Latest news with #Chernobyl
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Why The Last of Us Changed Key Scene in Season 2 Finale
The Last of Us' Season 2 finale featured several shocking deaths. One of the most talked-about scenes from the finale occurred in the aquarium. Ellie holds two of Abby's friends, Owen and a pregnant Mel, at gunpoint. When Owen reaches for a gun, Ellie shoots him dead. However, the bullet also strikes Mel in the neck. A horrified Ellie holds Mel as she and the baby die. Owen and Mel are also killed in the video game. However, there is another death that the show's creators did not include in the The Last of Us Season 2 finale In the game, Ellie first kills Alice the dog upon entering the aquarium. When the video game shifts to Abby's POV, gamers can play as Abby with Alice by her side. Co-showrunner Craig Mazin joked that since he killed dogs in his previous show, Chernobyl, he couldn't do it again for The Last of Us. 'You get one dog-murdering episode a lifetime,' Mazin said in a press conference via GamesRadar+. 'There are two cardinal rules in Hollywood. One, don't spend your own money. Two, don't kill the dog.' The real reason behind eliminating the dog's death revolved around live-action violence and how it comes off much worse than animation. 'We had a situation where a number of horrible things were happening,' Mazin said. 'Plus, because it's live-action, the nature of violence becomes much more graphic. It's more graphic. Because it's not like there's an animation between you and it; it's people. And it's very disturbing.' Co-showrunner Neil Druckmann also noted that the show already had a run of violent scenes, including Ellie's near-lynching on Seraphite Island, Owen's murder, and Mel's death. 'In our conversation, we're like, this is probably one too many,' Druckmann said about cutting Alice's death from the show. The Last of Us Season 2 is now streaming on HBO Max. Originally reported by Dab Girolamo on SuperHeroHype. The post Why The Last of Us Changed Key Scene in Season 2 Finale appeared first on - Movie Trailers, TV & Streaming News, and More.
The National
2 days ago
- Politics
- The National
Why nuclear power isn't the green energy solution you've been told
Instead, energy policy has become a political football with outrageous dishonesty about the real environmental consequences and financial costs of nuclear power. Nigel Farage, Tony Blair and, sadly, some Scottish political representatives are contributing to the false narratives that only building nuclear power stations will save us from future energy crises and that nuclear power is 'green' or carbon neutral. Encouraged by persistent, well-funded charm offensives by the nuclear industry, pro-nuclear narratives are repeated with vehement conviction, ignoring counter-evidence. Pro-nuclear political leaders may also be motivated by their wish to support Britain's capacity to build nuclear bombs. Even setting aside this deadly link, however, there are injustices, harms and risks that contradict the supposed attractiveness of nuclear. READ MORE: £150m renewable energy site proposed for former coal terminal The mining and milling of uranium, the main nuclear fuel, leaves contaminated water and soil, and ill health, historically often without buy-in from or benefit to local people. Hence, the many indigenous campaigns against uranium mining in Africa, Australia, Canada and the USA. The green claim ignores the carbon footprint of this mining, and the milling and construction that involves extraordinary amounts of concrete, the manufacture of which significantly contributes to climate change. Moreover, the nuclear cycle ends with various levels of radioactive nuclear waste that must be kept secure for the decades, hundreds and even thousands of years it remains hazardous to health. There are also ignored everyday harms in their operation. Nuclear plants are by the sea or rivers because their reactors are cooled by water as well as gas. When sucking up water can kill millions of living creatures. They also routinely emit small amounts of ionising radiation within supposedly 'safe' levels. However, scientists agree any additional ionising radiation causes harm in some circumstances. For example, X-rays are avoided in pregnancy because ionising radiation risks harm to the foetus. Women, girls and all infants are more susceptible to ionising radiation than adult males. Spikes of ionising radiation are produced when fuel rods are removed and cooling gas released into the atmosphere (as happens, for example, when sucked-up jellyfish force Torness to make an unplanned shut-down). Such peaks in radiation are concealed in the annual statistics but any pregnant woman or infant who happens to be locally downwind at the time is at heightened risk of harm. Then there is the downplayed risk of accidents. This may be a tiny risk, but the consequences of a Chernobyl or Fukushima-type accident are catastrophic. Similarly, war or a terrorist attack could lead to a disaster enormously more serious than the loss of electricity. READ MORE: Scottish Government scraps plans for national park in Galloway None of this is resolved with smaller and purportedly cheaper modular nuclear reactors – which create the same pollution, waste and risk. Generating electricity from renewables is a cheaper and faster way to make the necessary switch from fossil fuels than nuclear. There are political decisions regarding electricity costs, which include a government levy to pay for the infrastructure required by new renewables. Meanwhile, the large contributions the Government pays towards the costs of decommissioning nuclear power stations come from our pocket through taxes rather than our electricity bills. In the UK, the price of electricity also diverges from the cost of its generation because the Government tolerates a market system of trading, called 'marginal pricing' which sets the overall cost by the most expensive method in the mix. In the last quarter of 2024, the mix was about half renewables: wind 31%, biomass 14%, solar and hydro power 4%; about 30% from burning gas, and about 10% nuclear. Despite this balance, the wholesale cost of gas has typically set the overall price since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There are more flexible alternatives to nuclear when wind and sun are unavailable. Nuclear power plants cannot be switched off when demand for electricity drops because it takes days to safely power down a nuclear power station. Currently, when electricity generation risks exceeding demand, wind farms have to be switched off to allow nuclear power plants to keep running. All forms of energy generation involve environmental impact in their materials, construction, operation and decommissioning and some risks to human health. Nuclear power is particularly harmful, as well as historically linked to injustice and interconnected with weapons of mass destruction. Your voice and pen are needed to tell your political representatives, whatever party you support, 'nuclear power, no thanks' – go back to the evidence and seek a just energy policy for people and planet. Lynn Jamieson is chair of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Geek Feed
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- Geek Feed
Save the Dog: Why They Cut Alice from the Last of Us Finale
The Last of Us finale had come as a shock to several viewers, but anyone who's played the game knew exactly what was coming… sort of. Fans online have been discussing all sorts of changes the series has been doing compared to the game, and a lot of fans were wondering just where Alice a.k.a. Mel's WLF-trained dog was. Since the dog was ultimately going to be killed by Ellie, showrunner Craig Mazin thought that having Ellie kill a dog would have been 'one too much' for the scene. Talking to Polygon, Mazin explains , 'There are two cardinal rules in Hollywood, one, don't spend your own money, two, don't kill a dog… Plus, because it's live action, the nature of violence becomes much more, well, graphic. It's more graphic because…it's not like there's an animation between you and it, [and] it's very disturbing.' Seeing that Ellie already kills Owen, Mel, and (indirectly) Mel's baby (plus Jessie gets shot); it was game creator Neil Druckmann who said, '…in our conversation, we're like this [is] probably one too many.' Interestingly enough, some fans were complaining that Mazin was so 'fine' with dog murder in Chernobyl , to which he actually addresses that in the interview, 'I think you get like one dog murdering episode a lifetime.' If anything, most of the audience's investment on Alice actually comes from Abby's side of the story since players get to interact and even play with her in the game. No doubt Alice will probably be introduced in the next season, but who knows, maybe it's Tommy that offs her this time. We'll just have to wait and see. Check out the complete second season of The Last of Us now streaming on HBO Max.
Mint
3 days ago
- Politics
- Mint
Trump's Nuclear Orders Could Loosen Radiation Standards. DOGE's Key Role.
The shuttered Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Middletown, Pa. Constellation Energy is looking to give the site new life. The nuclear energy industry got a big boost last Friday when President Donald Trump signed executive orders aiming to speed up construction of reactors. But details of those executive orders are now raising alarms among nuclear experts, who worry they erode protections that keep Americans safe. In particular, Trump wants to loosen rules on how much radiation can be emitted from nuclear plants, direct the DOGE team to help test new kinds of reactors, and change standards for approving new reactors. Trump issued those directives in a series of four executive orders released late on Friday. The orders are designed to ramp up the construction of new reactors at a time when none are being built in the United States. But Trump's methods go well beyond past efforts to jump-start the nuclear energy industry. Some nuclear experts say they jeopardize the independence of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees the safety of the U.S. nuclear fleet. The NRC was created by Congress and sits in the executive branch, where it's expected to make decisions independent of political pressure. Kathryn Huff, who led the Department of Energy's nuclear office under President Biden, said in an interview that the Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear disasters were caused in part by a lack of independent regulators. Huff, who is now a professor at the University of Illinois, thinks Trump's executive orders—including these four and a previous one from February—look like an attempt to turn the NRC into an agent of the White House. The orders 'indicate a desire to fully capture the regulator, which is a path to nuclear accidents," she said. Some groups are raising similar concerns. The administration is 'virtually guaranteeing that this country will see a serious accident or other radiological release that will affect the health, safety and livelihoods of millions," said Dr. Edwin Lyman, the director of nuclear power safety at the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists, in a statement. Jennifer Gordon, a nuclear policy expert at the Atlantic Council, a think tank, wrote that the changes to the NRC could 'lessen its standing among global nuclear regulatory authorities." The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the criticisms. Much of the language in Trump's executive orders aligns with bipartisan views on nuclear energy that President Joe Biden also embraced. That includes a goal of approving reactors more quickly and helping fund them with government money. Investors had a positive reaction to Trump's orders, lifting the stocks of companies like Constellation Energy that own reactors, and Oklo that are building new kinds of reactors. Nuclear companies have 'increased political clout," wrote Jefferies analyst Julien Dumoulin-Smith. But some parts of the executive orders could significantly change how the U.S. regulates nuclear plants. In one of his executive orders, Trump says that the NRC uses outdated methods to determine how much radiation is safe for Americans. 'This failure stems from a fundamental error: Instead of efficiently promoting safe, abundant nuclear energy, the NRC has instead tried to insulate Americans from the most remote risks without appropriate regard for the severe domestic and geopolitical costs of such risk aversion," he writes. In response, the NRC said it 'is assessing the executive orders and will comply with White House directives." Trump argues that it's time to change the standards of what's considered an acceptable level of radiation for the public to be exposed to. The current standards are based on a technical term known as the linear no-threshold, or LNT, model, and the NRC's principle to keep radiation 'as low as reasonably achievable." Huff says that the standards are meant to be conservative, but not totally eliminate all radiation risk. 'The idea is that you should try to minimize radiation exposure to the public reasonably," she said. Trump isn't the first person who has said the standards should be changed, but Huff thinks that any changes should follow a rigorous scientific process addressing the possible public harms. Trump also wants to cut jobs at the NRC and rewrite its rules, with the guidance of DOGE—the Department of Government Efficiency that was developed by Elon Musk. DOGE was previously criticized for mass firings at the National Nuclear Security Administration, which works on nuclear weapons programs. Many of those firings were eventually reversed amid criticism that they put the country at risk, with officials scrambling to rehire people who had been let go. Some experts questioned whether DOGE should have a role in changing rules for nuclear reactors and cutting jobs at the nuclear safety agency. 'Having DOGE involved in this is a little odd," Huff said. 'I suppose it makes sense with regard to reduction in force, but I'm not aware of any nuclear expertise on the DOGE team." The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on DOGE's nuclear expertise. It's also not clear how layoffs at the NRC will help speed the process of getting reactors approved. 'Reduction in force and acceleration of licensing timelines—those don't go together," Huff said. 'You have to increase the number of people if you're going to reduce the time it takes to license something." So far the NRC has not had the kind of mass layoffs that have happened at other federal agencies. There were 2,849 people working there as of April 1, down from 2,857 on Jan. 1. Since Trump's inauguration, 37 people have quit the agency and 111 have taken a deferred resignation. One of Trump's executive orders says the cost-cutting at the NRC will be flexible—the commission may even get more employees in certain areas, like reactor testing, if necessary. DOGE will also be involved in another part of Trump's nuclear plan— testing new kinds of reactors on federal property. That sort of thing is already happening at places like the Idaho National Laboratory, a federal lab that has worked with nuclear companies on test reactors. But Trump is looking to ramp up those tests and get three pilot reactors up and running by July 4, 2026. Trump wants the results of the tests to determine how the NRC reviews applications for new kinds of reactors that serve the public. The president also wants to put reactors on military bases, and look for ways to exempt them from traditional environmental reviews that can slow construction down. Chris Gadomski, the lead nuclear analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, said that using military bases makes sense, because it will reduce the need for nuclear companies to pay for security, which can be a large expense. But Gadomski thinks these efforts won't lead to the construction of new reactors without more specific financial commitments from the utilities that would own them. In 2005, a similar policy effort by President George W. Bush led companies to plan for 25 new reactors, only two of which got built, and those two went billions of dollars over budget, Gadomski noted. 'You can have all this policy push" for nuclear reactors, he said. 'But you need to have the market pull too. You need to have utility executives say 'Yeah. I'll take one of those.'" Trump's executive orders say that the Department of Energy should help finance new reactors through its Loan Programs Office, which had already been financing them under the previous administration. The problem is that the office is expected to lose much of its staff due to job cuts, and Republicans in the House of Representatives are looking to cut its funds to pay for tax cuts. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said at a recent budget hearing that he hopes the Senate will keep funding for the Loan Programs Office. 'If you are a U.S. utility and you don't have support from the Loan Programs Office to build a nuclear power plant, what other financial institutions are going to step in to fill that void?" asked Gadomski. Write to Avi Salzman at
Spectator
4 days ago
- Politics
- Spectator
Why going nuclear is humanity's only hope
There are three parties when it comes to global warming. First, the hard right, which says it isn't happening, and even if it is that we can do nothing about it. Then there are the far leftish Luddites who would smash all power generation systems, allowing only wind turbines, wave power etc. Finally there are the suave centrists who know perfectly well that only nuclear can save us. This book will become their bible. Tim Gregory is a nuclear scientist who works at Sellafield. He has a serious problem defending his conviction that nuclear is the answer: radiophobia, the terror people feel about radioactivity. Superficially, this terror seems well-founded. There have been some major nuclear power plant disasters: Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, in 1979; Chernobyl in the then Soviet Union in 1986; and Fukushima in Japan in 2011. Together they destroyed faith in nuclear as a safe generation system. The industry was stalled and still largely is. This, argues Gregory, is madness. After Fukushima, only one death can be directly related to radiation – a man who died from lung cancer seven years later. The remaining 20,000 casualties were caused by the earthquake and the ensuing tsunami. Even the direct death count from the Chernobyl disaster only amounted to the 'low to mid thirties'. 'That's about the same number of people who die at work in the United Kingdom every three months,' writes Gregory. In contrast, a city of one million people using coal power would suffer 22 deaths per week; using gas would result in two or three deaths per week. Globally, some 8.8 million deaths a year are caused by air pollution.
