Film Annotation of Nuclear Aftershocks by Pranav Subramanian
Word count: 1896 words
1. Title, director and release year?
The Title of the movie is Nuclear Aftershocks and it was released in 2012. It is produced and
directed by Jon Palfreman, written by Miles O’Brien & Jon Palfreman, and the movie’s coproducers are Kate McMahon and Raoul Rosenberg.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The documentary examines the state of the US nuclear industry in light of the Fukushima
disaster on March 11, 2011 that led that country to abandon its interest in nuclear power. The
documentary highlights how the Japanese Fukushima Daiichi plant suffered breakdowns after
the Tsunami that killed 18,000 people in Japan. This disaster led to Japan pledging a complete
abandonment of its nuclear energy plans. Today, only 6 plants out of 47 or so remain active with
all plans coming to an end by May of 2013. The documentary highlights how the assumptions
made by the designers of the plant about 40 years ago were proved incorrect. Seawater not only
entered the plant but it also could not be used to contain the radioactive leaks. The documentary
also points out that the plant may have been built without concern for the history of the area that
appears to have experienced a similar disaster in AD 869.
On the back of the Japanese retreat from the nuclear power, Germany similarly has made a
pledge to shift to wind and solar and get rid of all its 17 nuclear reactors. But until a switch is
completed, in the words of a German minister, there needs to be a ‘bridge’. In Germany’s case
that bridge is coal. So although in the long run the Germans will switch to cleaner energy there
will be damage to the environment at least temporarily. In the US however, there is a fair bit of
confusion as the renewal plans for the Indian Point Plant is being debated and likely to be
granted. O’Brien makes it clear that if a disaster similar to Fukushima happened here, the
evacuation of Indian Point may not work. Like Fukushima, Indian Point is also running on 40
year old plants. The plant personnel vigorously assert that their preparedness to withstand a
disaster is much greater. The resiliency according to the plant operator is very high. The US is
the world’s largest operator of nuclear plants at 104. The future for the industry looks bleak
although some countries like India and China have no alternatives but to build the plants to get a
clean energy source. So another Fukushima disaster may happen somewhere else in the world
unless we get a much better handle on safety when dealing with Nuclear power. The damages
from a nuclear disaster will be felt by generation, as an experts pointed out.
1
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information
is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The documentary definitely has emotional appeal especially as the people near Fukushima are
interviewed. In the US, the reaction is more divided. While there is a group of people who are
concerned about the state of readiness, there is another group that believes that such concerns are
overblown. The scientific information provided is somewhat sketchy. Although the professors at
MIT are interviewed where the claim nuclear is the only viable choice of clean energy, the facts
and figures to back the claim are missing. The only information that is of some scientific value is
the amount of radioactive exposure that people can sustain without any major damage. But the
correspondent makes a persuasive case for why we need to be safe with nuclear energy.
4. What stakeholders are described or portrayed in the film, what were their experiences,
what expertise did they have, and what were their stakes?
A number of people are interviewed in the documentary, each one with a unique angle to
highlight why or why not nuclear energy holds great promise. The stakeholders in the film are:
David Lochbaum, Rudy Juliani, Andrew Cuomo, Hisahi Ninokata, Satoshi Sato, Ron Ballinger
Jacopo Buongiorno, Neil Todreas, Hiro Hasegawa, Hidekatsu Yoshii, Naoto Kan, General
Suzuki, Claudia Kemfert, Hermann Albers, James Hansen, Gregory Jaczko, Lynn Sykes, Koji
Minoura, Sean Murray, and John Moulder.
1. David Lochbaum, of the Union of Concerned Scientists: He thinks the Indian Point does
not meet the safety standards. He is not a fan of the NRC and remains unconvinced about
the potential of nuclear power.
2. Rudy Juliani, former Mayor of Entergy - He serves as a pitchman for Entergy and claims
that nuclear power is a clean way of generating electricity and the future.
3. Andrew Cuomo, the Governor of NY is not convinced that Indian Point is safe.
4. Prof. Hisahi Ninokata, a professor from the Tokyo Institute of Technology explained
what happened during the disaster.
5. Satoshi Sato , is a Japanese nuclear energy consultant laments how the Tsunami waves
were taller than the reactor itself and damaged the plant thereby proving the assumptions
wrong.
6. Prof Ron Ballinger, of the MIT Nuclear Science & Engineering, explains how the plant
lost all its power as the alternate power sources had been washed off. He remains a
believer in nuclear energy.
7. Jacopo Buongiorno, Assoc. Prof., MIT, Nuclear Science & Engineering explains the
difficulty of fixing the problems in Fukushima with no power to help. He is another
proponent of the nuclear energy.
8. Neil Todreas, Professor Emeritus from MIT Nuclear Science & Engineering explains
how TEPCO personnel had to scour for car batteries to run the plant.
2
9. Hiro Hasegawa, Spokesman, Tokyo Electric Power Co, acknowledges the difficulties in
getting power to the plant
10. Hidekatsu Yoshii is a member of Japanese Diet who believed in the power of nuclear
energy and how it could help Japan with energy production.
11. Naoto Kan, the Prime Minister of Japan had the difficult task of informing his people of
the meltdown at Fukushima and asked the people in the vicinity to vacate.
12. Gen Suzuki, a radiation specialist from the Nuclear Safety Commission: explained the
levels of radiation actually emitted and the effect on the environment in Japan.
13. Prof. Claudia Kemfert, the Director of the German Institute of Economic Research, says
that nuclear energy in Germany is dead.
14. Hermann Albers, President of the German Wind Energy Association is a proponent of
wind energy in Germany.
15. James Hansen, Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, stated that the
German approach to rely on coal as an intermediate solution is risky. Germany in this
case is in the process is violating Kyoto agreement. HE thinks that the nuclear energy
remains the most eco-friendly energy source.
16. Gregory Jaczko, Chmn., Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a key player who believes
the future for nuclear energy in this country is not bleak.
17. Lynn Sykes, Prof. Emeritus, Columbia University expands on the earthquake likelihood
in the northeaster US and believes that the fault lines in the area of Indian Point are
active.
18. Koji Minoura, Paleontologist, showed that the Sendai area did have a similar issue of the
Tsunami even in the year 869 called Jogan Tsunami.
19. Sean Murray, Mayor, Buchanan, NY remains concerned if the evacuation in his village
where Indian point is housed will be feasible.
20. Prof. John Moulder, Radiation biologist, Medical College of Wisconsin – thinks that the
effect of nuclear disaster will be permanent on the entire ecology.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I found the actual footage from the Fukushima disaster most compelling. This footage shows the
enormous effort on part of courageous TEPCO personnel to contain the radioactive damage.
Seeing how devastating the effects of nuclear meltdown are made me fully realize the downsides
of nuclear energy.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The part about Germany seems like a random insertion that has no value in the film. It is
somewhat confusing as they are switching nuclear off, turning coal on (which is bad for the
environment) in order to switch fully to solar and wind (which is good for the environment).
Many other countries in the world could be cited to be in the model of Germany.
3
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
The audience appears to be the common people especially in the NYC area who are concerned
over the Indian Point plant. The film only increased the fears these residents may be harboring.
As a person who lives in the NYC area I am certainly afraid as to how the potential nuclear
fallout could affect my home and family.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its educational value?
The film has very low actual scientific readings or background. For instance, it is interesting to
note that no specifics of the containment efforts by TEPCO are provided. Having more scientific
evidence, such as statistics on the nuclear fallout (like how much the air quality was affected
etc.) would make the film more educational.
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.
The film is somewhat persuasive about the dangers of operating nuclear plants and the dilemma
associated with decommissioning them. That said, there is not a whole lot of information on
what an individual can do to deal with the nuclear issues. It appears the narrator has no original
suggestions. On my part I would like to see a more active NRC so that it does not become a
National Rubberstamping Commission.
10. What three points, details or references from the film did you follow up on to learn
more? Write short descriptions of what you learned in your search, providing citations.
1. I researched into the disaster at Fukushima by reviewing a photo essay by the Guardian
newspaper of the UK. It revealed the effects of the disaster on the common people living
in the area. Ironically, a sign in one of the ghost towns reads “Nuclear energy is the
energy of a bright future”. The ghost towns are still suffering from the effects as the
people cannot move into the place four years after the disaster.
2. I looked into the efforts of The International Atomic Energy Agency which has been
monitoring the effects of radiation in the Fukushima disaster zone. These updates
provide a view into the international recovery and monitoring efforts. Groundwater in the
area has shown no major change in radioactivity, showing that there has been some
improvement as the area recovers from the accident.
3. I researched the health impacts of Chernobyl disaster which provided a live case for
effects of radiation on human beings. These effects are being monitored to this date. It
caused the deaths of thousands of people (either immediately or gradually) and produced
a number of diseases and infections. These medical complications include: thyroid
cancer, leukemia etc.
4
Citations:
"Chernobyl Accident: Health Impacts." World Nuclear Association. Accessed October
12, 2015. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-ofPlants/Appendices/Chernobyl-Accident---Appendix-2--Health-Impacts/.
"Fukushima Daiichi Status Updates." IAEA. Accessed October 12, 2015.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/status-update.
Podniesinski, Arkadiusz. "Radioactive Wreckage: Inside Fukushima's Nuclear Exclusion
Zone – in Pictures." The Guardian. Accessed October 12, 2015.
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2015/oct/11/radioactive-wreckageinside-fukushimas-nuclear-exclusion-zone-in-pictures.
5