Skip to main content

Food for Thought: Belgian Publisher Says Nuclear Industry Should Engage Public on a More Emotional Level

By
From WNA's World Nuclear News:
A nuclear plant as the setting for a new hit TV series? Popular entertainment media could prove to be more effective at engaging public support and acceptance for nuclear energy than past industry attempts to convince the world of nuclear's merits.

In a special presentation to the World Nuclear Association's 34th Annual Symposium, Belgian publisher and former nuclear engineer Alain Michel exhorted the nuclear industry to make more efforts to engage public support on an emotional level - and popular entertainment media would be the perfect platform to achieve this.

...

After ten years of research on how public opinion of nuclear activities is affected by emotional influences such as television, film or books, Michel is convinced that nuclear communication should be more emotive. Pointing to the success of popular television series on a worldwide scale in raising the profile of certain professions - the CSI franchise and forensic medicine being but one example - Michel suggests that nuclear activities as the backdrop for a television series could simply help nuclear energy to become more familiar to everyone, not just those who happen to live near a nuclear power plant. The role of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors could be the potential subject for such a series, posits Michel...
He may be on to something. It could be entertaining yet informative to see a show where bad guys try to take over a nuclear plant and the plant's security team takes them down. Or maybe to see a show about the emotional public hearings on licensing new plants and re-licensing existing plants. Or maybe to see how nuclear plant operators react when an intense situation like an earthquake or a hurricane hits...
Labels:

Comments

Matthew66 said…
I don't know that this is a great idea. Every drama show I've seen that was set in a hospital ends up having a catastrophic fire or explosion - usually a cover to revamp the sets. I've never actually heard of a major metropolitan hospital having an explosion or a fire that wasn't rapidly contained, but that's TV land.
September 11, 2009 at 3:18 PM
Anonymous said…
Ah, hello...? 'The Simpsons'??

~wink~
September 11, 2009 at 6:51 PM
Anonymous said…
I think there's a season of the tv show 24 that had terrorists taking over nuclear power plants to force them to meltdown.
September 11, 2009 at 7:01 PM
Joffan said…
That was similar to my concern Matthew - that the scriptwriters, seeking external drama, would start to invent a new imminently dangerous condition every episode. If the drama can focus on the people, against the backdrop of meticulous care in the plant, then I would support it. The idea of following an over-active IAEA inspector around the world might have merit too, especially as it would allow drama outside the plants more readily.
September 11, 2009 at 7:05 PM
GRLCowan said…
I recall Rhett Butler's character in Grace Under Fire was supposed to work at an oil refinery. It was occasionally mentioned, but as far as I know never came on-stage. That was probably for the best, and if she had worked at a nuclear plant, it should have been treated similarly.

(Secrets for sale)
September 11, 2009 at 7:46 PM
DocForesight said…
Matthew66 may be right. Consider "Gray's Anatomy" where, it seems like, everyone is cavorting with anyone else who happens to walk by. Quite unlike how medical staff behave in the real world - not that they couldn't be tempted, but they have more self-control than Hollywierd portrays.

On the other hand, a CSI-like program would be interesting to watch. What with the electron microscopic details of atomic fission revealed and rescuing the world from climate change catastrophe. Hi-ho Silver, away!
September 11, 2009 at 10:02 PM
D. Kosloff said…
Joffan,
The key is to get the right scriptwriters. Like the guys who wrote the scripts for "Major Dad".
September 12, 2009 at 12:13 AM
Rod Adams said…
I read the original article and share some of the same concerns as previous posters.

One of the phrases that I use in my passionate, mostly water cooler type, talks about nuclear energy is "the most boring watch on a submarine is the reactor operator". A well designed plant is sort of like the energizer bunny - it works fine, lasts a long time. It boringly puts out massive quantities of energy.

The real dramatic show that might be very useful at this particular time in the technological history would be one that focused on the process of building new plants, going through the competitive process of getting them sited, figuring out the best technology to solve certain issues, and teaching people how to be good contributors within the demanding industry.

The human interest part could focus on the back stories of the people, the sacrifices that they make and perhaps even the adjustments that they have to perform in order to fit into the safety culture.
September 12, 2009 at 7:21 AM
Brian Mays said…
Well, Rod, of course the producers would have to make the reactor interesting to look at -- perhaps something like the engine on Enterprise of the nineties' Star Trek series: big blue pulsating lights. The lights pulsate faster when the reactor is dangerously close to warp core breach ... er ... meltdown, which if the show were like Star Trek, would happen every other week, to be invariably prevented each time by the unusually bright, but frustratingly annoying, high-school intern, who somehow managed to get the NRC's permission to hang out in the control room in the afternoons after school.
September 12, 2009 at 9:13 AM
alain MICHEL said…
Thanks all of you and first of all to David for introducing the text and giving some good ideas of possible situations. I agree with Matthew66 and Joffran that there is a risk but already a number of films have been presented with catastrophic nuclear situations. We can't avoid that. But my basic idea is as D. Kosloff said, to get the right scriptwriters interested by giving them the adequate information. I do have already some contacts. I know like Rod that day to day life in a plant is rather boring and does not make a good show. But I am grateful for his other suggestions and I think that's the way we should go. So please continue to bring critics and ideas. And if you want to know more about my research and my previous presentations/papers on nuclear fiction, please send me a message at amesper@skynet.be
September 13, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Anonymous said…
The main point should be that indeed, nuclear energy is "boring" - i.e. NOT dangerous. The show should be a drama or a comedy where the nuclear power plant is simply the backdrop and it never really the focus. DON'T make it a big deal or else, as feared, suddenly there's a near meltdown every episode. Just like cop shows are shooting their weapons every episode, whereas in real life, a police officer can easily spend their entire career without ever firing thier pistol.
September 14, 2009 at 9:12 AM
Conan The Libertarian said…
Education - yes...
Emotional appeals - no...
Leave "change we can believe in" and "yes we can" to those who need them.

We're not breaking legs with policy after offering free crutches on the campaign trail.
September 14, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Anonymous said…
Well, you've all sort of hit on the key points of entertainment: drama, and how emotional responses play into that. The "best" entertainment (the kind that grips you and holds your interest) contains elements that elicit strong emotional responses, things like fear, danger, self-preservation, love, hate, jealousy, etc. The setting of the action usually lends some supporting background to that (hospital, firefighting, military, etc,). There have been settings in nuclear facilities that elicit such responses, but they generally involve negative, far-fetched scenarios, e.g., the "Atomic Twister", or the China Syndrome, and play to fear and loathing rather than cool and calm. Selling entertainment for the buck probably will not involve boring, mundane activities.
September 14, 2009 at 10:41 AM
distantbody said…
"The show should be a drama or a comedy where the nuclear power plant is simply the backdrop and it never really the focus. DON'T make it a big deal"

Q: if the backdrop doesn't comes in to focus occasionally why permanently set it there in the first place?

A: a show about _realistic_ people going about their work at a _realistic_ low-trouble nuclear plant would be to condition/inform the viewers to be more accepting of them in general. But the drama still has to come from somewhere to make those not interested in documentaries watch it...

A show about a regulatory inspector would lend itself too easily to tales of cover-ups and bad dealings.

How about setting it in a _town_ with a NPP... The main character/s husband/wife/son/daughter works there, mention it once then leave it at that (like GRLCowan said) They're an average family. Maybe in the fourth or fifth episode the NPP is featured as the worker gets told-off for letting his child in to see the pump room or something.
September 15, 2009 at 7:58 AM
Brian Mays said…
There already exists a show set in a town with a NPP. One of the main characters works there, although his job is mentioned more than just once. They're a very average, but rather dysfunctional, family -- designed to be comic representation of all of the "Joe Sixpack" underachievers out there.

This show has been on the air for two decades now.
September 15, 2009 at 8:50 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap
1 comment
Read more

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

By
Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu
Post a Comment
Read more

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin
Post a Comment
Read more