In the linked Freakonomics column Dubner and Levitt explain how a movie may have negatively impacted the nuclear energy industry. It is interesting how much affect popular culture (even when misinformed) can have on important issues.
So should we reconsider nuclear energy?
23 comments:
Tyler L. 5
nuclear energy has obviously gotten safer than it was in the past. both of the instances that the author mentioned occured over twenty years ago. twenty years ago people still used track players to listin to music, and Michael Jackson came out with "Smooth Criminal". the military has had nuclear bombs and handled nuclear waste since the 1940s and has never had any issues (that we know of). if the government were to come up with safe-gaurds to protect the citizens around the plants, nuclear power makes since.
It's interesting to me how movies can so strongly affect the way people see the world. Anything on television, really. Little kids learn from it. Teens shape their lifestyle by it. Adults use it to form opinions, especially political opinions. I think this is a good example of the influence hollywood has on both the present and the future of America. They should be careful what they do because of the power that they have.
Lauren R. 5th
Allen J. 1
I believe we do need to reconsider nuclear energy as a source of cleaner energy. The article clearly shows that, besides global warming, coal has other problems that are very costly, and that, for the most part, nuclear energy over its entire history has been clean and safe. As for the possible risks in undertaking a new nuclear energy program, people seem to be getting over it very quickly if Exelon's stock has tripled over the past five years.
Becky B. 1
Nobody is going to allow the nuclear energy industry to put the public in danger. It is a relatively important issue in the sense that it does affect the lives of American citizens; however, I don't think that people should be flying off the handle about it and especially not over a movie about it.
Jacob B. 1st
Nuclear energy seems to be the only logical solution to level out the problems and costs that come along with coal burning. Peoples opinions can be easily swayed by their favorite celebrities. The same idea ties in with politicians having muscians and celebrities "supporting" their campaign. Theres really only one direction the resources can go, and they seem to be going there. More and more innovative and efficient.
Reagan Doyal 5th period
I think that we should begin to consider nuclear energy more. i do think that it has gotten bad plublicity over the years not only from jane fonda, but from chernobyl as well. however the chernobyl plant did not have all of the safty requirements for nuclear plants even by the standards of those days. the russians were too busy trying to build power plants and didn't concern themselves with safty, however with the regulations and new technologies i think that it would be wise to consider nuclear power.
I think we should start considering nuclear energy. Global warming seems to have more risks than a few nuclear plants will. Eventhough the movie industry and tv industry have made people believe that nuclear energy can have some serious consequences, people should realize how much we are risking with the burning of coal. Nuclear energy is much safer for the earth and with new advances in technology it is probably a lot safer than it was a couple years ago. So we should definitely consider nuclear energy.
Melissa Coquelin 2nd
JR N. 5th period
The U.S. should definately reconsider nuclear power. Sure, Chernobyl was awful, but the number of lives negatively affected by coal mining is much higher. Also, while Chernoble completely rendered the surrounding area worthless, fossil fuels have set smog over our cities and caused turned our clouds into sulfuric acid to drop their load on far away towns. Many chinese must wear face masks to keep the harmful air from their lungs.
Really Three Mile Island was a SUCCESS for the nuclear energy-- the media and anti-nuke people spun it nicely though. It was a complete success in that the reactor did NOT melt down and NOBODY was injured.
Don't worry though because in a matter of years the U.S. will have several different types of reactors to choose from that lower the initial cost of capital investment and make it difficult to use in nuclear weapons.
Mr. Mckay, I published a comment on thursday afternoon that is not on here. What should i do?
James M. 2nd
Mr. Mckay, I'm with James. My comment isn't here anymore either.
Taylor P. 1st
Taylor P. 1st
I think we should definately reconsider nuclear energy. Since our coal resouces are non-renewable, it's time we begin looking for other options. Although nuclear energy can be a dangerous prospect, considering the extreme caution taken and the security surrounding Exelon's plant I assume that it'd in fact be quite difficult to sabatoge the plant. In answer to the previous melt-down, however coincidental to the movie, nobody was hurt. This again proves the point that nuclear energy can be a safe way for us to provide cleaner energy for our country and world.
I also believe we should reconsider nuclear energy. I mean, why not? The world's about to blow up anyway, right?
Olivia M. 2nd
Use nuclear energy. It's much more efficient than most other sources and as a side benefit, we might mutate. Nothing bad could come of it.- The Wasiuta, 2nd Period
Brittney O. 5th Period
I think it's sad that the movie and tv industry have impacted the progress we as a nation are taking to further other energy resources such as nuclear energy. Much progress has been made in areas of safety. Coal mining is dangerous as well. How many coal miners have lost their lives in the last year?
Emily H. 5th peroid
I dont think that the movie industry should have that great of an impact on important issues!
People should not base their belifes on watching a movie, if anything, they should at least do some research to see if the movie has a good point or not!
misinformed public coseption has messed up lots of things. The truth is that now when everybody wants to save the enviroment, thay have the same thinking as when they say that driving cars that have 5mg is okay.
Matt S. 5
the U.S. should reconsider in nuclear power it is a great source for many things and its cheaper so why not and the fact that reactors are getting safer.
Tanner S. 2nd
As far as I know nuclear energy is the safest one - probably also the cheapest. Chernobyl was a horrible accident, that is true but we should ask ourselves why did it happened. It wasn't because it is so dangerous in general - it was because if men who were careful enough and didn't really know where they were working - in the former Soviet Union people didn't know anything about nuclear energy and didn't care what will happen to the plan if one person forgets to do something. Apparently they would be more cautious if they knew there was a possibility of such an explosion.
Marta Gabler 2nd
Everday people change their habits to model the celebrities, because thats what is "cool". However, what if celebrities started saying we should all cut off our feet because that is sooo last season. would people do it? so i think that people should stop letting movies and celebrities sway their views on important issues and they should start thinking for themselves. I believe that the government would not purposefully put the people of society in harms way of nuclear energy, so i think they should continue their research in finding newer and more efficient energy resources.
Kristen E. 2nd
I think it is sad that a movie can alter peoples thoughts so much. People take television way too seriously...
Petra Bergstein- 5th
Everything has risk! There is not one way of creating energy that doesn't have some setbacks. We lose men every year to accidents in coal mines. We feel awful when that happens and we pray for the families of those involved, but we also accept that as part of coal mining. Now if someone were to die today due to exposure in a nuclear power plant, the world would freak out. We just aren't used to that kind of thing. Nuclear power is clean and often cheaper, but, as always, Americans don't like change and if you try to create a little change they protest like crazy until those trying to do the changing back down.
The one above is from Laura Hamlett 2nd (hehe)
it is so pathetic that our country is completely influenced by movies and tv. nuclear energy is the obvious choice for power. its saf and doesnt cause smog or other pollution.
first hollywood was influencing what we wore and how we talked, but it is seriously impacting our future?
clare p. 2nd
Post a Comment