Skip to main content

Do ‘The Simpsons’ Distort People’s Perceptions of Nuclear Power?

I’ve watched ‘The Simpsons’ cartoon since their inception and have never been fazed about their misleading depictions of nuclear power. Interestingly enough, others may have. Here’s what a philosophy professor says about the show:

Dr. Bill Irwin, a philosophy professor at King's College in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., says Homer - the bumbling main character in The Simpsons who works at a nuclear power plant - has perhaps helped to put a negative spin on nuclear power by doing such things on the show as trying to stop a meltdown by randomly pressing buttons on a console.

He also points out that the owner of the nuclear power plant in The Simpsons, Mr. Burns, is portrayed as a cold-hearted, greedy industrialist. But the show's most intelligent character, Homer's daughter, Lisa, is portrayed as a staunch environmental advocate.

"She's very eco-friendly and very much against nuclear power and the nuclear power plant run by Mr. Burns," Irwin said during a recent interview on a Saskatchewan radio talk show.

Probably the reason why I’m not fazed about The Simpson's depictions is because I’ve seen them put a negative spin on other technologies such as wind. This episode between Itchy and Scratchy comes to mind.

It’s tough for me to say if they’ve negatively impacted perceptions of nuclear power. I would have to say no but check out the survey at the top right to tell us your answer.


Joffan said…
The Simpsons do affect perceptions of nuclear power negatively to some extent but only among those who know almost nothing about the subject. Unfortunately this is a rather large number of people, some of whom are rather more confident in voicing their opinion than seems reasonable.

There was an episode of the Simpsons where the whole town was cut off in a bubble of some sort, I seem to remember. Good job they had nuclear power on that occasion. :-)
Anonymous said…
In raging against nuclear misinformation in local newspaper blogs, I have sometimes given in to the temptation to cite The Simpsons as a symptom of public ignorance (e.g., the belief that spent nuclear fuel is a glowing green liquid stored in 55-gallon drums).

That said, the Rabelaisian funhouse world created in that cartoon may have done a lot to blunt irrational fear of nuclear power. After all, other than three-eyed fish that appear pretty content, there are never any serious consequences to the various nuclear "accidents" in The Simpsons. In fact, for better or worse, the attitude of the characters toward nuclear power is pretty blase (Lisa being the exception, perhaps).

I suppose one could plausibly suggest that the show actually pokes fun at nuclear hysteria, but we are in the realm of symbolism and irony here, both of which depend heavily on public perception for their basis in "consensus interpretation," so I probably wouldn't attempt such an argument myself.
Anonymous said…
Hmmmm, well my wife does her shoe shopping online these days and did watch Al Bundy do his thing for years on-end. Similar connection???


The bubble is from the Simpsons Movie.

The show was in its initial season when I graduated from college and began working at the Savannah River Site (I've since moved on). Those were the days of the Bart Simpson T-shirts, etc. Remember those?

I've had no problem embracing Homer as a comedic icon, a sort of mascot of our industry.

I now have two sons (young teen and pre-teen) who love the Simpsons and know the value of nuclear power. I'm not saying everyone is as perceptive as these boys, but that this is one of those issues likely to generate a lot more heat and noise than light and forward motion.
gman said…
I was going to try and say something that follows Anon's post (No. 2) - but the more I think about it, the more I wonder if it is another case of seeing what I want to see. I have worked in nuclear power for 30 years and I think the Simpsons is funny. Maybe my anti-nuke counterpart views the same episodes and sees them as supporting his beliefs. If so, this really just demonstrates how good the show is - everyone likes it...
GRLCowan said…
A little-known part of the nuclear story in America is the vital role of an earlier cartoon in the Manhattan Project. Nazi Germany had carbon bricks, but they weren't sufficiently boron-free. America had Ignatz and Krazy Kat, and after 1931, every brick Ignatz threw ended up at Stagg Field.

I don't see why "The Simpsons" has never been able to show hippies waving antinuke placards for TV cameras, the cameras being turned off, and the "hippies" then pulling off their hippie masks and revealing themselves to be J.R. Ewing; black limousines turning up to collect them.

(How fire can be domesticated)
Adam said…
Life imitates art.
Jason Ribeiro said…
Other industries would have sued the Simpsons show for slander and libel for far less disparaging messages about their industry.

For example, the beef and cattle industry sued Oprah Winfrey for her statements that she would not eat another hamburger. Though I believe the beef industry was in the wrong, nonetheless it shows a certain tenacity to protect their industry.

Rather than going after the Simpsons show like the beef industry went after Oprah, why not attempt to recruit them for a pro-nuclear energy spot? No doubt that would be a long-shot, but it would probably make a very memorable tv commercial.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.


The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…