Pandora's Promise - Movie Review

Pandora's Promise was a documentary produced by Robert Stone in 2013, and it showcased some ordinary people and scientists discussing the use of nuclear energy. The documentary was interesting, because from what I could tell, the people who were being interviewed were initially very opposed and against the use of nuclear energy, but as they discuss the pros and cons and at the end of the film they are arguing for it and embracing its use. The whole idea that the film was based upon was that there were and are a lot of environmentalists who are very opposed to the idea of it, but in reality, it is actually a very safe and clean energy source. The documentary also discussed the increasingly severe problem of anthropogenic global warming and radiation.

One of the things that I learnt from the film was about the impact of radiation. I had always known that radiation can be very dangerous, especially in high levels, due to the damage that it does to the cells that make up the human body. However, I didn't realise the severity of it. One of the environmental experts that was interviewed discussed many of the power plant failures ranging from Chernobyl to Fukuyama. He proceeded to say "It must be absolutely awful to have a town wiped out by a tsunami or earthquake, and you can't even come back and rebuild because it's all contaminated by radiation." (7:20) This opened my eyes and made me more aware of the risks that high amounts of radiation can pose. However, it was comforting (in an odd way) to find out that flying a plane produces more than 20 times the radiation than the people living in Chernobyl get, as well as athe fact that no one has ever died from nuclear power plants in the US, but over 10,000 people die from coal dust every year. I also learned about the first nuclear energy source in the United States, which was built in Shippingport, Pennsylvania. It was a modified version of a large submarine reactor. Something I found that was very interesting is the the United States buys nuclear war heads from Russia, so that they can recycle them and use them as fuel in reactors, and very little waste is actually produced from new reactors because they have the ability to reuse and recycle their own material. There were two types of reactors described in the film: the breeder reactor and the light water reactor. The breeder reactor creates plutonium material and recycles it. The light water reactor is much simpler than the breeder reactor, but it produces much more waste. According to the film, the amount of energy consumed by humans is expected to double by 2050, and is expected to triple or even quadruple by the year 2100.

There were a few other things that I was quite shocked by. The first thing was when it showed footage that visually showed the danger that came with different types of energy. It communicated this information by showing different sized cubes. The first one looked like a normal sized cube and it said coal on it. It then zoomed in and got to smaller and smaller cubes, until it finally got to nuclear energy, which was said to be the second safest form of energy production, not far behind the safest: wind energy. Nuclear energy is even safer than solar panels and solar energy, because solar panels is an extremely toxic process! The other things that I was surprised by was was when one of the ladies being interviewed said " 70000 tons have accumulated, of used fuel in the US. I thought the quantity was staggering! In fact, all used nuclear fuel from nuclear plants in the United States could fit into a single football field, if stacked to about 3m. Of that, only a very small fraction is plutonium that would still be radioactive and dangerous years from now." (1:15:50). The next person followed up that claim by saying "volumetrically, nuclear produces tiny amounts of waste." After that he said, Nuclear energy power 80% of France's energy needs, and the waste could fit into one room, compared to the billions of tons of waste produced by coal burning.

I felt, as I mentioned, pretty surprised by the end of the documentary. Going into it, I didn't really know what to expect, and I didn't really know what the documentary was about, let alone the stance that it would take. Upon discovering it was a discussion on the use of nuclear energy, my immediate thoughts were primarily negative, thinking that nuclear energy and nuclear power plants are definitely not the way to go. I thought they were dangerous, I thought they produced a lot of toxic waste, and a plethora of other things that made me against using them. I was surprised that the documentary was kind of able to convince me otherwise. Some of the visuals and ways that they showed it's effect and size (waste fitting in one room, waste fitting in one football field, small scale comparisons in block size to other power sources, etc.) were very effective in convincing me that they made not be as bad and I had initially read them to be. Prior to starting the film, I had this awful idea of anything involving the word "nuclear". To be honest, I didn't know much of anything about it, I just thought it was something bad, because I associated with things like nuclear bombs. My ideas were confirmed at the start of the film when it said it is "primarily a weapon, not an energy source". The last thing that stuck out to me was the part where it showed the warming of the earth changing (32:20) and it suddenly got much redder once it hit the 2000's. I kind of expected this, but I didn't realise that there was such a prominent change once the millennials were introduced to the picture.

What I liked about this film was that it was meant for ordinary people. They didn't use a lot of very scientific terms that were difficult to understand. Also, as I mentioned, it was very effective and I was quite hooked in it, because I completely agreed with the kinds of things they were staying towards the start of the film, but there was a very smooth and dragged out transition from them saying it was bad to saying it was good, and I felt like I was brought along this journey alongside them, which made it all the more convincing to me. I wouldn't say I'm now a 100% strong advocate for using nuclear power, but I definitely see it in a much more balanced way now. There are, of course, some things that aren't great about using nuclear power plants, but there are pros and cons with everything. Nuclear power is "by far the safest, cleanest source of world power", and a quote I really liked that they used at the end of the film was that "loving your children is about loving the future and the world that they will inherit". Although it's not directly related, I remember that when I was reading about Cape Wind, there was a quote that said something like "Society has to at some point accept that if we want electricity, we have to get it from somewhere and wherever that is, it won't be zero impact" I think this quote is very true, and nuclear power sources are very small impact, but there is still some impact, and it's a matter of weighing the pros and cons of different power sources. I think that nuclear power sources are one of the better, safer options out of some of the others. As a whole human race, we have to cut down on our energy use, because there are only so many ways that we can find sustainable energy sources, and these sources can only be so sustainable. Being "sustainable" doesn't mean it can support ALL our needs and wants forever. The ending of the film said they were hopeful for the next generation, and I'd like to hope that I can be too.