Running Head: NUCLEAR ENERGY IN MOVIES

Nuclear Energy in Movies: Savior and Harm Concept and Position Paper Julius Rey D. Baniqued University of the Philippines

NUCLEAR ENERGY IN MOVIES Abstract

Movies that show discussions about nuclear energy present nuclear energy either as a harm or as a savior. Many events in the history triggered how they present nuclear energy. However, exhibiting nuclear energy as a harm is more justified than presenting it as a movie because it considers the concerns of the public about the use and safety of nuclear energy and it can be considered as a challenge to improve the ways of using nuclear energy. Keywords: nuclear energy, movies

NUCLEAR ENERGY IN MOVIES Nuclear Energy in Movies: Savior and Harm Movies present controversial issues about nuclear energy such as its uses, its possible harm, and its effects on living things, especially on humans. Many of these

issues are shown in genres such as science fiction, action, and superhero movies. They show images such as normal animals that were transformed into monsters, humans who achieved superpowers, invulnerable mutants, and deformed humans who eats other humans; all due to nuclear radiation. Though far from reality, movies show scenes about nuclear energy because of either of the two agenda: to present nuclear energy as a savior or to present nuclear energy as a harm. Many events in the history triggered the ways nuclear energy is presented in movies. Nuclear energy is presented as a savior 1) to justify the utopia promised by nuclear energy, 2) to support the war motives of a certain country, and 3) to promote race supremacy. On the other hand, nuclear energy is presented as a harm 1) to protest against war because of the results of World War II, 2) to promote fear of a next world war, a probable nuclear war, and 3) to protest against the use of nuclear power plants because of the accidents involving it. These two agendas of the presentation of nuclear energy in movies influence us on how we perceive nuclear energy. However, presenting nuclear energy as a harm in movies is more justified than presenting nuclear energy as a savior because 1) the promise of nuclear energy to be a savior such as being a source of electric power and even political power carries also its possibility of being a harm, 2) compared to presenting nuclear as a savior, the presentation of nuclear energy as a harm not only presents its agenda of those but also addresses the issues regarding nuclear energy based on its history and its effects, and 3) exhibiting nuclear energy as a harm influences

NUCLEAR ENERGY IN MOVIES those who explore nuclear energy not to use it hastily, but rather perform more study about it to reduce the risks of using it.

The first agenda of movies with scenes which involves nuclear energy is to present it as a savior. Presenting nuclear energy as a savior in movies is influenced by the kind of thinking about nuclear energy, especially at the beginning of its exploration. In A World Set Free by H.G. Wells (1914), he predicted that the discovery and exploration of nuclear energy would result to nuclear utopia. In this nuclear utopia, everyone can satisfy all the material he/she wants because of nuclear energy which is cheap and almost unlimited. And if man's material wants were satisfied, then the world would become a more stable place (Weinberg, 1971). In Atomic Energy and Your Future by J. J. Nickson and Harrison Brown (1947), they presented the benefits of nuclear energy. First, it is used as a source of electric power. It is, in fact, a more efficient source of electric power. One pound of uranium is equivalent to three million pounds of coal (Rarney, 1973). Its production is also cheaper than the energy from coal and oil. In addition, its production does not depend on the geographic location which is beneficial for countries without access to readily available coals and fossil fuels. This implies that compared with coal and oil, nuclear energy promises an almost limitless source of electric power. The production of electric power by nuclear fission also have environmental benefits. It does not contribute to air pollution and global warming unlike the production of electric energy using coal or fossil fuels by combustion. Nuclear energy also contributes to the study of biology and medicine. Using reactors, one can identify the radioactivity of any chemical element which expands understanding in the sciences and solves problems involving the sciences.

NUCLEAR ENERGY IN MOVIES This concept of utopia influence how nuclear energy is presented in movies. Many

superhero movies show nuclear energy as the source of the characters superpowers. In these movies, a character in the movie is accidentally exposed to nuclear radiation which transforms him/her into a person with superpowers. Spiderman, Hulk, Fantastic Four, and Captain America are examples of these radiation-induced superheroes. The origin of Spidermans superpowers is a radiated spider which bit him. The Hulk gained his super strength from his exposure to a gamma radiation. The Fantastic Four gained their powers from a cloud of cosmic radiation in space. Captain America was a result of an experiment which involves radiation. In these movies, nuclear radiation seems to have a good effects on humans. These movies also present these radiation-affected humans as a savior of the people in the movie, a superhero. This notions implies that these movies present nuclear energy as a savior. Presenting nuclear energy as a savior in movies is also influenced by the war motives and the desire for race supremacy of a certain country. Aside from the benefits of nuclear energy in producing electric power, it also became a sign for economic and political power. In the 20th century, powerful countries like U.S., Britain, Japan, Germany, Sweden, and France explored nuclear energy and used nuclear weapons as a sign of their power over other nations. This sign of supremacy is shown in movies. An example is Watchmen. Dr. Manhattan, a man transformed into a nearly god-like being because of an accident in an intrinsic field experiment, became a representation of nuclear energy. In the movie, Dr. Manhattan is used by the U.S. to overpower its enemy countries like Vietnam and Russia. The movie shows that because Dr. Manhattan is with U.S., there is no way other countries can defeat them. This kind of representation about nuclear

NUCLEAR ENERGY IN MOVIES energy is also present in action movies. In these movies, the characters use nuclear weapons to defeat their enemies. James Bond films like Thunderball, Diamonds are Forever, The Spy who Loved Me, and The World is not Enough are examples of

these movies. In Thunderball (1965), Bond was assigned to find the nuclear weapons stolen by SPECTRE. In Diamonds are Forever (1971), Bond stops Blofeld's plan of destroying Washington DC, and extorting the world with nuclear supremacy. In the Spy Who Loved Me (1977), Bond stops the plan of Karl Stromberg to destroy the world by starting a nuclear war. In The World is Not Enough (1999), Bond stops plan to raise the price of oil using nuclear weapons. Although there is extensive use of nuclear weapons in these movies, the protagonist is almost unaffected by the explosions due to these weapons. Only the antagonist is affected by the nuclear weapons. The protagonist and the antagonist are also of different race. These movies have a goal to show how a certain race uses nuclear weapons to defeat other race. The second agenda of movies is to present nuclear energy as a harm. Science fiction movies are the movies that show this agenda, specifically Kaiju or monster science fiction movies and apocalyptic science fiction movies. Nuclear energy is presented as a harm to protest against war because of the results of World War II, to promote fear of a next world war, a probable nuclear war, and to protest against the use of nuclear power plants because of the accidents involving it. This kind of treatment in nuclear energy started after the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. These are the first two atomic bombs that were used in the history of mankind. In a report by Hazel Gaudet Erskine (1963), the number of respondents who feared nuclear energy increases from 1945 - 1963. These bombings made the public

NUCLEAR ENERGY IN MOVIES

aware of the possibility that nuclear energy can be a means of destroying the civilizations that was developed over the past centuries because of their devastating effects. The total civilian casualties that were recorded is over 170, 000 not including military casualties (Pant, 1987). Because of these effects, these bombings became a part of Japans national identity which is reflected in movies. A number of movies produced in Japan present Japans feeling about nuclear energy. A type of genre that clearly shows this is Kaiju movie. A Kaiju is an animal that is transformed into a monster because of some nature disturbances, where most of the disturbances are nuclear. They reveal a self-conscious attempt to deal with nuclear history and its effects on Japanese society (Noriega, 1987). An example is Godzilla. Godzilla clearly shows the protest against the use of nuclear weapons. First, Godzillas origin is a nuclear test that is performed in the Pacific ocean. This provides its abilities such as having very deadly atomic breath, emitting a pulse atomic energy in its surroundings, and having enormous strength and durability. Second, Godzillas goal is to cause destruction which can be compared to the nuclear bombs that were dropped in Japan. The movie Godzilla also present how Japan has continued to developed amid the tragic bombings that happened to it. Even if famous monuments such as Tokyo Tower or the new Tokyo City Hall get trampled on, they can always be rebuilt (Napier, 1993). There are also monster movies that were produced in America like Them!, The Hills have Eyes, and Wrong Turn. These movies present mutated humans and animals due to nuclear poisoning. These mutated beings cause the death of the other characters in the movie. Them! is about a mysterious death and disappearances of the characters in the movie. The causes of these turns out to be the radiated giant ants. The

NUCLEAR ENERGY IN MOVIES Hills have Eyes and Wrong Turn are movies which present deformed humans due

radioactive wastes as cannibals. These deformed human are almost invulnerable. They are also shown as beings who has lost their human thinking. There are also movies that represent the psychological impact of nuclear weapons. This kinds of movies was influenced by the fear of a next nuclear war, especially at the time of the Cold War. Many of these movies show the possible outcome of the next nuclear war. For example, the movie I Live in Fear presents an elderly man who is so frightened about nuclear weapons and a possible nuclear war. The Day After shows the possible events of a nuclear war between Americans and the Soviets. A common outcome of a nuclear war presented by movies is an apocalypse. Aside from a nuclear war, movies show an accident involving a nuclear plant in the movie as the cause of an apocalypse. This is influenced by the accidents that happened involving nuclear power plants. There are two major accidents in the 20th century that changed the publics perspective about the nuclear power plants: the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accident. The Three Mile Island accident involved a partial meltdown because a fuel rod in the reactor burst. The Chernobyl accident involved a spreading of large quantities of radiation across Europe. These accidents happened because of human errors. In 2011, the largest environmental pollution due to nuclear radiation next to the Chernobyl accident happened in the Fukushima Dai-ichi power plant. Here, the accident was caused by the tsunami due to the Great East Japan Earthquake. The worry of the public involves not only the explosion due to these accidents but also of its long term effects like cancer. These long-term effects of the nuclear radiation are presented

NUCLEAR ENERGY IN MOVIES as a cause of an apocalypse in movies such as The China Syndrome and Chain Reaction. Between these two agendas, to present nuclear energy as a harm and as a savior,

presenting nuclear energy as a harm in movies is more justified than presenting nuclear energy as a savior. Movies should exhibit nuclear energy as a harm because 1) the promise of nuclear energy to be a savior such as being a source of electric power and even political power carries also its possibility of being a harm, 2) compared to presenting nuclear as a savior, the presentation of nuclear energy as a savior not just only presents the agenda of those who present it but also addresses the issues regarding nuclear energy based its history and its effects 3) exhibiting nuclear energy as a harm influences those who explore nuclear energy to not use it hastily, but rather perform more study about it to reduce the risks in causes. The promise of nuclear energy to be a savior also carries the possibility of it being a harm. The utopia that was supposed to happen by using nuclear energy was only a promise. The movie documentary Pandoras promise claimed that people should not be worrying about the use of nuclear energy because nuclear energy is really a potential solver of our problems such as climate change and air pollution. The extensive use of

coal and fossil fuels is truly a great contributor to climate change and air pollution than the use of nuclear plants. However, the use of nuclear power plants only provides 17% of the total worlds electricity and majority of the remaining is provided by coal and fossil fuels. These numbers tell that coal and fossil fuels contribute much to global warming and air pollution than the use of nuclear power plants in the present time. However, if nuclear power plants become the primary source of the worlds electricity, there will also

NUCLEAR ENERGY IN MOVIES be possible risks that is worth the worry. First, though the use of nuclear power plants

10

emits less carbon because they do not use combustion to generate power, thus making it a solution to the problems of global and air pollution, it still emits a different kind of pollution, the radiation pollution due to the accidents involving it. It solves problems but it also potentially adds. Immediate exposure to nuclear radiation can cause radiation sickness with symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headaches, fever. It can also cause damage to internal organs. The most feared long term effect of the exposure to radiation is cancer. Records have shown that many of the residents in Chernobyl developed thyroid cancer especially the children. Aside from the accidents involving nuclear power plants, the growing number of radioactive waste from these plants heightens the risk of exposure to radiation. Nuclear energy is not a renewable kind of energy. The nuclear chemicals like uranium should be stored for over a long period of time after using them. This is because these chemicals takes a long time before their decay. Plutonium which is also used in nuclear power plants even reaches up to a hundred thousand years and still is dangerous. In addition, in an interview with George Monbiot, the author of Heat: How to Stop the Earth from Burning, he stated that in the present, the number of deaths due to the production of power using coal is greater than the number of deaths due to the use of nuclear power plants. Again, if the production of power by nuclear power increases, the risks of deaths and injuries due to it also increase. Also, Monbiot did not consider the long term effect of the nuclear energy. According to the medical data presented in Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, there have been over 900,000 people died as a result of the Chernobyl disaster from 1986 to

NUCLEAR ENERGY IN MOVIES

11

2004 (Yablokov, 2007). In the present, there can be no assurance that nuclear energy is safe. For example, the Fukushima accident showed that even an economically progressive country like Japan may also be out of control of these nuclear power plants. The bombings in Hiroshima and Nagazaki also is an example of how many deaths and injuries nuclear energy in the form of atomic weapons can cause in a short period of time. There is no escape from the fact that nuclear energy has the capacity to destroy. Thus, in movies, there is justification of showing how nuclear energy can destroy the lives of the characters in the movies. The intentions of the presentation of nuclear energy as a harm represents the intentions of the ordinary people who can be affected by the effects of nuclear energy unlike the intentions of the presentation of nuclear as a savior who represents the intentions of those who are in power. Movies have been used to represent the peoples intentions, especially those who have positions regarding nuclear energy. This is because these presentations have the ability to influence the public. I believe that presentation of nuclear energy as savior is a way for those who are in power to control the public to support their motives, primarily war. The superhero and action movies make people believe that a country possessing nuclear energy is powerful than those who do not. They present nuclear energy as a weapon to defeat their enemies. However, there is really no benefit of a using nuclear energy as a weapon in war, or even as a sign of being powerful. The damage that it causes is so large and devastating like what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki which also has the potential to happen to other countries if a nuclear war starts. Even Nikolai Gorbachev stated that using nuclear energy like Chernobyl as a sign of the Soviet Unions power is what destroyed them. Presenting

NUCLEAR ENERGY IN MOVIES

12

nuclear energy as a harm presents the publics opposition against nuclear energy due to all its effects that happened in the history. For example, the movies present the capability of nuclear energy to cause sickness, injuries, deaths, and even apocalypse. In presenting nuclear energy as a harm in movies, not only the intentions are presented but also the reasons on why the audience should believe in their intentions justified by the events in the history regarding the safety of using nuclear energy and the effects of the accidents regarding it. Lastly, the presentation of nuclear energy as a harm serves to be a challenge for those who study it to find ways on how to make it safer. Still, the knowledge of nuclear energy is still a powerful tool that solves many of the issues on climate change and energy sources. But for now, since nuclear energy still present so much harm to the people, it is still justifiable to present it as a harm. There are ongoing researches about making nuclear energy safer in the present like using fast reactors to speed up the decay of radioactive wastes and improving the design of nuclear power plants. Because movies presenting it as a harm are watched by so many people, they open the publics eyes on the issue of nuclear energy. Thus, these became powerful tools to encourage researchers to study about it further which can lead us to a better future. There are two ways how movies treated nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is presented as a savior in superhero and action movies. In superhero movies, the origin and the mission of the superhero present how nuclear energy as a good thing. In action movies, nuclear weapons are used by the characters to promote race supremacy and to support the war motives of a certain country. Nuclear energy is presented as a harm in monster movies and apocalyptic movies. In monster movies, the monster, its origin, and

NUCLEAR ENERGY IN MOVIES

13

its goals are a symbols of the harm of using nuclear energy. In apocalyptic movies, the accidents due to the nuclear power plants are shown as the cause of the apocalypse. Between these two agenda, presenting nuclear energy as a harm is more justified than presenting it as a savior. Even though nuclear energy provides solution to problems like global warming, climate change, and air pollution, the potential harm that it might cause is still present like the potential accidents and the bombings that happened which resulted to radiation pollution and death, and the increasing number of radioactive wastes produced by the nuclear power plants which is because nuclear power is not a renewable source of energy. The intentions of the movies that present nuclear energy as a harm is due to the concerns of the public about the potential harm of using nuclear energy unlike the intentions of the movies that present it as a savior which is influenced by those in power to persuade the public in their war motives and the plan to overpower other countries. Also, the movies which show nuclear energy as a harm challenge the researchers and government to find safer ways of using nuclear energy because it opens the eyes of the public of the possible effects of nuclear energy. As long as there exists a massive risk of using nuclear energy, it is justifiable to present it as a harm in movies.

NUCLEAR ENERGY IN MOVIES References: Barlett, A. (2004). Nuclear warfare in the movies. Retrieved from http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ Boyer, P. (2008, November). A life in american cinema: The nuclear option. Retrieved from https://www.histori ans.org/publications-and-directories/pers

14

pectives-on-history/november-2008/a-life-in-american-cinema-the-nuclear-opt ion. Bratt, D. (2005). Implementing kyoto in canada: The role of nuclear power . The Energy Journal, 26(1), 107-121 . Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41323053. de Boer, C., & Catsburg, I. (1988). A report: The impact of nuclear accidents on attitudes toward nuclear energy . Oxford Journals, 52(2), 254-261. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2749279 Erskine, H. G. (1963). The polls: Atomic weapons and nuclear energy . The Public Opinion Quarterly,27(2), 155-190 . Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2746913 . Gumperz, J. (1966). Comments on nuclear energy as a technological innovation. Financial Analysts Journal, 22(2), 146-147. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4469969 Helm, C., Rothman, S., & Lichter , R. (1988). Is opposition to nuclear energy an ideological critique? . The American Political Science Review, 82(3), Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1962500 . 943-952 .

NUCLEAR ENERGY IN MOVIES Katovich, M., & Kinkade , P. (1993). The stories told in science fiction and social science: Reading "the thing" and other remakes from two eras . The Sociological Quarterly, 34(4), 619-637 . Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4121371. La Bare, J. (2000). The future: "wrapped.. in that mysterious japanese way". Fiction Studies, 27(1), 22-48. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4240847 Martin, J. J. (1998). The thunder lizard speaks! an interview with godzilla. Cinaste, 23(3), 24-25. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41689043 Napier, S. J. (1993). Panic sites: The japanese imagination of disaster from to akira. Journal of Japanese Studies, 19(2), 327-351. Retrieved http://www.jstor.org/stable/132643 Nehring , H. (2004). Cold war, apocalypse and peaceful atoms. interpretations of nuclear energy in the british and west german anti-nuclear weapons movements, 1955-1964 . Historical Social Research, 29(3), 150- 170. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20761980 . Nickson, J. J., & Brown, H. (1947). Atomic energy and your future . ALA Bulletin, 41(3), 71-74 . Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25692684 . Noriega, C. (1987). Godzilla and the japanese nightmare: When "them!" is u.s. Cinema Journal, 27(1), 63-77. Retrieved from

15

Science

godzilla from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1225324

NUCLEAR ENERGY IN MOVIES Nuclear exodus: Pandora's promise was a lie. (2014, January 7). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPtQQHfEP4o&feature=playerembedded Pant, G. S. (1987). Hiroshima: the lingering effects . India International Centre Quarterly, 14(2), 59-68. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23001419 Robbins, D. (2013, November 8). 3 myths from pro-nuclear film pandoras Retrieved from http://ecowatch.com/2013/11/08/3-claims-pro-nucl ear-film-pandoras-promise/ Saito, H. (2006). Reiterated commemoration: Hiroshima as national trauma . Sociological Theory, 24(4), 353-376 . Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25046730 Schulz, M. (2006). Nuclear power is the future. The Wilson Quarterly, 30(4), 59-63 Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40261428 Stymeist, D. H. (2009). Myth and the monster cinema. Anthropologica, 51(2), Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25605494 Warry, R. (2011, July 21). Q&a: Health effects of radiation exposure. Retrieved http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12722435

16

promise .

395-406.

from

Weinberg, A. (1971). Nuclear energy: A prelude to h. g. wells' dream . Foreign Affairs, 49(3), 407-418 . Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20037848.

NUCLEAR ENERGY IN MOVIES Yablokov, A. V., Nesterenko, V. B., & Nesterenko, A. V. (2009). Chernobyl: Consequences of the catastrophe for people and the environment. Blackwell Publishing.

17