Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
This episode investigates the ways in which nuclear power’s image has been shaped by our culture—and explores the urgent need to recast nuclear as the hero of the energy transition story.
Meet the people from Ontario and beyond who have made it their mission to combat climate change. From energy production to emerging technologies, listen in on conversations about what the path to net-zero looks like here in Canada, and abroad.
The Climate Challengers | E8 Pop Culture and Nuclear’s PR Problem | Transcript
[00:03] Osama Baig: On this episode of The Climate Challengers.
[00:06] Kapil Aggarwal: There's no glowing green rods that we handle the byproducts. That come out of our nuclear operations, they don't glow green, as Homer might think.
[00:16] Daniel Simpson: So if you're average moviegoer, your understanding of nuclear power is largely informed by an association with nuclear weapons.
[00:25] Kathy Nosich: So we're holding the movie industry accountable for hurting nuclear's reputation.
[00:30] Osama Baig: Can you eat donuts around a few Bay area like Simson?
[00:33] Daniel Simpson: Godzilla's recast as the film's hero and the other monsters who are destroying the Earth are rather transparently a metaphor for climate change ravaging the planet.
[00:42] Kathy Nosich: The fact that we're faced with climate change and that really brought clarity and a sense of urgency to how we communicate about nuclear power. It's a now or never issue, and we have to treat it that way.
[00:56] Osama Baig: Hey, friends, and welcome to another episode of The Climate Challengers. I’m Osama Baig, your host. And on this episode we are looking at nuclear power from the perspective of media, pop culture and Hollywood. The truth is, decades into humanity's use of nuclear power, there is still hesitancy among the public about the safety of this technology. Some people are afraid and this general sense of unease among certain segments of the population is why there has been just a handful of new nuclear projects in North America for many, many decades now.
[01:29] Here in Canada, where we consume much of the same media as the United States, our power plants are also legacy assets. We have not built new nuclear generating capacity in decades. This is a problem because nuclear energy is emissions free power. It doesn't contribute to climate change. So nuclear is not just clean and reliable. It's an essential technology in meeting our emissions reduction targets and electrifying our day to day lives.
[01:55] If we have any hope of meeting those targets and reaching net zero in time to stop climate change, we need more nuclear power, not less. That we just can't get there with wind, solar and hydro alone. So today we are going to ask the question. Did pop culture lead us astray? Now, when most people are asked to name a pop culture reference to nuclear power, they naturally think of Homer Simpson asleep at the controls in Sector 7-G.
[02:21] The Simpsons has been on the air since 1989 and is probably the most successful cartoons of all times. A cultural juggernaut. The opening credits sequence has probably been seen billions upon billions of times around the world. You might remember it. It all starts with the camera zooming in through some clouds and down into the nuclear power plant. We see Homer Simpson handling a glowing green rod when the whistle suddenly blows signaling the end of his workday.
[02:49] He carelessly drops the rod, which ends up in his shirt, runs to his car, and later finds the rod and throws it out of the window into the street where it bounces into a sewer. We then see each member of his family breezing home and all ending up on the couch. The Simpsons is comedy, it is satire but that doesn't mean it hasn't had a profoundly misleading impact on people's views of nuclear.
[03:12] So let's start by understanding just how much that opening credits sequence viewed by so many millions every day has allowed deep misgivings about nuclear power to fester in the public's mind. Joining me now to break down this scene is Kapil Aggarwal, Director of Eastern Operations for Nuclear Sustainability Services at Ontario Power Generation. Kapil, thanks for being here and welcome to The Climate Challenges. So tell me a bit about yourself, what do you do at OPG and what does it feel like to be a climate challenger?
[03:44] Kapil Aggarwal: Yeah, well, it's great to be here to talk about this and thanks for having me. So I've worked with OPG for 23 years now in various, various roles throughout the company, and I'm delighted to have the opportunity to talk about how nuclear impacts on climate and in a positive way.
[04:03] Osama Baig: Absolutely. Tell me a bit about Eastern Operations and Nuclear Sustainability Services, Ontario Power Generation. What are you guys focused on?
[04:11] Kapil Aggarwal: Yeah, so Nuclear Sustainability Service is a division or a business unit within Ontario Power Generation. We use NSS for short, and we consider ourselves the stewards for all the byproducts that are released from our nuclear power plants, and that includes Pickering, Darlington and the Bruce Power site.
[04:32] Osama Baig: Okay. That's great to know. I think stewardship of these byproducts is a very important role, very important job, because that will impact the future generations to come. How many glowing green radioactive rods have you handled?
[04:48] Kapil Aggarwal: Absolutely zero. There are no glowing green rods that we handle. The byproducts that come out of our nuclear operations, they don't glow green as Homer might think. But rather, it really is something that we have to be very, very respectful and careful with because you can't really see it. You can't really touch it, feel it, smell it.
[05:19] And so with that in mind, we have to be extremely careful. Not just for the workers that operate the plant but as stewards of those byproducts and how we handle it afterwards as well. And that's all in the name to protect our workers, protect our plant, protect the environment and protect the public.
[05:37] Osama Baig: Definitely. definitely Another question that I have is, do you just handle radioactive fuels in the open like Homer with a pair of tongs? I know the opening sequence of the Simpsons showed Homer Simpson's with a pair of tongs handling a fuel rod. What are your thoughts on that? How are radioactive fuels handled?
[05:57] Kapil Aggarwal: Yeah, I know. Clearly that's not a good representation or an accurate representation of how things actually happen in our plants or how we deal them in NSS. So it's not tongs holding a green glowing rod that slips out of the tongs and falls to the back of his shirt. Again, as I said, the first thing we do is when we're going to handle byproducts from our nuclear materials, the first thing to do is assess.
[06:30] We need to understand what we're dealing with. There's certain levels of contamination or radioactivity that we need to quantify. We have a full department, Radiation Protection Department that supports our program around dealing with these byproducts. And we work with the IRP department to characterize, assess and then plan for the work that needs to happen.
[06:56] And that can include things like engineered barriers. So we can have long handled tools, we can have shielding casks, we can have robotics help us with dealing with these materials in a very safe and controlled way. And then from there, we can deal with handling that material and it goes to where it needs to go.
[07:18] Osama Baig: Yeah. It's interesting to see the different types of innovative technologies that are used for handling, like you mentioned. Robotics and then there is various other tools that are used. Does radioactive material ever leave the plant, say in an employee shirt like we've seen The Simpsons?
[07:40] Kapil Aggarwal: Yeah. You can see that clip, the introduction clip and again is not a representation of what really happens. So every employee that works inside the plant or inside the station, they enter and they exit. They enter at the start of the day; they will monitor at that point in time and they will exit at the end of the day.
[08:01] And they will also monitor at that time. And when I mean by monitoring is they will scan themselves, their body to ensure that there's no radiation or contamination found on their body. And that allows them to safely leave the plant knowing that they're contamination free. It's very rare we'll get to that point and find out that a person is contaminated.
[08:28] There's checks and balances all throughout the day depending on what the employee is working on to make sure that they're scanning going on throughout the day as well. So in that particular case, if Homer had a green glowing rod in the back of his shirt, not knowing it was there, and tried to leave the plant, there would have been a full stop right there and the right support.
[08:50] The RAD Protection Department would jump in and help that employee to remove the green glowing rod and make sure the employee is safe and contamination free before they would be allowed to go back home.
[09:04] Osama Baig: Another fun question is can you eat donuts around a few Bay Area like [] Simpson?
[09:15] Kapil Aggarwal: No. In fact, food and consumables, that's part of our red radiation protection program. Because the last thing you want to have happen is an employee having lunch and somehow their lunch were to have been contaminated then they're ingesting contamination. So there's a very rigid program about food, drinks, gum, medications, anything that someone may ingest when they're working in the plant.
[09:40] So there's controlled areas. There are controlled zones in which food and consumables are allowed to be consumed. In that situation on The Simpsons, that would not be an area where you could consume food.
[09:52] Osama Baig: It's good to know. I think that release a lot of my anxiety. Well, thank you so much. Really appreciate it.
[09:58] Kapil Aggarwal: Thanks for having me. It's been a pleasure talking to you today.
[10:01] Osama Baig: So clearly, Hollywood does not always get it right. But to help us go deeper on this point and better understand the way that what we see on TVs and on the big screen impacts the way we think about different technologies, I am joined now by Daniel Simpson, a Ph.D. candidate at Queen's University, studying screen cultures and Curatorial studies.
[10:22] Daniel Simpson: Hello, happy to be here. How are you doing today?
[10:24] Osama Baig: Yeah, I'm doing great, Daniel. Daniel, welcome to The Climate Challengers. It's great to have you on the podcast, especially someone who has a specialization in the art of curation and just want to learn a lot more from you as to how Hollywood has really perpetuated kind of that negative view of nuclear energy. Where does that come from?
[10:48] Daniel Simpson: Yeah. So when we're talking about cinematic depictions of nuclear power on film, the sort of starting point we're really looking at is the 1950s and the emergence of the atomic era science fiction and horror films. There's a lot of giant monster films in some cases miniature monsters. But basically this notion of like radiation and nuclear power creating science fiction creatures to be feared from.
[11:16] And you really have this coming from two places in America, from Hollywood film and from Japan with their Kaiju films, which are giant monster films, the most famous of which being Godzilla. But by and large, I would argue that these films aren't actually really interested in exploring nuclear power in any substantive way. It's either scientifically or in terms of its influence on the culture. It's really just there is a plot device for an excuse to make your science fiction monsters come alive.
[11:48] Osama Baig: In these movies, why do you think these mid-century Hollywood producers chose to make nuclear specifically the villain?
[11:56] Daniel Simpson: I think it was an easy go to as far as culturally conveying a sense of menace and of potential danger. You have this emergent technology that for a general public understanding is fairly limited and is largely informed with nuclear power being something that's associated really with nuclear weapons and nuclear destruction. And in the 50s, that's coming from the aftermath of World War Two and reflecting on its usage as a bomb against Japan.
[12:27] And then as you get into the Cold War, it's the sense of the mushroom cloud that's hanging over world affairs and the paranoia and anxiety that comes from that. Even up until recently in the 2000, when it is fear mongering of potential weapons of mass destruction that helps enable the war in Iraq. So if you're average moviegoer, you're average citizen really, your understanding of nuclear power is largely informed by an association with nuclear weapons.
[12:58] So if you're a filmmaker or a producer and you need to quickly convey danger and apocalyptic high stakes, nuclear power is an easy way to convey that. It quickly communicates something to an audience that is recognizable and speaks to a very real anxiety that is existing in the culture. Yeah, I think that's primarily why. It was a very efficient shorthand for an audience whose understanding of the text would have been limited to nuclear power means nuclear bomb.
[13:27] Osama Baig: Moving forward to the seventies and eighties, we saw the nuclear again depicted in apocalyptic ways in James Bond franchise to the Terminator movies. So moving on from the 1950s era as like you explained throughout the decades, nuclear was again and again depicted in those apocalyptic ways. Can you talk about that choice and the impact that had on public attitude toward nuclear?
[13:54] Daniel Simpson: Yeah, well, I mean, you certainly see the reliance of the threat of nuclear destruction and nuclear apocalypse as the MacGuffin in a lot of Hollywood action films in particular. And for those who might not know the term MacGuffin basically refers to anything in a film that's only important insofar as the degree that it's a plot device to motivate the action of the story.
[14:17] So to give it more contemporary example, what's in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction, it doesn't matter. It's just something for the characters to go after. In the same way, a lot of action films start to lean on nuclear weapons and nuclear power as the sort of catastrophe that's hanging in the wings. The James Bond films, particularly those as you mentioned, that are produced during the Cold War even if nuclear isn't directly integrated into the plot, it's not explicitly what it's about. That inevitably shades the conflict because so much of those films are responding to or mirroring tensions in the world that were going on with regard to the Cold War.
[14:56] The Terminator films kick things up in terms of being a lot more explicit about the horrors of nuclear and that the first Terminator, the premise is predicated on this future nuclear war that has left the planet an apocalyptic wasteland and endless warfare. It is a reliable MacGuffin for producers that if they were to put this in a film, the audience will recognize the danger of it and understand it. Does that cause the understanding? Hard to say, but I think it does reflect what the public understanding of nuclear power is.
[15:30] Osama Baig: Definitely, Daniel, I think what it seems like is it appears to be a little distinction in these films between nuclear bombs and nuclear power. But I want to ask you and what I'm curious about is what impact does that have in regards to having this insignificant distinction between nuclear bombs and nuclear power?
[15:50] Daniel Simpson: Well, I think just that, that it is a conflation of those ideas that nuclear power means those nuclear weapons, nuclear bombs. It's hard to think of nuclear power in a context outside of that. And certainly when it comes to media depictions, it's not hard to generate a list of films and TV shows that depict nuclear weapons in some capacity or about nuclear weapons.
[16:15] But to find ones that are about nuclear power without the context of the bomb, it’s a lot less to choose from. And the ones you do get are stuff like the Simpsons and Homer working in a nuclear factory, and that's overtly a cartoon and played to its most cartoonish extremes. And then you also have in the 1960s, the Marvel comic book superheroes that are emerging who are in some ways products of the same atomic age that the 50s monster movies were.
[16:46] And Stanley has even said that he does not know what any of these terms mean in the most basic, rudimentary way. He just likes the terms. He just likes what radioactive spider means dramatically as a phrase. Same thing with like cosmic rays or gamma bombs. It's just an efficient term to convey an idea.
[17:06] But those are the sort of closest things you get to nuclear power and media that's divorced from nuclear weapons. And they still are highly fantastical and also contributing to some form of mutation and monstrosity.
[17:22] Osama Baig: Are there any new narratives out there in society which take nuclear energy and really recast and re reshape it as part of the solution for climate change or any other any other problems out there in the world?
[17:35] Daniel Simpson: There's two films that I can think of that have debatably represented that shift. One is the 2019 version of Godzilla: King of the Monsters, which despite the title is not the same as the 1956 version of Godzilla: King of the Monsters, where in that film Godzilla's recast as the film's hero. And the other monsters who are destroying the Earth are rather transparently a metaphor for climate change ravaging the planet.
[18:01] And in the third act, Godzilla is dying and he is revived by a nuclear explosion. So symbolically you can view that as representing a shift where nuclear power is a solution to climate change rather than an impediment. Although I will grant that you need to be looking at the film at a symbolic level and anyone who's looking at it just in terms of literal plot might miss that.
[18:27] More overt is speaking of Netflix, the Netflix film Don't Look Up which was released just a couple of months ago where the comet that's on a collision course with Earth is very obviously meant to be a metaphor for climate change and the inaction that is often done in regards to facing climate change. And the proposed solution is to use nuclear weapons to divert the comet from Earth.
[18:50] And this plot ends up being foiled by corporate greed. But in the text, they do position nuclear as a solution. But what I do find interesting is it kind of circles back to our conversation about the conflation of nuclear power and nuclear bombs that in both of these narratives which are the closest that Hollywood has come to recasting nuclear power as the hero rather than the villain, it's still nuclear bombs.
[19:15] There's an inability from film to see past that when it comes to depicting nuclear. So that, I find, is quite interesting.
[19:24] Osama Baig: Definitely. Daniel. Well, I think this has been an enlightening discussion. Thank you so much, Daniel, for sharing your insights. And thanks for being a climate challenger.
[19:32] Daniel Simpson: My pleasure. Thank you for allowing me to be here.
[19:34] Osama Baig: My pleasure. Thanks. Take care. It's clear that Hollywood and pop culture have played a powerful role in creating mistrust among the public around all things nuclear. But if we are going to stop climate change, we need nuclear. And in fact, far from being the villain, nuclear can be the hero of the century. Playing a key role in enabling our transition away from fossil fuels toward cleaner, more renewable and zero emissions technology.
[20:00] So to take a look at what we can do to shift this narrative, I am joined now by Kathy Nosich Nottage, director of Brand Management at OPG. Kathy, welcome to The Climate Challengers.
[20:10] Kathy Nosich: Hello, Osama, thank you. Thank you for having me. This is fun.
[20:14] Osama Baig: It's my pleasure. So, Kathy, tell us a bit about what you do in Ontario power generation And I know OPG, you're probably very, very involved with this campaign to recast nuclear as the hero of the story. So tell us a bit more about how this idea came from as well.
[20:31] Kathy Nosich: Sure, sure. And you know I think it's great listening to the other guests too so you understand there's a need here. But for yourself and myself and those of us who are in the industry, we have access to so much information. Obviously, we live it, we breathe it. And we're in the stations. We've seen how immaculate and how well-run and how diligent the employee eyes are.
[21:00] So we're immersed in it day in, day out. And it's not fair for us to say, “Why doesn't the public understand?” Because they don't have access to this information. And I think we have to realize and not take for granted that the public doesn't get to see upfront and learn all the information that we have access to.
[21:21] And what's more is they've been getting their information from movies and from television and from popular culture. And that's obviously what we've been talking about here today. And everything they've learned about nuclear power has obviously set them up for their feelings about nuclear power. I think what's happened now is and you've talked about it, the fact that we're faced with climate change.
[21:52] And that really brought clarity and a sense of urgency to how we communicate about nuclear power. It's a now we're never issue, and we have to treat it that way. And we have to look at this as a chance to demonstrate that nuclear power can play such an important role, a starring role, if you will, in addressing climate change.
[22:17] Osama Baig: Let's pull on that threat a bit, Kathy. I think for nuclear energy to play a starring role, I think that's really important, especially when it comes to climate change, just because of how much our industry is contributing to combating climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. So what kind of messages are you hoping to break through with this specific campaign, The Climate Challengers and also what is the creative approaches that are being taken here?
[22:40] Kathy Nosich: Sure. Well, as I said, we want to be more direct, right? So no more pussyfooting around. And so the message behind the campaign is that perceptions of nuclear are largely a work of fiction and that Hollywood is the culprit there, and we have to really address that, I believe. And really, nuclear should be seen as something that not only can help our future and is a solution to climate change, but we believe that in movie terms, our happily ever after depends on it.
[23:21] So we're holding the movie industry accountable for hurting nuclear's reputation. That's obviously said with a little tongue-in-cheek. But our aim is to be more direct to hopefully break through and grab the audience's attention. And we want to take on decades of misinformation spread through popular culture by using the images and the language of movies and flipping it on its end so that nuclear is the hero once and for all.
[23:54] Osama Baig: Definitely. So, Kathy, what are some of the tactics you're considering to get people's attention spans and interests?
[24:00] Kathy Nosich: Well, it is a multiplatform campaign, and we are hoping to reach Ontarians both in home and out of home. And that includes reaching movie fans, entertainment junkies and people who care about the environment. We've got a broad audience that we want to reach. So because the theme is around movies and Hollywood, we're going to treat our creative assets, our videos, like any other theatrical movie trailer.
[24:31] So that's something that we think will be a little different and hopefully attention grabbing. And we're also going to look at using our interest screens, “Warning Of Nuclear Misinformation”. So that's something that I think can be pretty powerful and stop people in their tracks. Again, our aim is always grab attention, but also to hopefully get the viewer to visit the website where we will have real facts about nuclear. And as you say there's a lot of different platforms out there. We're open to using all of them.
[25:08] Osama Baig: Thank you. Great seeing you.
[25:09] Kathy Nosich: Thank you. Nice seeing you.
[25:11] Osama Baig: I want to thank all three of my guests today. Kathy Nosich, Daniel Simpson and Kapil Aggarwal. Having a background in nuclear engineering and spending a lot of time thinking about this subject, it is interesting to consider the powerful cultural forces at work that are keeping nuclear from assuming a central role in the fight against climate change. But it does feel like the ground is beginning to shift.
[25:35] Clearly, climate change is the true villain of the 21st century. And every technology that can rollback greenhouse gas emissions needs to be on the front lines for this fight. Thank you for listening to another episode of The Climate Challengers. This is Osama Baig signing off.
The Climate Challengers podcast tech is managed by Podium Podcast Production [https://www.podiumpodcastco.com/]