0 closed. earlier this morning, new york city broke a 118-year-old record with a low temperature of 4 degrees, minus 17 with the windchill. and standing by outside our studios in midtown manhattan to tell us how it feels. i was watching you on new year s eve. it is 9 degrees on my phone here, but if you look at that map you just showed, sean, negative six degrees with the wind. this is the sean hannity wet t-shirt contest, it s the conservative version. when did you do that? earlier. this bucket is full of water, we have our fox news t-shirt. it doesn t take long for the jokes begin, major counter reality. it s just like, if you like your plan you can keep it, any fool could see you were going to lose it. they claimed the opposite, they re doing our work for us. i have to be honest, how do we believe the same people that were predicting a couple decades ago that the next ice age is coming. it seems they ve lost correct. and we have scientists that were caught making up data
0 it s close. temperatures continue to hit historic lows, it seems the freezing cold weather is getting some liberals, especially those on the peacock network. al sharpton got all dressed up to slam fox news. watch this. these right wingers are boiling over with denial. because it snows in winter doesn t mean the planet isn t getting warmer. it doesn t take much for the folks at fox to hit the melting point, the results of tonight s experiment to end. we reduce the right wing could use a new talking point. sharpton puts on his wife lab coat. his colleague is using the weather as a metaphor. not everyone can control their employment situation. not only can we stop the wind from blowing, we can t stop the republicans from being heartless and cruel. yeah, heartless and cruel. it didn t end there. the left wing lunatic goes on to blame the cold weather. cold weather on what? nothing else but global warming. what s your analysis of this cold snap? is it climate change? the
chernobyl was a bad accident. it had, we estimate, 36,000 people killed by the radioactivity. if they didn t evacuate here, and if the worst possible thing happens, then the number would be 400 people, not i m not talking about the workers, the people who are there risking their lives to prevent this from happening. i m saying if everything goes wrong, then the estimate is that 400 people would eventually contract cancer, assuming there was no evacuation. best guess right now sunday the worst circumstances zero deaths from this. juan: okay. the fact is right now as we are talking zero deaths. but, howard, you are saying, you know what? the risk is too great. it might be minimal risk. the radiation might not be great as we are just hearing from howard, but you say still too much of a risk. i think absolutely the risk is there. i mean, we are obviously seeing this from environmental standpoint. 400 people may be nothing compared to chernobyl. the risk is still there. we don t know
situation really is. joining us to help us sort out fact from fiction are physicist richard muriel in san francisco and howard gould who exposes the expansion of nuclear energy. richard, we heard that some of the fall-out now is actually going to reach california. we re told the radiation threat is minimal but aren t you scared? not in the slightest. we can detect exceedingly low levels of radiation because we have exquisitely sensitive instruments. the levels that will reach here will be so minuscule that there is really no danger whatsoever in the united states. juan: on you mean to say it doesn t matter? i can t believe it doesn t matter. i think it doesn t matter. when the levels are so small that it takes these instruments to detect them, we re talking here about micrograms. this is less than you get from a tooth x-ray.
over the neighboring city. yeah, nuclear power has some dangers. but compared to the tsunami, we re really not talking about big dangers here, when howard refers to 400 deaths. that s 400 deaths if they had not evacuated. in the worst case, if the nuclear reactor actually blows, then we will get 400 deaths with no evacuation. but that has already happened. we expect zero deaths even under the worst case. this reactor was designed to accommodate a meltdown and to juan: let me let howard respond to that. i think that the idea is even that we are in this situation, we are talking about radiation traveling to the united states. whether or not it does any damage, this still a major issue that we are dealing with here. juan: are you using this for a political agenda then because you are opposed to nuclear power in principle? no, it s not that i m opposed to nuclear power in principle. i think that even from a