To a large extent, energy has shaped the economy and politics of the modern world. Today, Dr. Omeed Saghafi, an emergency physician at Denver Health and Medical Center and the instructor at the University of Colorado, interviews Skip about the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan. Though discuss the intricacies of nuclear energy, including the risk of meltdowns, and the political fallout and health effects of such incidents. >> I'm Dr. Omeed Saghafi, and I'm here with Dr. Skip Burkle to talk about the global threat of nuclear meltdown. So the Fukushima nuclear plant tragedy in 2011 are looking many people in crisis management to the threat of nuclear meltdown. What's been the global response? >> Certainly was a, a major wake up call globally for all countries. It is interesting, countries have handled this a bit differently. Rather disappointingly, I think, the United States, there was not the dialogue that we're really looking for. We are certainly very energy dependent, very dependent on the nuclear plants. Quite honestly [SOUND] some plants in disaster prone areas have shut down but there were some plan, plans to do that. However in Europe collectively it was taken very seriously. And about seven of the countries major European countries in the European Union have decided to phase out their nuclear plants over the next fifth ten, really, ten years. [COUGH] in France, I think the last plant will, will, will, will shut down around 2021. >> So what causes all these accidents? >> You know, the cu, you know, if you went out and asked, I think the population, it would say well, the plants are too old, getting old. I mean and even when Chernobyl happened public opinion was that well, you know, the Russians didn't know how to handle it. They don't have the the technology et cetera, et cetera, when plant was too old. That model was not, not any good that's false. The, the Russian plant and Chernobyl is still the model that is being used and not dissimilar to others in, in other countries. But the main reason for this is not the age of the plants. As a matter of fact, the last five nuclear accidents were all in plants that were less than three to five years of age. The real reasons are accidents, preventable accidents. And, and if you you know, the studies show really out of nature by an author named Butler. Has looked at this and other problems certainly there's a training problem, training of the, of, of the workforce has not been adequate. [COUGH] the the maintenance, the quality of maintenance of the, of the plants could be better. There's been a, a competencies eh, of, in question related to accidents of, of, of the operators but also complacency of the workforce. It's a boring, boring job. For the most part for those people who made it a career, they'll say gee, nothing ever after, you know, crisis event is ever great. And then of course the lack of oversight regulations are really it. Those are, those are the things that lead to the problems that we have had recently. However, there are also naturally occurring events, and that applies to us in the United States. In the midwest we we've certainly have had we have a number of plants but they're close to rivers. And we've had increasing flooding and will have increasing, more and more flooding. And, and the example certainly one that comes to mind immediately is the Fort Calhoun Station in Nebraska, which came within six inches of, of being flooded and then a melt down right. I would say that most of the, the population didn't even know that ever happened, okay? The other thing is which is very critical is, is the risk of earthquakes. And of our 211 plants that we have 25 are really at risk of collapse of an earthquake and they're in earthquake zones. And that's also in the midwest too, so midwest is sort of a hotspot for for possible nuclear threats from, from from the plants. >> What do we know about the effects of a nuclear meltdown, and what are the long-term effects of radiation exposure? >> Very good question because you know, being a health care provider and you were rushed to go to the library, the Internet, and say what, you know what wou, what should I know about it? Well the information that you're going to have is actually from World War II and, and Nagasaki and eh, Hiroshima. And it was primarily the leukemia, you know, the burn issues and whatever. But then the leukemias, but long-term solid tumor kinds of effects. But that's, that's from the acute. Quite honestly, we do not know what the long-term health effect's going to be from low, long-term low low dose radiation. We just do not know that at, at all. And so there's, there's still a big knowledge gap. >> What are the threats of nuclear energy in the United States and what have we done to prepare, and what more do we need to do? >> I, the expectations are that there is a capability of taking care of these events. And when you do, do some surveys on that the population will say well military has that expertise. Well military does not have that expertise nor they have the, the, the manpower to do it. Remember their obligations in these situations. Certainly an attack mode is to protect their, their force, okay? But with a nuclear meltdown, certainly they would be called the National Guard we call, but they're not being trained necessarily in doing this. >> What sort of risks are there globally and what have we done to prepare globally? >> I think lessons learned not just for the United States, but for global-wise, is that there is, there is a certain degree of mass denial that there would be any particular event. And we haven't had the uncomfortable, but real [COUGH] exercises either nationally or certainly globally to, to deal with this. And, and certainly we saw this in Fukushima. Fukushima certainly was an outlier because certainly they had the, the, the earthquake and then, [COUGH] and then they had the tsunami. And, and that problem still exists. The problem of reactive form is still there. And and if it's not dealt with or something happens to it that's really swinging in the air there we could have a melt down. And it could be a, a global catastrophe. So that's, that remains a problem. And so it has revealed that we do not necessarily have the national expertise, or for that matter, the coordination between policy and politicians and the scientists to deal with these things. And I think that's one of the lessons learned also globally that applies to every nation. >> Thanks for joining me today. Definitely a lot of food for thought and very enlightening.