I'd never seen this show before, and boy, is it annoyingly smug and condescending. I couldn't even make it to the really good points.

And relying on dirty energy results in toxic consequences for generations, too. Sure, STALKER aside, Chernobyl sucked. But maybe the benefits outweigh the risks? Maybe the ecological damage of, say, one, two, or fifty nuclear wastelands dotted about the planet is considerably less than the ecological damage of oil spills, strip mining, and billions of tons of burnt fossil fuels being pumped into the atmosophere?

And yes, I know, there are other "clean" alternatives, but they all have hidden "dirty" costs (potentially rendering them as wasteful as direct-polluting energy sources), and rarely have the capacity to generate the bulk of the energy we need. Maybe that'll change in the future? Maybe someone will unlock the secret of cold fusion and we will all live in a great big garden of delights, no longer scared about global warming, hydrogen explosions, nuclear meltdowns, or falling wind turbines? But until that Brave New World arises, we have to remember that everything has dangers and costs, and we can't poo-poo an avenue of attack just because a couple sexy tragedies got in our eyes.

New isotopes of Uranium are being employed in methods to create a lower-key nuclear reaction, with the waste product giving off only beta radiation and having a halflife of ~50 years.

Basically, you could stick it in a lead casket and put it under your bed every night, you wouldn't get a the slightest bit irradiated.

Best part of this 'new' isotope? It's been around for ages, and we have the shit buried under a rock in Nevada. Problem with this new isotope? Politicians and lobbyists that have seen profits from the current isotopes of Uranium we use (that have a 5k year halflife bi-product and produce radiation that forces us to stow the shit in a mountain), specifically profits from the waste management, are asking, 'Why fix something that's not broke.'

It's not insightful. Like most of their shit, it barely scrapes the surface. It IS anti-intellectual.

Worse than their ridiculous Ghandi coverage.