Bree'sFilmAnnotation9

Bree Mobley, Annotation #9 “Nuclear Energy: The Issues” 22 November 2011 962 words

“Nuclear Energy: The Issues”, directed by Rod Rees, released 2008 “Nuclear Energy: The Issues” is an educational documentary film explaining the controversy behind nuclear energy. This film discusses both the pro-nuclear energy position and the anti-nuclear energy position in terms of global warming, national security, and exposure to radioactivity. It also talks about the fatal incident at Chernobyl nuclear plant in 1989 and the near-fatal incident at a nuclear plant in America in 1979. The narrative is sustained with chapters introducing the topic then elaborating with facts, pictures, and events. Examples of the chapters are “Nuclear Energy and Radioactivity”, “Security”, “Nuclear Power and Global Warming” and “How Much Does it Cost?” The film takes good care to present the opinions of nuclear energy of both sides of the spectrum. It discusses the basis of how nuclear energy works: a Uranium molecule is pulled apart in a process called fission, in that process energy is created. The separated atoms of the old Uranium molecule are unstable and are thus radioactive. Radioactive material must be handled with extreme caution as it can cause debilitating and often times fatal effects to the environment and humans exposed to large doses. There is concern about where the radioactive waste material from nuclear power plants should be stored. The film talks about the storage of this waste at current sites and potential new sites for storage such as underground safes and sealed tunnels. In addition, the film brings up the question of whether or not it is right to leave hazardous materials for future generations to deal with. The film then talks about nuclear energy in terms of global warming. Nuclear energy is the only form of fossil fuel burning that does not create CO2 directly. With global warming being caused by excess CO2 in the atmosphere, this is a desirable trait for energy. However, to build and run a nuclear power plant, energy from CO2 producing fossil fuels is needed in excess. The film does a good job at provided both sides of the argument for all aspects of nuclear energy. There is not much emotional appeal; the film mostly presents facts and figures. The emotional element comes into play during the segments on the Chernobyl disaster that immediately killed on 54 people, but indirectly affected 135,000 people. This film draws out political, technological, and ecological sustainability problems. The most compelling part of the film was learning about the limitations of nuclear energy, information that I had never really realized. The fundamental ingredient is Uranium that is mined from the Earth. Uranium is essentially a fossil fuel; there is a finite limit to the amount of Uranium that can be extracted from the Earth. So eventually, nuclear energy will face the same depleting resources as coal and natural gas is experiencing today. Additionally, in order to extract Uranium, carbon producing machines and processes are used. The facilities it takes to build and run a nuclear power plant also end up producing carbon. Also, nuclear power plants rely heavily on large sources of water in order to adequately cool the fueling pumps. With a global water crisis now being realized, the excess amount of water to safely run a nuclear power plants seems to be frivolously wasting valuable water. Also, the placement of a nuclear power plant needs to be carefully chosen. The location needs to be safe for the surrounding areas and accepted by the community it is near. Access to water is important and would displace potential communities that would want to create neighborhoods around water sources. The least compelling part of this film was when the narrator talked about efficient ways to survey the affected area of a nuclear power plant mishap. I understand the importance of this from a researcher’s point of view, but for a general audience member, I found this irrelevant to the purpose of the film. Upon describing the devastating effects of the Chernobyl disaster, which I found very relevant to the film, an explanation of how to quantify the effects of the disaster was explained in detail. I suppose this is important to learn about because it can help you understand how realistic the data you hear about can be; however, I found in uninteresting. Perhaps it was the way this information was presented during the film. I think this film best addresses an audience with little or no knowledge of nuclear energy. The film takes the subject of nuclear energy and explains it in a manner that requires no knowledge background. It explains, in understandable jargon, how nuclear energy works, why it is good and why it is potentially bad. It covers all the bases for confusion. I think that this film could have included interviews with experts in the areas of nuclear energy to better enhance this film. I would have liked to hear the opinion, first hand, of environmentalists and specialists on either ends of the spectrum on expanding nuclear energy. The film does not suggest any action or points of intervention because there is not persuasive argument presented. This film is for education purposes. Actions that could be effective in expanding ones knowledge of nuclear energy would be to research on your own. This film compelled me to look up the Chernobyl event and its implications. I found an interesting article that highlighted the 25th anniversary of the fatal disaster in a series of pictures depicting the lives of the survivors: [] I was also interested in the effect that nuclear power plants have on water resources. I found an article form planetsave.com that talks about how a water shortage in America’s Southeast could dry up a nuclear power plant in Alabama: []