Nuclear Power In The Film Fiend Without A Face

Something always curious and provoking happens in science writing. Gwyneth Cravens is an author of five novels and many publications, and one who studies a topic in great detail. She creates an enormous work about nuclear energy for the last decade. Cravens’s research in her last published book titled Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy has led her to do an about-face on the issue. In her article “Better Energy” which was published in May 2008 in Discover magazine, she disputes and claims that nuclear energy is currently best alternative and should be considered as our future energy source. At the beginning “Better Energy” she commences by introducing James Lovelock, who was greatly

In the Article of Five Myths About Nuclear Energy Kristin Shrader-Frechette, the author, very effectively engages with her audience in order to get her argument across. The factual information presented by Shrader throughout the article were represented accurately in order to appeal to the ethical senses of the reader. In order to fully understand the effectiveness and the delivery of her point of view, it must be noted that this article was published in the America National Catholic Review. The America National Catholic Review has a prominently Catholic audience, whom Shrader uses to her advantage by inserting a segment into the article called “What Does the Church Say.” Similarly, she mentions that bishops of the church “argue

During the Cold War, one of American citizen’s biggest fears was the possibility of a nuclear war. In the first season, which aired in the year 1959, there are at least 2 episodes that involve us bombing ourselves and the action of creation of the weapons. In episode 14, “Third From the Sun”, the whole episode revolves around the creation of an atomic bomb and how the government plans on using the bomb within 48 hours. In this episode the characters are very concerned about the damage it could create and seem very scared about the thought of releasing the bomb. Later in episode 20 titled “Elegy”, we discover that in 1985 there was atomic war which caused the destruction of our planet. Both of these episodes focus on the possibility of using an atomic bomb and

Arjun Makhijani, a prominent researcher for The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, claims that today’s emission rate of carbon dioxide is about nine gigatons annually and that the Earth only has the capability to absorb 3 gigatons annually—thus a problem arises. Furthermore, Makhijani states that about 2/3rds of the carbon dioxide emissions are caused by the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum. With those shocking statistics in mind, fossil fuel’s emission of carbon dioxide is thought to be the leading cause of climate change—which is responsible for irreversible and catastrophic changes to the Earth. Yet, scientist had tremendous difficulty finding a safe, effective, and efficient form of energy supply that will met the great consumption rate. Many prominent scientist suggest that nuclear power is the most plausible explanation and solution to the fuel crisis. However, despite nuclear power having a exponentially lower emission rate, it presents its own hazards and threats—such as the Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island incidents. These accidents have many activists and politicians cautious about the prospect of using nuclear power as a complete alternative to fossil fuels—regardless nuclear plants are responsible for 11% of the energy supplied to the world annually (World Nuclear Association.) What many of the activist and politicians seem to overlook is that fossil fuels are an indefinite energy supply and will quite possible run out within

As a nation, America was not ready to handle, morally or emotionally, the reality of living in a nuclear age. In an attempt to soothe the uneasy minds of the public, the government made speeches and rolled out campaigns, which included the “duck and cover” drills and building of fall-out shelters. However, there was confusion from the very people in the government who were sending out the message to the public. While they wanted to remind the Americans to stop worrying unnecessarily about the atomic bomb, they nevertheless wanted the public to remain alert and vigilant, and to always be in anticipation of a nuclear attack. This resulted in extremely vague statements that did not give the Americans a sense of ease. For instance, in a film created to educate the public about how to respond to an atomic emergency, they were told: “we do this not to worry you or frighten you” but that they still had to “know what to do in case an emergency happens.” The responses of the Americans were, inevitably, equally ambivalent; while they found comfort in statements such as “there is no danger” and that “risk is part of the pattern of daily routine”, which served to almost trivialize the matter, they found themselves constantly fearing and anticipating a possible nuclear

In the scenarios presented in the film, individuals had knowledge regarding the harmful effects of using nuclear weapon and as a result, they followed

As our knowledge of technology grows, moviemakers try to appeal to our preconceptions of these advancements in order to retrieve a reaction based off our anxieties and terrors. In The Rise of Nuclear Fear, Spencer R. Weart states, “Many people dreaded death itself mainly because it seemed like a total separation from other people” (Weart 35). The fact that we our culture fears the idea that the human race will end due

Ever since World War two we have feared destruction and what could be the aftermath of nuclear bombs. We had a whole era in history to dedicate being terrified of weapons of mass destruction. We had bomb drills, duck and cover drills. The United States had TV drills if an attack were to happen on United States soil. For many Americans this was not hysteria, but a reality that could happen.

The way these people are dying has never been seen before—the brains and spinal cords of each victim are sucked out of their body through the back of their neck. This occurrence is terrifying and many fear that they will be next. The deaths cannot be stopped. Along with the deaths, the locals do not know much about the power plant. This fear of the unknown drives their concerns. Humans feel a need to know cause and effect, yet this is completely unknown for the locals. Eventually, a major discovery is made. A local scientist created the evil creatures causing the deaths. The power from the nuclear plant feeds these creatures and makes them visible to the characters of the movie. This turning point is when the movie becomes scary for the viewers. Fiend Without a Face shows the consequences of nuclear energy getting into the wrong hands. Like the movie Frankenstein, the scientist takes his creation too far and ends up hurting innocent lives. The thought of this occurring with nuclear power is what makes nuclear power particularly scary. Think about the past wars involving nuclear energy. People were never afraid of the nuclear power from the United States, but the nuclear energy from other countries. They were afraid of what might happen if one decided to misuse the power. In short, nuclear power is not scary if one is able to live in peace and trust who is in charge of it. It becomes scary when abuse gets out of

When you hear the word “nuclear”, what do you think of? Does the thought scare you, intrigue you, or have no effect at all? Nuclear energy has been a part of our lives for many years. Some events that included nuclear power included the Cold War and the Chernobyl disaster. These events have changed how people view nuclear energy. Nuclear power is used all around the world to create efficient energy, but it can also be used to create weapons and destructive material. Nuclear power has proven to be clean, efficient and cost effect; the Chernobyl disaster revealed to the world why we needed to change training, safety procedure, and the structure of the plant itself.

The Atomic Bomb is a cause of fear, and was a bomb whose creation was pushed by fear, whose decision to be dropped was in part for its psychological effects, and whose meaning has sparked fear in those that made it, and those who know of its power. The fear surrounding the bomb is a unique one that came in a series of waves. The fear was first limited to a specific group of individuals, such as government and military officials, but then made its way to larger groups until the fear became so widespread it was shared among the larger general population.

Nuclear energy was very popular after the world war two and during first few years of the cold war. The race to build stronger and more powerful nuclear bombs helped the case of nuclear energy. Many countries thought that nuclear energy is the answer to having unlimited energy but that all came crashing down as the public's perception changed after the Chernobyl accident. The accident killed thousands of people and that is not something that the public wanted to ever happen again which is why countries slowed down on their ambitions to build more and more nuclear power plants. Uranium usage was another big concern because in about 90-100 years it is believed that we will run out of it and countries were hesitant to build new power plants but

The world as we know today is dependent on energy. The options we have currently enable us to produce energy economically but at a cost to the environment. As fossil fuel source will be diminishing over time, other alternatives will be needed. An alternative that is presently utilized is nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is currently the most efficacious energy source. Every time the word ‘nuclear’ is mentioned, the first thought that people have is the devastating effects of nuclear energy. Granting it does come with its drawbacks; this form of energy emits far less pollution than conventional power plants. Even though certain disadvantages of nuclear energy are devastating, the advantages contain even greater rewards.

Many critics argue that due to the Three Mile Island nuclear incident that occurred March 28, 1979, in Pennsylvania resulted in a reactor meltdown, with no casualties due to a combination of equipment failure and a lack of operators understanding what to do to a faulty reactor. This incident has put the majority public to have safety concerns over not only the operators working in the plants but also the civilians in the surrounding area. Yet since the accident, the United States formed the National Academy for Nuclear Training to improve training the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations which reviews and accredits nuclear utilities’ training programs for all key positions at each plant. In addition, nuclear energy plants have proven the ability to produce clean electricity without greenhouse gas emissions and the reliability due to its increased efficiency and increased power output.

The use of nuclear energy is a big topic for debate. Many countries have fully embraced it while others, such as the U. S., haven’t. Nuclear energy is feared for its danger and scorned because of its wastes. On the other hand, nuclear energy does have some pros like cheaper cost of energy and environmentally safe. Reactor breeders show great promise in nuclear waste, but are it enough to convince the nation?