Miyazaki's Attune

“I never read reviews. I'm not interested. But I value a lot the reactions of the spectators.”- Hayao Miyazaki.

When people hear the term “nuclear energy”, the first thing that jumps to their minds is most often “danger”. Who could blame the world for their intense fears of nuclear power, especially after reading the reports from Dr. Ira Helfand and the American writer, David Biello? Dr. Helfand’s article, “Radiation’s Risk to Public Health”, attacks the nuclear energy with facts and concerns like those of the National Research Council BEIR VI report. Whereas Dr. Helfand supports his claims with scientific evidence, David Biello only had a script from a discussion that followed the Fukushima crisis. David Biello’s article, “How Safe Are U.S. Nuclear Reactors? Lessons from Fukushima”, he uncovers secret concerns and future plans about the incredibly disastrous incident. Although David Biello used credible sources and attempted to appeal to ethos, logos, and pathos, Dr. Ira Helfand contains an authority in his education and knows a great deal more about nuclear power and definitely has the best representation of ethos, logos, and pathos.

Firstly, the usage of nuclear power is consistent and plentiful. As we know, the reaction of nuclear can emit a great power of energy, it can support vast of families’ and enormous plants’ working. In addition, unlike solar energy and wind power, which depend on external factors, nuclear power is consistent generate at anytime and anywhere. Secondly, since the nuclear power is easy to produce and it also can generate a huge amount of power, it is much cheaper to use it. What’s more, like Hill’s saying, “with the cost of natural gas and oil soaring”, the nuclear plants have return back to work and produce massive energy. Lastly, nuclear power benefits to environment: not only because it does not produce the carbon emissions, which can alleviates the global warming; but also it reduces the noxious byproducts, like sulfur dioxide, which is main reason of air pollution. Therefore, using the nuclear power is an ideal energy resource for human

William Tucker, author of “Why I Still Support Nuclear Power, Even after Fukushima”, gives perquisite explanation of interesting points supporting his cause. Tucker believes that after all the harm from nuclear power in Fukushima, Japan, nuclear power is better than any other natural resources used for the same cause, such as, coal, natural gas, and even a hydroelectric dam. In William Tucker’s words, he claims, “The answer is that there are no better alternatives available. If we are going to maintain our standard of living—or anything approximating it—without overwhelming the earth with pollution, we are going to have a master nuclear technology.” William Tucker addresses the emotions and sense of worry of his audience. I believe William

On August 6 and August 9, 1945 in the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, survival solely depended on being in the right place at the right time. When American planes dropped the atomic bombs onto the cities of Japan, no one knew what exactly would be the effect of this powerful nuclear weapon. However even years later, innocent Japanese citizens suffer from the experience of these traumatic days during World War II. Despite the horrors, critical information and research was drawn from the development of the atomic bomb and scientists have discovered that there are many benefits of using nuclear energy, in a peaceful manner, in our world as opposed to using other energy sources, such as coal or gas. For example, nuclear energy has

element uranium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the immediate future." Even then, the potential to harness nuclear power as an energy source was recognized. Six years later, the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing an estimated two-hundred thousand people and forever linking the word 'nuclear ' with death and destruction (Danzer 790). Since that day, nuclear power has been trying to throw off the shadow of its dark beginnings. However, there are numerous people to this day that remain wary of this particular power source. Often safety is called into question, citing major disasters as reasons to forgo its use. Efficiency and cost are also brought up, questioning whether nuclear power is a better alternative financially. Many people fail to realize there is more to nuclear energy than the what bedtime horror stories reveal. Nuclear power is a safe and effective energy source that should be utilized more than it is now.

In “Why I Still Support Nuclear Power, Even After Fukushima” writer William Tucker argues that even though Nuclear power is dangerous and risky compared to coal, natural gas, hydro, wind and solar energy, its more powerful and efficient than any other energy resource. There have been incidents like Fukushima where nuclear power caused destruction, but it doesn’t mean we should stop using it. There have been multiple incidents caused by coal mining and natural gas that has been deadly, but they are still being produced and used. Then why is nuclear power being avoided. Energy produced by hydro, wind and solar sources needs too much space in order to create large volume of energy.

William Tucker, journalist for the Wall Street Journal specializing in environment and energy, provides us with intriguing information in his article, "Why I Still Support Nuclear Power Even After Fukushima". Tucker explains his belief that nuclear power is still the most effective means of power with minimal risks, despite the radioactivity associated with nuclear power. Fukushima, a nuclear reactor harboring city in Japan, was devastated by a tsunami after a massive earthquake in 2011. Despite the history of Fukushima, Tucker goes as far as to say, "There are no better alternatives available" in terms of energy resources. Whereas Tucker does indeed bring up compelling points regarding

Despite citizens opposed nuclear power plants, the government positions nuclear power plants as "important baseload power supplies" and shows the posture to utilize it as well as before nuclear accident six years ago, government decided to "reduce it as much as possible". In other words, people's resistance failed. The government wants to supply stable electricity at low cost, and Japan is an island country with few resources, and if there is no nuclear power will be insufficient when it is emergency. In addition, from the dangers of nuclear accident occurrence, citizens raise demonstrations or requests compensation. There are many people who oppose restarting in Japan because there are many people who think that safety is more important than

Despite the potential harmful effects of nuclear energy, it is a necessary step for this country and world to take for the future. William Tucker holds this position in his article, “Why I Still Support Nuclear Power, Even After Fukushima.” This article made its appearance on the April 23, 2011 edition of the Wall street Journal.

The nuclear technology debate returns. Narrations about nuclear power in post-Fukushima Japanese and Western films

There was the extremely severe nuclear disaster which was triggered by the Great East Japan Earthquake on 11 March 2011, a level 7 disaster was declared by the International Nuclear Event Scale because of its extensive and devastating effects. As analysing the effect of Fukushima disaster, the radioactive fallout has effects on the human health, the environment, the agriculture and fisheries, even has the implications for the future of nuclear power worldwide (Burnie, 2012). According to the facts, Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Disaster cannot be regarded as a natural disaster, it was a profoundly manmade disaster that could and should have been foreseen and prevented (BBC, 2012).

Storytelling as previously stated is what drives me at the core of animation, and powerful storytellers are the greatest fuel to that fire. The one man who has pushed me the most in this regard is the masterful Hayao Miyazaki, whose work not only profoundly inspires me in my work but has time and time again revived me at my core. He’s a master of action and adventure, sending the audience through roaring sequences of high stakes and insurmountable odds. At the same time his work exhibits a delicate and thoughtful touch, creating richly crafted worlds and genuine characters. His most powerful moments, I feel, have been those of quiet reflection and intoxicating atmosphere—something between a fever dream a warm embrace that I've never seen equaled.

On March 11, 2011 Japan was rattled by a powerful earthquake and tsunami. When the tsunami hit, thousands of lives were changed forever. The tsunami claimed lives, destroyed homes, businesses, and roads and left an excessive amount of debris. The impact of the tsunami also caused a major power outage which in turn caused a nuclear meltdown/explosion at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. With the devastation of that day and the days that followed, there will be long-term effects on the environment and the quality of life of the Japanese people. When nuclear power is used, there is a possibility of a nuclear meltdown and/or explosion, thus Japan should not be using nuclear power as a source of energy.

When I say nuclear energy, what comes to mind? An exciting new technology, with limitless possibilities? The future of clean energy? Or events like Hiroshima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island? Devastation and disasters, or a solution to climate change? I intend to cement the idea that nuclear energy is the best solution to many of humanities present and future problems. Nuclear energy, overall, saves lives, reduces carbon emissions, and could set into motion a new age of innovation. Conversely, there are many negative, and defendable, viewpoints when talking about nuclear energy. Accidents and disasters have been associated with nuclear energy, along with radioactive waste, and, possibly worst of all, weaponization of reactor technology. However, with a few simple explanations, I believe I can put nuclear energy in a good light once again.