Well I mean when I first saw this on the syllabus, I was not exactly thrilled on a movie depicting something in the realm of environmental science, but I thought it was inevitable, to get the work done it would be a necessity for me to watch it, and I can attest to the reality of it, which was that I was pleasantly surprised. This documentary consists of environmental science experts that used to be skeptics of Nuclear Energy becoming Pro-Nuclear Energy. It clearly creates a juxtaposition by depicting the opposing side that is anti- nuclear energy; however, did I think it did a sufficient job? No; however, we will delve into that topic later. Overall Pandora’s Promise seems sufficient in utilizing the media to display the propaganda involved in antinuclear effort whilst addressing factual information to back up the stance with the spine that stood on pronuclear energy.
It was an interesting choice to begin with, because by illustrating how the Nuclear Industry as considered dangerous, and the reality that there are alternative uses of energy that can be utilized such as geothermal energy or solar energy boosted the documentary’s credibility. How? There is ethos within the concept of stating a refutational argument is powerful; however, you take it step further when you begin with that refutation. There is certain level of certainty you need to be that sure that you didn’t just turn the audience off by the beginning of the documentary.
To continue on the once known nuclear skeptics speak to the viewer on their personal stories of how their upbringings have molded them into being antinuclear: an aspect of this worth mentioning is that there was certain inclining of views that lead to the environmentalist hippie upbringing of these skeptics or their parents. I feel like this is significant, because it speaks to the reality that this was happening during a time in which the counterculture movement or the New Left was founded on this overall idea of antigovernment. Now, from the perspective of what was going on, that made sense; however, some of the logic was fallible considering drugs run rampant during this movement, and a lot of unhealthy trends had started as a result of this.
What this film did a phenomenal job doing was depicting the reality that the radiation issue is not as apparent, and something that should not be marked by the level of trepidation that it has been marked with, and the entity that time has progressed and we as a society are more prepared. My question here is that this justifying method kind of left me in more apprehension. By no means do I have a view on this certain issue, because I am no expert; however, the debunking of these catastrophic events in order to promote nuclear energy is counterintuitive. It’s powerful how the director of the documentary managed to take modern media and emphasize how it has propagandized Nuclear Energy by utilizing unfamiliar units whilst, not informing the general public with information they can actually utilize.
By the end we’ve realized and this film has called to our attention that we all have a say in what happens to the earth in which we reside on; however, that being said its ludicrous not to mention the mere entity that this film bombarded the viewer with justifications of why nuclear energy is the right energy. There was not enough information on what nuclear energy does, and why it would be the most efficient energy to utilize within America, because this film constantly focused on the negative trying to turn it into a positive.
Overall I would give this film a three out of five. It was not engaging or captivating, but the information within it was resourceful. It gave you an in-depth insight on Nuclear energy and the validity in the statement that it is not safe.