Annotation_5_Arid_Lands

Annotation #5 Word count: 755 The film talks the Hanford nuclear site that was established as part of Manhattan project. This plant supplied the plutonium that was used to build the atomic bomb that dropped in Nagasaki during World War II. The film focuses on the period after the aforementioned events and the largest environmental cleanup movement in history. It shows how the area’s landscape grow because of the funding provided by the government for the cleanup. A lot people were interviewed who were in one way or another related to the area. The film also talked about people that had to move out from their homes after the Manhattan project was approved. The government used patriotism to move people out so the residents had no choice but to “leave for their country”. Some of the interviewees were the people who worked at the plant and they said that the atomic bombs testing were done in the area once a week during the war time. I think that the film addresses economic aspects of this area. They talked a lot about the large sums of money that helped to promote the growth of the region. Today, it is popular tourist attraction with many trails, wineries and five star hotels. I liked the historical aspect of the film. It talked about why this area was chosen for the Manhattan project and the political tension that existed when the plant was made. Now that the area is growing rapidly, it attracts not only tourists but families who move here and make it their home. According to the government plan the cleanup will continue till 2048 which means that the area will continue to grow with all the funding provided by the government. Although Hanford location contains two thirds of the total nuclear dumped into the soil the film says that people who live in that area are not concerned about that waste and easily take the risk in the local river and continue to drink the water. It is hard to believe since only about 40 years ago this there were large amounts of nuclear waste that was dumped straight into the river. I think it mostly addresses the younger generation and shows that future generations can be affected by the actions we take. Also, it shows how environmental activism can make a big positive change. In general, it teaches that we should take the responsibility more seriously because for every action there is a reaction and that we have to think about both when making decisions. I think that the film should have been more focused on effects of Hanford site on the area and how it is still affecting the ecosystem of the region. Also, talking more about generations of families who lived in the area and were impacted by the plant would be beneficial. I think it teaches to be more proactive and the whole film is a good example of positive outcome of such a behavior. Also, it suggests that in Hanford’s case there should be more initiative to speed up the cleanup process. The film compelled me to look for more information of Hanford site and people involved in the cleanup process. I found information about Walter Tamosaitis who is a whistleblower that was fired because he raised nuclear safety issues. He also believed that the company misleading congress on cleanup project. [] Also, I looked at Hanford Reach National Monument which was created for wildlife preservation. []
 * 1. Title, director and release year?**
 * Title: “**Arid Lands”
 * Director:** Grant Aaker, Josh Wallaert
 * Release Year:** 2007
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**
 * 3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**
 * 4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?** **Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational?** **Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**
 * 5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**
 * 6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**
 * 7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?**
 * 8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**
 * 9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.**
 * 10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)**