Skip to main content

Saying No to Dr. No

dr-no-joseph-wisemanDavid Phillips, the president of the Royal Society of Chemistry, would like to share a theory with you:

Prof. David Phillips says that Dr. No, with his personal nuclear reactor, helped to create a "remorselessly grim" reputation for atomic energy.


Prof. Phillips says the popularity of the Dr. No movie from 1962 created an enduringly negative image of nuclear power - as something dangerous that could be wielded by megalomaniacs with aspirations to world domination.

Ursula_AndressI’d actually be surprised that people connect a James Bond villain to a serious view of nuclear energy. Do people remember that from Dr. No (1962) or the sight of Ursula Andress rising from the surf armed with shells. I vote for the latter.


ThemNuclear energy has often been, in popular culture, if not exactly a fear engine in itself, the cause of fearful things. During the 1950s, this included a plethora of giant critters – ants, praying mantis’, grasshoppers -  and bands of spies trying to export nuclear secrets. In the Mike Hammer movie Kiss Me Deadly (1955), our detective hero goes on the hunt for a box containing pure fission (whatever that might be) that has the capacity to destroy the world. How it got into the box and how you’d get it out safely and use it is not discussed.kiss me end

So by the time Dr. No came out in 1962, nuclear energy had long been established as what Alfred Hitchcock called the McGuffin – that is, the mechanism that got the plot rolling but wasn’t that important in itself. (Hitchcock himself used uranium-stuffed wine bottles as the McGuffin in Notorious (1946)).Notorious


But that’s enough belaboring. What Prof. Phillips is actually up to here is to use the 50th anniversary of Dr. No (and happily, Sean Connery and Ursula Andress are around to celebrate it, though sadly, not Joseph Wiseman, Dr. No himself) to make the point that nuclear energy should be freed of such associations:

"But the RSC asserts that nuclear power has to be part of the future national energy mix, in which it plays a major role, complemented by renewable sources. Fossil fuels have to be eradicated for people to live in a healthy environment."

"Let's say yes to nuclear and no to Dr. No's nonsense."

To be honest, while of course Prof. Phillips is absolutely correct on nuclear energy, the British Green Party’s view on Dr. No is also plausible:

This message [of Prof. Phillips] was not accepted by the Green Party - which argued that Bond movies reflected concerns rather than created them.

But is that really right?


godzillaConsider: nuclear energy really isn’t that disliked, even in the shadow of Fukushima Daiichi, by Americans or Brits; the only movie I know of that uses a monster as a direct metaphor for nuclear energy is Godzilla (1954) – and who would quibble?; but most importantly, popular culture is always on the lookout for fearmakers – note that current end-of-the-world scenarios reference climate change  (The Day After Tomorrow (2004)) or the earth itself rebelling (2012 (2009)). 

But sociologists need something to do and reading public anxieties into movies is always a ripe subject. But such speculation, fun as it can be, often doesn’t mean a thing.

From top to bottom: Joseph Wiseman, Ursula Andress, both from Dr. No; Ant and Joan Weldon from Them! (1954); Maxine Cooper and Ralph Meeker from Kiss Me Deadly (1955); the wine bottles from Notorious (1946); and Godzilla (1954). Oops, forgot one:


Sean Connery, from Dr. No.


Anonymous said…
Ursula Andress in a bikini ... sorry, I've forgotten what we were talking about?
Jeff Schmidt said…
Speaking of Pop Culture views on nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. . . it doesn't seem to get talked about much (I suspect most nuclear industry people have never spent much time playing video games), but there's a popular series of videogames called "Fallout".

The premise of the Fallout games is that you take the role of a person in a sort of Mad-Max lawless post-nuclear-apocalypse world.

Some things that jump out at me as being absurd about those games is that, for example, Fallout 3 is supposed to take place almost 200 years after the big war, and yet, no vegetation is growing anywhere, and radiation levels are still high. In reality, after 200 years, most of the radiation would be gone, and the world would be lush with plant life.

It's also a world portrayed as having lots of dangerous monsters roaming around the landscape as a result of genetic mutations, 2-headed livestock, etc. All pretty over-the-top stuff.

The thing is, I suspect a lot of people don't know better, and really think that is a somewhat realistic portrayal of what a world after some nuclear bombs went off, would be like.

Unfortunately, in pop culture, nuclear power and radiation are always far worse than they are in reality.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

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…