability to

17:07

have multiple manufacturers that us and us

17:09

but around the world who could manufacture

17:12

these models

17:12

building these smaller reactors in a factory

17:15

reduces costs it should

17:17

also reduce the potential for a design

17:19

error

17:20

here's something i didn't know every

17:22

reactor in the united states is unique

17:25

built at different times

17:26

different materials the reactor

17:29

designs the control room lay out there

17:31

all bespoke built on site and customers

17:34

the when a factory built standardize design

17:37

are your control room looks the same and in

17:39

these locations the parts all

17:41

the components are the same and

17:43

replaceable and so we can actually replace

17:45

entire modular just the upper two thirds of

17:47

a modular or whatever is needed for

17:50

needed for types of maintenance and repairs which

17:52

make it easier to fix issues

17:54

and train people and helps eliminate

17:56

possible risks jose

17:58

is only too aware of how people person

18:00

nuclear energy the one of the

18:02

things that we did with our design was

18:05

we said well let's let's see if we'd some

18:07

for the design so safe or , it'll

18:09

address the public's perception of risks

18:11

top the designed a nuclear plant plant

18:14

that in terms of terms under the

18:16

worst case conditions of reactor will safely

18:19

set of safely down a without any operator

18:21

action without any ac or dc power

18:24

and without the need to add water to

18:26

keep it cool for unlimited free time

18:29

then he says new scale went

18:31

a step further with their design

18:33

the general public thinks about risks in

18:35

terms of the consequences even

18:37

if there's the infant is emily small chance

18:39

of a meltdown and ,

18:41

we haven't even come close to one and united

18:43

states since nineteen seventy nine what

18:46

happens if that comes to pass

18:48

so we did the analysis further and we found

18:50

that under the worst case conditions you have

18:52

a one billion your event the

18:54

, were zero we don't

18:57

exceed rated three doses at the second boundary

18:59

or even if you do have an event has no impact

19:02

outside the sense of the plant and

19:04

so that's and so huge step forward nuscale

19:07

has been working on this project for over twenty years

19:09

and now in partnership with the department of

19:11

energy and a group of

19:13

how many companies the first small

19:15

modular reactor is slated to start

19:17

reducing power in twenty thirty anywhere

19:20

, this be bought at the idaho national

19:23

laboratory of course

19:24

the fact and idaho falls

19:26

will be one of the towns on the receiving end

19:28

of that newfangled atomic energy

19:32

this season lol thing is supported solely

19:34

by first light capital group,

19:36

founded by female entrepreneur, all

19:39

batol firstlight

19:39

capital group is an innovative investment

19:41

firm that strive to generate outstanding

19:44

financial returns and change how the industry

19:46

foster's talent and diversity first

19:48

light has a dual prong mission

19:50

first

19:51

it trades, public, equities private

19:53

equities and debt using its proprietary data

19:55

informed investment for a and

19:57

second through a separate seed fund its

19:59

to cultivate the next generation of female entrepreneurs

20:03

by providing women lead businesses in the technology

20:05

and biotechnology sectors with the capital

20:07

infrastructure support and mentorship needed

20:10

to take their companies to the next level to

20:12

learn more about first sight capital group please

20:14

visit first like capital group dot com

20:18

no surprise that supporters of nuclear

20:21

energy argue that it's inherently safe

20:23

that we have learned from past mistakes and

20:26

we're improving the technology to a point

20:28

where accidents are unlikely to either

20:30

occur or cause serious harm

20:32

the idaho national laboratory

20:35

a former national reactor testing station

20:38

and the site of the sl one or accident

20:40

scientists are considering how we might

20:42

make things safe

20:43

by getting people out of the picture

20:46

that's , i can see the future of and nuclear

20:49

power right is trying to drive towards that

20:51

kind of nuisance that removes humans

20:53

from from the equation aaron

20:55

both meyer is taking me on taking tour of the site

20:58

of

20:58

photo labs national reactor innovation

21:01

center as a nuclear facility engineer

21:03

collaborating on the next generation of nuclear

21:05

reactors technology that he

21:08

hopes will help us avoid situations

21:10

like

21:10

those we've experienced in the past

21:13

so noble happened because a bad management

21:15

and mistakes right or fukushima

21:17

happen because management and pay for an upgrade

21:19

detainees in if , can remove

21:22

that human error by having an inherently set

21:24

design design you don't have to worry

21:26

about aaron is currently working

21:28

on what are called micro reactors

21:31

when he said this i immediately thought

21:33

back to those early days in the nineteen forties

21:35

and fifties when we thought our cars

21:37

and homes would be powered by individual tiny

21:39

reactors

21:41

aaron quickly dashed my jets

21:42

dreams the reactors are small

21:45

the not that small

21:47

they arm and

21:48

the mobile if you can make a reactor

21:50

small enough you

21:52

, say to to a remote location

21:55

location , either military

21:58

and have based

21:59

corey

22:01

an infinite supply of electricity

22:04

at , say infinite it's amiss amiss

22:06

not exactly right but where's your

22:09

diesel generator you have a big thank you run out

22:11

and a month and nuclear

22:13

reactors you might run on five years

22:15

the military specifically the army

22:17

has expressed interest in this technology

22:19

to

22:20

similar to their earlier dreams for sl

22:23

one the army sees these micro

22:25

reactors as a way to power distant face

22:27

i'm annotations instead of taking a

22:29

whole bunch a d so i'm constantly resupply in it

22:32

you , take a reactor in a container

22:35

or something like that and run it and have

22:38

lots of electricity for a long

22:40

period of time getting diesel too

22:42

remote bases has been tricky for the military

22:45

that is show that of the thirty six thousand

22:47

us casualties in iraq and afghanistan

22:49

between two thousand and three and two thousand and eleven

22:52

over fifty percent came from attacks

22:55

on resupply

22:56

the you can see why the military would love

22:59

to avoid that problem i think

23:01

about the aftermath of huge natural

23:03

disasters like hurricane katrina

23:05

or the earthquakes in haiti or the ice

23:07

storms in texas state officials

23:10

are the military could fly a small reactor

23:12

in and attach into the grid providing

23:15

emergency power to things like hostile

23:18

aaron is enthusiastic about nuclear power

23:20

i mean it is his job so i would

23:22

expect nothing

23:24

when i ask him if we can truly be safe about

23:26

it his answer is unequivocally

23:29

positive

23:29

the answer is yes and

23:31

were standing a place where they did this this was formerly

23:34

tbr to energy , reactor

23:36

to com or as

23:38

it was also called as internal fast reactor is

23:41

is a safe safe shutdown reactors you couldn't

23:43

cause it's a blow up you couldn't

23:45

meltdown right and that he can't melt down

23:47

then you can't have the reactor accident accident

23:50

ran a test and early nineties on this

23:52

reactor they basically took it up to

23:55

where you would start to see an accident happened let

23:57

go and the reactor physics

24:00

the inherent physics of it turned it off

24:02

they become faith then why did they shut

24:04

the program down and dismantle

24:06

the creator

24:07

a little problem cold

24:09

o'neill

24:10

we haven't talked a lot about plutonium

24:12

it's a natural elements that doesn't really

24:14

exist in nature anymore but

24:17

some kinds of nuclear reactors breeder

24:19

reactors created as created byproduct

24:22

we've mostly use it for nuclear weapons

24:24

but it's also a nuclear reactor fuel

24:26

in and of itself some countries

24:29

do use it as such but here in the us

24:31

we don't it's a bit of a political

24:33

hot potato and a lot of people worry

24:36

that terrorists could get their hands on it

24:38

to create dirty bombs so

24:40

breeder reactors like the one aaron

24:42

talking about

24:43

are in operation any

24:44

some people just uncomfortable with nuclear because

24:47

that's how you're a number of reasons i disagree

24:50

and that i think we could do the stuff safely demonstrated

24:52

it

24:53

the court someone who works in nuclear

24:55

power is going to say that it's like

24:57

the guy who works at the restaurant telling you that

24:59

everything on the menu is great you

25:01

want to believe

25:02

them a can you

25:04

that aaron has one last in my opinion

25:06

very

25:07

when people look at three mile island

25:09

so noble and fukushima and settles a

25:11

reason not to do this right and others

25:14

are horrible things to have happened or

25:16

, were preventable take the united states navy

25:19

or they've got something like sixty five hundred reactor

25:21

years of operation without a new car accidents

25:24

the navy

25:25

the operated reactors since the nineteen

25:28

fifties without incident

25:30

part of that has to do with the man who established

25:33

the nuclear navy to begin with admiral

25:35

hyman recover we briefly heard about

25:37

him back in episode

25:39

over what what some people might call

25:41

a control freak person we

25:43

interviewed every last officer in the navy's

25:46

nuclear programs and oversaw

25:48

the construction and operation of more

25:50

than one hundred nuclear powered ships

25:53

including the same uss nautilus

25:55

the world's first nuclear submarine

25:57

this was a man who when a single

25:59

error was found in a prototype

26:02

navy reactor one , wasn't

26:04

even using any radioactive materials

26:06

yet forced his men to rip

26:08

the whole thing apart and rebuild

26:10

in fact recover was so appalled by

26:12

what happened with the army's sl one reactor

26:15

that he actually hired his own investigator

26:18

a nuclear engineer to go to

26:20

idaho and find out the details of

26:22

what went wrong

26:24

the findings likely

26:25

the couldn't recover scrutinizing all

26:27

the navy's reactors to make sure there were

26:29

similar laws he ,

26:31

not a man to leave things to chance and

26:33

good enough was definitely not

26:36

good enough enough recognised

26:38

just how terrifying nuclear energy could

26:41

energy and considered it a necessary

26:43

evil surprising for a man

26:45

whose career was built on nuclear power

26:48

at one point he was quoted was saying

26:50

the whole reactor game hangs

26:52

on a much more slender thread than most

26:54

people are aware there are a lot of

26:56

things go wrong and a requires eternal

26:58

vigilance

26:59

he demanded perfection from everyone

27:02

and what he would likely consider

27:03

his program

27:04

the program that hasn't knock on wood

27:07

ever had an accident

27:09

the we can be done

27:11

that for many people the risks no matter

27:13

the probability still seem to

27:15

high and as we learned earlier

27:18

advocates for nuclear energy can throw facts

27:20

and figures of people all day long and

27:22

it won't change their minds

27:24

that

27:25

what anything make nuclear seem less

27:29

what if you had something equally risky

27:31

to compare it to have between climate

27:34

change we all need to be concerned about climate

27:36

change nuclear energy as

27:38

a way to deal with climate shifts coming

27:40

up on the next episode of wild thing

27:48

learn more about the events around three mile

27:50

island check out natasha zaretsky his books

27:53

radiation nation three mile island

27:55

the political transformation of the nineteen seventies

27:58

and for premium subscribers

27:59

will also have an extended bonus interview

28:02

with her later this season premium

28:04

subscribers get each episode early and exclusive

28:06

access to all bonus episodes not

28:08

to mention the warm fuzzy feeling that com

28:10

from supporting

28:12

for more information go to wild thing podcast

28:14

dot com that's weldon podcast all

28:16

one word you'll also find out more about

28:18

this season including how to get wild thing t-shirts

28:21

and stickers links to the website

28:23

and the shop are also on social media at

28:25

wild thing pod on twitter instagram

28:27

and facebook also please

28:29

consider leaving us a review wherever you get

28:31

your podcasts and definitely tell your

28:33

friends all of this really

28:35

helps get the word out about the show and

28:37

makes future seasons more likely this

28:39

podcast is a production of bucks to put into

28:42

with generous support from first like capital

28:44

while thing is edited by alicia lincoln was

28:46

sound mixing and music from louis weeks

28:49

or executive producer is carney and

28:51

i'm your host sinker

28:52

later laura france