Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Attempts to Cool Daiichi Reactors; Union Calls for New Trade Model

Aired March 17, 2011 - 14:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

ALI VELSHI, CNN ANCHOR: Right to Japan.

Bring up the water, hook up the power. Those are the two main strategies for bringing down the heat and, therefore, the danger at the nuclear plant that incredibly has overshadowed the natural disasters in Japan.

Witness this the sheer act of desperation, Japanese helicopters trying to douse a super-hot reactor building, reactor number 3, at Fukushima Daiichi. They've dropped 7.5 tons of seawater in each of four runs over 40 minutes, and they appear to have accomplished very little, other than to expose the crews to radiation.

After that, fire trucks tried to hose the building down. And that is supposed to continue through the night. When that's done, workers plan to reconnect electricity at reactor number 2.

Now, that's a new detail that we are just learning. Electricity runs the pumps that keeps water circulating and keeps those fuel rods at stable temperatures, but that electricity was knocked out by the tsunami. Those backup pumps were knocked out by the tsunami.

I want you to see what those sprayers and air drops are aiming at. Not the reactor core itself, which is in the center of this picture, but the pool that houses the rods. It's on the right.

Those rods don't generate power, but they are still radioactive. When the pool runs dry, or merely low, those rods overheat. And we've seen what can happen after that, fires and explosions. The worst-case scenario is a meltdown, which, let's be clear, has not happened yet, at least not on a major scale, as far as we know.

We do know from the International Atomic Energy Agency that at least 20 people are believed to be suffering from radiation sickness. And the Japanese network NHK is reporting elevated radiation levels 20 miles from the plant, 30 kilometers, higher than we've seen at times in tap water, but not nearly as high as the air right around the plant.

Take a look at that. The plant is right in the center. Five kilometers -- sorry 10 kilometers, 6.2 miles is the evacuation zone. Beyond that, there's a 20-kilometer or 12.4-mile evacuation zone. That was what was expanded.

For 30 kilometers, or 18.6 miles, they're asking people to stay indoors. But for 50 miles, U.S. citizens are asked to leave. The U.S. and several other countries are telling their people to stay 50 miles away.

Now, the U.S. is also arranging or authorizing flights home for the families of diplomats and troops. We could be talking 20,000 people. There's a huge American presence in Japan.

And we are just getting word from our people in D.C. that President Obama's motorcade is at the Japanese Embassy. This is an unannounced visit.

We'll bring you details and pictures when they come in.

In a briefing last hour, the head of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said the crisis in Japan is, in his words, "very dynamic." Don't know what that means, but that's apparent even to non- engineers.

Just keeping track of everything is a challenge. But our CNN's Tom Foreman is on top of things in Washington. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: This is the closest picture we've had up until this point of what is essentially the battleground against these nuclear reactors. And look at the extent of the damage here.

Damage to the super structure here. Damage to the metal work in here. Damage to the piping down here.

You can see one of the challenges that these workers are facing is even if they can get electricity and water in here flowing in, plenty of supply, how do you get it where it belongs? How do you keep it in here? It's like pouring water into a cracked teacup.

Let's move beyond this though to look at the overall picture of what has happened here.

If you look at these reactors, number 1, over here, has had a tremendous amount of damage, hydrogen explosion early on. We move to number 2, they've had damage as well, an explosion, possible damage to the container itself.

Number 3, the one we were just looking at a moment ago, an explosion there, a possible structural tear. Important to note, this is the only one that actually has plutonium in it, in addition to uranium, which makes it much more dangerous in many ways.

And here's reactor number 4, the one we've been talking about so much. They've had explosions there, they've had fires there. And the real issue continues to be these rods right up in here, the spent storage rods, and whether or not they have been exposed with no water on them, nothing to protect them at all from the elements. If that's the case, if this water level has in fact, as U.S. officials think, drained completely off, you're talking about tremendous amounts of radiation coming out from here. Radiation so hot, you saw the helicopters flying over earlier trying to drop water on it. We measured it. They're roughly somewhere between 60 and 100 meters above this. That's how high they have to be away, because this radiation would potentially be lethal at 60 to 100 meters.

So, the simple truth is as, we look at this equation, one of the real fears is that we simply have such a hot zone in terms of radiation, that it's hard for the people who are trying to fight it to even get close. If they get close, they can't stay there along. And it's difficult to fight an enemy if you can't get up next to him and engage the battle.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

VELSHI: That couldn't be said better than that. You can't get close enough to it to really what has to be done.

CNN's Stan Grant, thankfully, is not that close to it. He's following the nuclear crisis moment by moment from Japan. He's in Tokyo.

First off, Stan, what can you tell us about these new plans we're hearing about to get power flowing again? That will certainly, certainly alleviate a lot of the stress.

STAN GRANT, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: They're hoping that will be a game-changer, Ali, if they can do that. You know, the whole problem started when the power was knocked out by the tsunami and then they had the backup generators. They failed as well, and that meant that the cooling system could no longer operate. That's when you had the overheating and what we've seen, what's happened since then.

What they're trying to do now is establish generators. If they can get those generators booted up, then maybe they can kick-start the cooling system again, and it gives them a better chance of actually being able to bring these reactors under control.

What they'll do then -- we're maybe getting ahead of ourselves, but if they can get them under control, they can get in, have a look at it, and ultimately shut them down and bring this crisis to an end. There are still several steps though before they get to that point. And if they can't get the generators going, they're going to have to rely on these water thanks and drops from helicopters, and that's going to take a lot longer -- Ali.

VELSHI: Stan, can we distinguish between the threat that is in the area immediately around the reactors and the threat everywhere else? Is this -- does this seem to be a problem outside of the area around the reactor?

GRANT: Not at the levels that we've seen, the radiation levels that we've seen. If you talk to most analysts, most scientists who study this sort of thing, they'll tell you that as it moves out into the atmosphere, it dissipates very quickly, but particularly the type of radiation that we've been seeing coming off there.

Now, while it reaches very high levels, and levels, as Tom pointed out, that can be hazardous to human health within the plant, by the time you move from the reactor to the plant gate, it's around about 100 feet. They drop markedly, and over time continue to go down.

So, by the time you go out to the end of the exclusion zone, you're talking about negligible amounts. But that's based on the data that we have and based on what we know now.

What we do not know is what would happen if it got a lot worse. And that's why you're talking about these contingencies, pushing back the exclusion zone, moving 200,000 people from their homes, as they have done. And the suggestion coming from the United States, that American citizens say 50 miles away. That's a contingency plan for the worst-case scenario -- Ali.

VELSHI: All right, Stan. Thanks very much for continuing to keep us up to date on this.

Stan Grant is in Tokyo for us.

Here's our social media "Question of the Day." You'll notice I've done this for a couple of days because it's a big question.

Should nuclear power be used as a source of energy? Why or why not?

I've already had people say it's a stupid question. Well, you know what? Clearly, people are on opposite sides of this, so it's not that stupid.

Join the discussion on my blog, CNN.com/Ali. You can also post comments on my Facebook or my Twitter accounts. I'm happy to look at all of your comments. We'll put some of them on air.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: Every day I ask you a question, a social media question. I ask you to comment on Twitter or on Facebook or on my blog, CNN.com/Ali.

Once in a while we hit on a question that just gets more responses than anything. If you go to either my Facebook page, Facebook.com/AliVelshiCNN, or you put my name into Twitter, @AliVelshi, or you go to CNN.com/Ali, you'll see the range of opinions on this.

We asked you: "Should nuclear power be used as a source of energy? Why or why not?"

Just a few examples of what I've heard. Christian writes, "Absolutely! Don't let the coal lobby hijack this disaster as a means to prevent the advancement of nuclear power in the United States."

Angel Victoria agrees. She says, "Yes, of course. What is happening in Japan ultimately will give the world much safer measures and technology to prevent like disasters."

Ruth says, "I am opposed to nuclear energy and always will be. As far as I know, an ideal way to dispose of radioactive waste has never been determined."

And this from Dr. Jewel: "No! We've known of the dangers of nuclear for years. Now the worst fears are being realized."

You can still join the conversation. I've told you, I always read everything that's posted. I read every tweet, every Facebook posting.

Go to CNN.com/Ali. Go to Twitter: @AliVelshi; or Facebook, AliVelshiCNN.

The head of the AFL-CIO says workers problems are bigger than just the attacks on collective bargaining. We need a brand new global trade strategy. I'm going to talk to Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO on the other side of this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: Whether it's Egypt, Tunisia, or Wisconsin, it is time for a new path forward for workers, a trade model that highlights domestic economic growth for American workers but also gives more economic security for workers in other parts of the world. Well, that's according to Richard Trumka. He's the president of the AFL- CIO, and that is the message he delivered to the Council on Foreign Relations barely an hour ago.

Richard, good to see you. Thank you for being on my show again.

RICHARD TRUMKA, PRESIDENT, AFL-CIO: Thanks for having me on again. I appreciate it.

VELSHI: All right.

Richard, first of all, let's go back to Wisconsin and these fights in the Midwest that we have called an attack on collective bargaining, or some people have. Let's just talk about this.

Very few of America's workers compared to 50 years ago are unionized. Most of them are in the public service. There's some sense on the part of some people that they -- "they," meaning unionized workers -- get a sweeter deal than those in the private sector.

First of all, your response to that? TRUMKA: Well, first of all, it's not accurate. If you look at Wisconsin, the public workers there make much less than their private sector workers do, their counterparts. And if you have a degree, it's as much as 25 to 30 percent less.

See, this wasn't about budget deficits or anything else. It was about Scott Walker and a couple other governors around the country really trying to pay back their corporate donors, people like the Koch brothers, who have put in over $1 billion in the last election. This is about payback to them and about weakening workers' ability to come together and bargain collectively for a middle class way of life.

VELSHI: OK. Now, let's talk about this other issue you're discussing.

You are saying -- let's put this problem aside of the state battles on unionized workers. You're saying the problem about workers in this country has got to do with our trade policy.

Give us some details on that.

TRUMKA: Well, first of all, that's part of it, because you have workers all over the world that are demanding good jobs, they're demanding a say at work, and they're demanding a say in the policies that affect their economies. You just talked about Egyptian workers talking to American workers in Wisconsin.

What we have right now is a fragmented policy that hasn't been working. We've been losing jobs, we have a trade deficit that is sucking a lot of jobs out of the country. And what we need is a coherent national economic policy that brings together everything -- tax policy, immigration policy, infrastructure, so that we can build an economy that does two things: helps us create jobs here at home, and then helps us with our trading partners create jobs where they are, as well.

VELSHI: Tell me the top three things we should do, Richard. What are the top three things we should do to achieve a trade policy that you think is more fair to workers everywhere?

TRUMKA: Embed in it all the other policies that affect job creation. And change this. The top thing would be these trade agreements that we've had in the past have been geared towards corporate profits. They ought to be geared towards job creation on both sides of the border.

We ought to select our trading partners carefully. You can't go to Colombia, for instance, and do a trade agreement when they assassinated 51 officials or union members last year -- union officials last year. So select our partners carefully, have jobs as the mainstay rather than multinational profits, because the interests of multinationals has diverged from the interests of this country, and we need to realign them.

VELSHI: Although, ultimately, we need these companies to make money in order to continue to hire people. TRUMKA: Absolutely. And we would encourage that. But we can have trade deals and a national economic policy that reward them and reward workers, as well.

It's not either/or. We're not saying don't trade. We want to trade, but we want trade to create jobs on both sides of that border, and not just increase profits for multinational corporations.

VELSHI: Richard, let me ask you this. One of the things -- going back to Wisconsin, going back to unions and public service unions, this is a particular issue with teachers, but it applies to many unions. One of the things that a lot of Americans think is unfair, particularly after this recession we've gone through, is this idea of your job being protected because of seniority or tenure.

Why can't we move to more of a meritocracy even for union members, to say the best keep their jobs, the worst get fired?

TRUMKA: Well, first of all, you should be rewarding longevity because there's experience. I mean, you can't divorce it from that. And no one can say that seniority is the problem.

Look, there are three or four things in education that affect the outcome. One is the quality of the teacher. So we ought to be working to improve the quality of our teachers by giving them the best training and retraining.

Second of all is parental involvement. If you don't have parental involvement, the best teacher in the world is not going to be able to get consistently good outcomes.

And the third thing is resources. If we don't properly resource our education system, you can't put 40 kids in a classroom and expect the best teacher in the world to have good outcomes.

And then the next thing is we have to have continual learning and skills training for our people so that we continue to improve their skills every single year, and then we as a country grow.

VELSHI: Richard, good to talk to you, as always. Thanks for joining us. We'll continue these discussions.

Richard Trumka is the president of the AFL-CIO.

Well, we've talked about water being dropped on a Japanese nuclear reactor in an attempt to cool things down. Coming up next, we'll take you inside the reactor. Not literally, but we will show you what it's like inside the reactor and explain exactly what needs to happen to stop this crisis.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: OK. When I told you on the other side of this break that we're going to go take you inside the reactor, what I think most of you understood is that Chad is our guy who's really figuring out what's going on. It's been a continuous effort today to try and cool reactor number 3 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant that we're talking about.

Tell us about what's going on here.

CHAD MYERS, CNN METEOROLOGIST: I had no idea the NRC Web site literally had this much information.

VELSHI: Right.

MYERS: If you want to go to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and figure out everything, where we get all of our information, there it is.

This is reactor number 3 before a hydrogen explosion blew the roof off. The actual part that the hydrogen blew the roof off is actually now a benefit, because they were able to drop water from the outside. With the roof being completely solid, there would be no way to get water in there without putting men and women in here.

Now, they are not dropping water to try to get these core fuel rods cool. That's where they're pumping in the saltwater, the seawater from someplace else. What they're doing and why they were doing these drops -- and we showed you pictures of these all day and all night -- is because the pool where the spent rods are kept has been going down and the water is boiling out. There's no pump to --

(CROSSTALK)

VELSHI: They're hot, they're heating this water up, and there's less and less water in there.

MYERS: There's not a pump to pump the water back in there. So because they lost that, they took these helicopters and they flew them around.

VELSHI: Yes. You see it there.

MYERS: Big helicopters. Well, that's what they were trying to hit. How much water went in that?

VELSHI: Yes. I mean, that's -- wow. And there's a lot of water that they're dumping into it, but most of it is clearly missing.

MYERS: That was a sprinkle.

VELSHI: Yes.

MYERS: That was literally nothing. One got a little bit closer. I think they were trying to get on four here a little bit. But still, OK, every drop, they're talking about 7.5 tons.

VELSHI: Right.

MYERS: What does that mean? Seventeen hundred to 1,800 gallons of water.

VELSHI: Right. Defused like that. MYERS: If you're spreading it up here, you can't even put a forest fire out with that.

VELSHI: Right. But they can't get these guys closer because there's radiation.

MYERS: Guess what? There's that hot dome of radiation. The closer you get, the higher amount of radiation you're going to get.

So they kept them away. It wasn't successful. And the wind was blowing the water away. So it just wasn't successful.

Now let's move on to the next thing, what they did. They said OK, this isn't going to work, let's bring in some trucks.

VELSHI: Right. Which, again, you have to get a whole lot closer.

MYERS: Yes. Here they are. And they're bringing them in every two minutes. Bring them in, shoot the water in, turn them around.

VELSHI: We saw a video. They were just lined up.

MYERS: Go. Shoot the water in, you've got to go, because they are so close. These guys are getting zapped.

Now, they did line the helicopter with lead, and they were also wearing special suits. I assume they probably --

(CROSSTALK)

VELSHI: Right. Somebody just asked me that that on social media, "Why don't they wear special suits?" They were.

MYERS: Absolutely, they were.

And then, finally, we have some pictures of what the trucks really looked like as they were setting them up.

VELSHI: Right. This is what we saw.

MYERS: They were close, but not close enough to really get a lot of the radiation here. They took them out, they sent them in, and they sprayed the water in.

Let's hope the water went in the pool and just not hit the building and fell off someplace else, because --

VELSHI: All right. Well, credit for continuing to try to get this thing under control. Thanks, Chad.

MYERS: The power -- getting the power back on is going to be big, big, big.

VELSHI: Yes. And they're working toward that right now.

MYERS: It's only going to fix number 2, but it's big.

VELSHI: Right. OK. All right, Chad. Thanks very much.

We'll stay on top of this. This is great. It really helped clarify it.

Listen, one of the most beautiful drives anywhere has been marred by a very big detour. A highway slides into the sea, literally. I'll tell you that and some other stories you might have missed on the other side of this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: It is nearly 3:30 in the morning in Japan, where fears rise and fall along with radiation levels. It's been another frantic day of activity at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

As you can see there, military choppers scooped up loads of seawater to dump them on failing reactors, with fire trucks and police water cannon added to the mix. Their goal is to keep those reactors and some spent fuel rods from overheating and releasing huge amounts of radiation. The effort has apparently not gone to waste. A senior official at the International Atomic Energy Agency calls the situation "reasonably stable" at the moment compared to yesterday.

Just in the past hour, President Obama made an unannounced visit to the Japanese embassy in Washington. He filled a page and condolence book there and spoke with the ambassador and briefly to reporters.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: My main purpose in being here is to communicate how heartbroken the American people are over this tragedy. We are doing everything we can to stand by our great friend and ally Japan in this hour of need. Our deepest sympathies, our thoughts and prayers are with the families of those who have been lost.

We feel a great urgency to provide assistance to those who have been displaced from their homes who are suffering enormously at this moment. But as I said on the first day of this tragedy, I am confident that Japan will rebuild.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELSHI: President Obama is going to speak about the disaster in about an hour. When he does, we'll bring it to you live from the Rose Garden.

Now to some other stories you might have missed. A giant chunk of road has slid into the Pacific Ocean in Big Sur, California. Our affiliate - look at these pictures! Our affiliate, KION, tells us at least 125 feet of Highway 1 is just gone. People driving nearby had to abandon their cars and walk to more stable ground. No confirmed cause yet. The highway patrol suspects it's erosion, not seismic activity, but do say the road could be closed for months.

The House is expected to vote shortly on a bill to defund NPR. It follows Tuesday's vote to strip $50 million in funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. During the debate on the floor today, the Republican sponsor of the bill said the broadcaster needs it remove taxpayers from the equation. Democrats accuse the GOP of basing the bill on ideology, not savings.

All of this comes in the wake of a video that showed an NPR executive apparently making controversial remarks about the Tea Party. The video was later shown to be heavily edited.

In Haiti, former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide is expected to return to the country after seven years in exile. His return comes two days ahead of a highly anticipated national election. CNN has confirmed he's scheduled to fly out of South Africa tonight, accompanied by his lawyer and Hollywood actor Danny Glover, a supporter of Aristide. Aristide left the country following a coup in 2004.

Currently, tsunami warnings really only benefit places far away from the event that caused it. So, what more can we do to help places closest to the precipitating event? I'll talk to someone who will tell us right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: A tsunami is a series of waves commonly caused by underwater earthquakes. Take a look at this picture. That's basically it. The earthquake comes up there, forms this big wave. That wave has got all sorts of energy in it, and that's what we know as a tsunami.

Now, while the seismic data comes in minutes, that only gives adequate warning of a tsunami to places far enough away from the event to prepare. Bruce Parker is the author of "The Power of the Sea: Tsunamis, Storm Surges, Rogue Waves and Our Quest to Predict Disasters." And Brude has some ideas about how better to figure out when a tsunami is going to occur and how to deal with it.

Bruce, tell me what you're thinking.

BRUCE PARKER, AUTHOR: Well, just to kind of clarify what you just said, they should understand that yes, indeed, as you said, the seismic, energy reaching seismometers, thousands of them around the world, allow them to triangulate and fix the location of the earthquake very quickly. And if it's underneath the ocean, then the next question is, did it create a tsunami because most of them actually don't. And if you give warnings just for --

And so, they then have to have these dart buoys or real-time tide gauges and actually sense a tsunami to know for sure it happened. And at that point, as you say, they do an excellent job and put all the data into numerical models and they can predict very accurately.

Well, when you have an epicenter that's 80 miles off Japan or in the case of the 2004, 50 miles of Sumatra, it means, like, a 30-minute warning at best, even if you knew for sure that that earthquake was causing a tsunami. And 15 minutes in Sumatra. So, that leaves virtually no time at all.

Then you're really depending on the tsunami awareness of the population living there. Sumatra, there was no awareness. 200,000 people died. In Japan, they've been trained for years on this. So, when they first saw the sea recede or even before that when they just felt the constant shaking for 30 seconds, they ran to rooftops, they tried to get out of there. But you know, 30 minutes is virtually no time for a lot of them to escape.

So, that really leaves us stuck with this earthquake prediction and where we stand on that. And to be honest, we're not doing well with that at all.

VELSHI: OK, so you're saying the best way to deal with prediction of tsunamis is to just be better at predicting earthquakes. How good are we at that?

PARKER: We're not good at all. And, of course, there's other benefits certainly (ph) would have helped. Haiti or any other place, an earthquake kills you know, many. Hundreds of thousands of people. There is certainly research and ideas, and people put very complicated instruments down mine shafts. And if an earthquake happens they try to sense if something was detected that would give them a hint it happened.

But it's really one of those areas of science, you say OK, you always throw money at things. But at some point, the human intellect is going to figure this out. And we certainly need to speed up that process. So, I certainly would think that more money into earthquake prediction would be crucial.

Now, I'd also say that you know, it's not quite just two hours to maybe 20 hours, but the Tsunami Warning Center, for example, can give advance warnings from about that 30 minutes on. So there, they also probably need more dart buoys to do even a better job on that intermediate forecast, as well.

VELSHI: All right. That's a good way to look at it, Bruce. Thanks very much for bringing us some of these ideas. It's a good explanation.

Bruce Parker is the author of "The Power of the Sea: Tsunamis, Storm Surges, Rogue Waves and Our Quest to Predict Disasters."

Well, acting as Japan's last defense against a nuclear meltdown, Fukushima Daiichi workers are exposed to dangerously high levels of radiation. Our Carl Azuz joins us next to tell us about these heroes and what they're going through.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: In today's "Big Breakdown," we're breaking down the risks that Fukushima Daiichi workers are facing as they fight to prevent a nuclear meltdown in Japan. Not much is known about these workers, but their bravery is remarkable given how little protection they have.

CNN's Carl Azuz is following the dangers they're facing. Carl, what is it about these workers that gives people hope?

CARL AZUZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I would say it's two things, Ali. I would say it's their knowledge and courage. These people are Japan's first nuclear responders. So, these are folks who have experience working around nuclear reactors. They're engineer, experts at reading is nuclear levels, radiation levels.

And so they know full well the risks they're dealing with. They know that radiation exposure can lead to cancer down the line or more imminent radiation sickness. They understand fully what they're going into in this. They're putting their lives on the line anyway. And I think that underscores why so many people see them as heroes.

VELSHI: All right. What's their protection? What levels of protection do they have?

AZUZ: They have a lot of equipment that provides surprisingly little protection. Want to start off with their suits. They're wearing full body hazardous material suits head to toe. Covers their hands, face, they have everything.

But there's just not a lot of barrier. When radiation is on those suits, it's being absorbed by their body. They have oxygen thanks, respirators to help them breathe. They're also - they're carrying with them radiation detectors so they know how bad radiation levels are.

VELSHI: That's heartening. They know exactly how much they're getting hit by. How much are they getting? Give me a sense of radiation levels relative to what's safe.

AZUZ:: They're bouncing up and down. What I can tell you is that on average, you and I -- we talked a little while ago about how we get three milliseiverts. That's a unit of measurement for radiation. Americans get three milliseiverts of radiation per year. Now, for the American nuclear worker, levels are set at 50 milliseiverts a year. That's considered an upper threshold of what's safe.

Now, what we've seen in Japan is around at the highest part about 400 milliseiverts in the space of an hour. So, you're looking at if we're getting three a year and when these radiation levels spike, they're getting 400 an hour. We know that while it's not levels where you see radiation sickness is possible there, at 1,000 millisieverts, these could lead to problems down the road, which might include cancer. And the workers are fully aware of this, Ali.

VELSHI: And they're still going in there. I mean, we have to remember the bravery of those guys on those fire trucks and in the helicopters going and doing what they're told to do, but they're exposing themselves to potential danger. Carl, thanks very much. Carl Azuz.

Two days and no word from four New York Times journalists. Lynsey Addario is among the missing. I'll talk to her husband in an exclusive interview up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: "The New York Times" is still trying to figure out the whereabouts of four missing journalists covering the conflict in Libya. Editors say they have not heard from Anthony Shadid, Stephen Farrell, Tyler Hicks and Lynsey Addario since Tuesday morning. They'd been reporting from the eastern city of Ajdabiya. The Times executive editor says the paper has been in contact with the Libyan government and they were assured the four would be released promptly if they had been captured.

There is speculation that they were detained at a government checkpoint, but the paper hasn't been able to confirm that. Joining me live now in an exclusive interview is Lynsey Addario's husband, Paul De Bendern. He's also the New Delhi bureau chief for the Reuters news organization.

Paul, thanks for being with us. When did you last hear from Lynsey?

PAUL DE BENDERN, LYNSEY ADDARIO'S HUSBAND: Hi, Ali. I last heard from her on Tuesday, which is about midday Libyan time. You know, it's very hard the communications to get through, but sometimes you can get through on a local number. And I spoke to her, and she said she was get ready to leave with Tyler and the team because it was getting dodgy.

Now, they weren't near the front lines or anything, but you know, there was obviously speculation that the Libyan troops were approaching the town. So, they were getting ready to leave. And she was going to check back with me in the evening. Obviously, you know, she didn't. I didn't hear from her and then later on in the day, I heard from other colleagues from The Times that can nobody had been able to get in touch with her.

VELSHI: Paul, we can't obviously begin to imagine what you're feeling and the uncertainty and the anxiety. But the bottom line is, Lynsey's not new to this game. She's actually been captured before and she certainly spends most of her life - or much of her professional life on the front lines.

DE BENDERN: Yes, that's true. She's kept me awake definitely quite a few nights sleepless. You know? Worried.

But she does a job that she loves doing. She is very experienced, you know. She's covered a lot of war zones. She knows what she's doing. She is very careful. She doesn't take unnecessary risks. And so she has been through this. And you know, it is obviously, you know, it's tough. It's tough to now, you know, to sit here and not know, you know, what has happened. I think, you know, the thing is that she's a very courageous woman. And I'm a very, very proud husband. And I think you know, I may be a bit one-sided given that I am her husband, but she is an incredible woman. And she has a sensitivity of the story and she believes that you know, it is very important to report on conflict, on human suffering, on women issues around the world. And she's done it for quite a long time now. And I support her and I always have, you know, very much for that.

VELSHI: Wow. I interviewed her after her essay -- photo essay exploring the lives of Afghanistan and its women. She did that for National Geographic in December 2010.

And I have to ask you, there are a lot of people watching saying why does she step into these things? Why does anybody step into these things? Why do these journalists put themselves in harm's way? And the argument always is there's a greater goal. There's a purpose that one serves.

Her purpose has been recognized. She was part of a New York Times team to win a Pulitzer Prize. She named one of the 20 women on Oprah Winfrey's power list. What was her driving force - what is her driving force that gets her to continue to go into dangerous situations?

DE BENDERN: I mean, I think it, you know, she feels it's very important to document these issues that happen around the world. And it requires a lot of risk, obviously, it requires going into very -- into dangerous places. I think she feels that she -- she you know, through her lens, she can show, you know, the human suffering, the upside is, the downsides, the beauty. And she has this ability to connect with people.

And I think she also feels very strongly that it's very important to tell Americans about what is happening, whether it's you know, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Middle East, et cetera. And the same for the world. And I think she has a unique ability.

She is a very sane person, you know, believe it or not, compared to a lot of other photojournalists. She's funny. She's very good at communicating. And I think she believes that she has this, you know, the skill and needs to do it.

She doesn't just report on you know, embeds and being on the front line. She does a lot of things, like for example in Afghanistan, she covered the burn victims, women who burn themselves in Afghanistan. And she feels very passionate about it. I mean, she's in a hospital and if they don't have any money to you know, to buy the bandages or something, she gives her money. I mean, she is very involved. I think she believes very strongly in it.

So, it's hard pulling her away from some of these things. I try, but you know, with limited success.

VELSHI: Well, when you hear from her next, what are you going to say to her? DE BENDERN: I'm going to say, you've got to come back here because we've got to have kids, you know? That's my -- I've been trying to you know to get her to come back.

So -- but I believe in what she does. I'm very positive that she will come back fine. She's a very strong woman. She's funny. And you've spoken to her. And the other team members as well are very experienced. You know? And I think that is the four of them will come back fine.

I mean, the message I would give is that they were reporting is the conflict there, you know, unbiased. They were covering hospitals, the front line, everything. You know, I appeal to Moammar Gadhafi and his son and the others to find them and to bring them back safely and to bring my Lynsey back here.

VELSHI: An attack on journalists is an attack on the truth. And the truth prevails. You see her again, Paul. We will celebrate when you hear from them and the return of all four of those New York Times journalists. Our thoughts are with you and with Lynsey and the three other New York Times journalists.

Paul De Bendern, Lynsey Addario's husband. New Delhi bureau chief for Reuters, joining me from New Delhi.

Let me shift our focus a little as to whether the four missing journalists are possible game changers in the U.S. getting involved in the Libyan conflict. I'm joined now by host of CNN's "RELIABLE SOURCES," Howard Kurtz in Washington and CNN senior international correspondent Nic Robertson in Tripoli, Libya.

Nic, let's start with you. You're our version of Lynsey Addario. You find yourself the fastest route to anything bad that's happening in the world to be able to report on it. At some point, you and your family do think about the dangers that you get into. Is this a bit of a game-changer that there are four journalists missing in Libya?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It is, and the four of them will know it as well, that it's always on your mind when you go into these situations. And the situation that they're in is a very, very fluid situation. They will have all known that. And I think we all foe that and we all make the calculations when we go into these situations and take -- and make decisions that we hope are the safe and right decisions.

But when things are really fluid, it's hard to keep up. And we were very lucky. A week-and-a-half, two weeks ago, we got out to Zawiyah, where there was a battle going on and got very close to the front line, close enough you to have shots winging past us and got back. Yet, 24 other journalists that day were arrested trying to do the same thing. Three of them from the BBC were detained and subject to a mock execution and were held for almost a day. Another journalist in the country was held for two weeks when he was picked up in Zawiyah.

So, it's always at the back after your mind. Sometimes there's a little bit of luck on your side and sometimes the luck lasts for a long time. And sometimes it runs out, and you may get stopped. Ours ran out last week when we were picked up trying to cover anti- government demonstrations here.

What's really bad about that, and I bring that to this discussion now about these four New York Times journalists -- when we got back, we were brought back at gunpoint to our low tell. Our producer, Tommy Evans was kicked. But our taxi driver, completely innocent, was taken away. We were told the next day he was released.

These are the same people who tell us now that the New York Times team, they haven't been able to find them. And if they are found, they will be treated well and brought back here to Tripoli. We were told that he had been released, our taxi driver. I just found out today, six days later, he is still -- still in government detention. And he did nothing wrong. He just picked us up. That gives you an idea about how the rhetoric fails to match the reality here, Ali.

VELSHI: Howard, I think I probably know what you're going to say to this. It is riskier for journalists out there covering international conflicts than it's been before. Maybe not even than it's been before, but it's risky. Is it worth the risk for the message that they get out to the rest of the world?

HOWARD KURTZ, CNN HOST, "RELIABLE SOURCES": You know, it is absolutely beneficial to the rest of us because courageous journalists - an we take this for granted too often, Ali -- are willing to put themselves in harm's way. We've seen that in Egypt. We've seen that in Iraq. We've seen it in Afghanistan.

I know Anthony Shadid. This is a guy who was shot nine years ago in the West Bank covering the conflict there. Keeps going back into war situations.

What's troubling here obviously is the lack of information. If they were detained, I have no doubt the U.S. could win their release. But even when, you kno, we had Laura Logan beaten and sexually assaulted in Cairo and other journalists as well, it doesn't seem to deter those who you maybe there's a little bit of the adrenaline that war junkies have. But at the same time, they're drawn to tell a story under difficult circumstances.

And I -- my hat is off. A lot of people are armchair warriors in our business. They prosecute wars from TV studio. These people go to the front lines.

VELSHI: OK. I want to know about the difference it makes. Both of you stay right there. Howard Kurt, Nic Robertson in Libya. Howard in D.C.

Stay right there. We're going to come back and discuss whether or not that risk actually makes a difference and helps people.

(COMMERICAL BREAK)

VELSHI: I've got a minute left in the show. There are four New York Times journalists reported missing in Libya while trying to cover the story. I've got Nic Robertson in Libya and I've got Howard Kurt in D.C.

I want to go to you, Nic. Are these risks -- we discussed whether they're worth it. Do they have an impact? Will things change by journalists taking risk to get the outside world the story of things that are happening in Libya or anywhere else? Nic?

ROBERTSON: Ali, it's a harder question to answer in that amount of time. What I will say is, it might look to people who sit in armchairs that people do this as some kind of adrenaline fix. It's not. I mean, everyone that does this is way beyond that. Anyone who's done this for a number of years is way beyond anything like that.

People do this because have a passion. We heard from Lynsey's other half there describing that. We do it, and my colleagues here do it and the New York Times team do it because they have a passion to bring the story to people, because they really do believe that it can make a difference. And I do believe that.

Imagine if we weren't here informing people. What would we know? What informed decisions in our daily lives would we be able to take, what pressure would we be able bring to bear on politicians? Yes, we make a difference. Sometimes it's marginal and may not even be tangible. We do make a difference, Ali.

VELSHI: All right. That does answer the question about making it worthwhile.

Howard, thanks for joining us. Nic, you stay safe out there with every other journalist who's working ou in the world, trying to bring us these stories. Thanks to both of you.

That's it for me. Brooke Baldwin takes over now with NEWSROOM. Brooke?