Perhaps it never occurred to the two thousand scientists who gathered at the U.S. Capitol in June 1957 to launch the "anti-nuclear energy" movement that a global "pro-nuclear" movement that seems small but will become important in the future, will also be launched the same month but 56 years later, in 2013, and calls for the exploitation of this energy.
The strangest thing is that the source of the invitation is cinema, through the American documentary "Pandora's Promise" shown by Netflix and caused a huge stir by asking not to fear nuclear energy.
Pandora's Promise won the 2013 Sheffield International Documentary Film Festival Award, earning more than 65 times its budget (grossed more than $66 million, a third of which was on the first day of screening, against a budget of just around $<> million).
A decade before this bold call, and coinciding with the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian war and its effects, which led to mounting calls for the German government to "reverse the closure of the last 3 nuclear power plants" and France's satisfaction with retaining its reactors, which provide about 70% of its electricity, an update to the call of the "Pandora Promise" appeared in the form of an Irish documentary this time, the film "Atomic Hope", which was also released by Netflix on February 17, but after its production. With a budget not exceeding 150 thousand euros.
The first attempt to defend nuclear power
In the view of U.S. nuclear engineer Linka Kolar, Robert Stone's Pandora Promise offered a unique call for nuclear energy to change the way people think about it and make them wonder why they opposed it in the first place.
Stone himself was a lifelong environmentalist and anti-nuclear advocate, before changing his stance and mobilizing in his film many prominent environmentalists who changed their views on nuclear power, after protesting against it in the seventies and eighties, and are now speaking in favor of it as a "green" source of electricity.
Among them is British writer and environmental activist Mark Linnas, who changed his stance on nuclear power in 2005 when he learned at a conference that it provides one-sixth of the world's electricity without emitting carbon, in exchange for providing wind and solar power for only a small fraction.
In the film's opening, we see Linas touring the vicinity of Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, near the second-worst nuclear disaster in history. He then navigates through scenes of the horrific devastation of the 2011 tsunami, asking everyone who meets him, "Are you still a supporter of nuclear power?"
Less than 10 minutes later, pro-nuclear experts are talking amid scenes of protests against nuclear energy, with demonstrators dressed as skeletons.
One-sided logic
Manohla Darghes, principal critic at the New York Times, said the film was a "one-sided logic promotion" in which Stone attempted, for 87 minutes, to mobilize real interviews, archival material, and even clips from "The Simpsons" to prove that "everything anti-nuclear activists believe is wrong, and that decades of fear-mongering and politically and ideologically motivated disinformation have led to the demonization of this energy, whenever we try to seek our salvation" without leaving room for dissent. He merely repeated that "those who oppose nuclear energy must necessarily be proponents of burning fossil fuels."
The critic added: "There is certainly an environmental issue that must be raised to take advantage of nuclear energy, as an alternative to fossil fuels, "but this will not be achieved by the enthusiasts of nuclear energy saying that everything will be fine if we use it, so there must be an argument that convinces people of that."
"Atomic hope" between argument and challenge
Critic Dennis Harvey argues that "Atomic Hope did not make a comprehensive case for the adoption of nuclear power" and merely offers an intriguing but unpopular point of view that deserves clear explanation and discussion "which the film did not provide in the end."
He also did not listen to opponents at all, stressing only that "nuclear power is the fastest way to eliminate carbon emissions from other energy systems, in time to combat climate change."
Critic Peter Bradshaw argues that the film "made a convincing case for nuclear power" as Irish writer and director Frankie Finton chose to take on a difficult challenge, trying for 82 minutes to convince generations raised on the idea that "nuclear power means the end of the world" while most do not differentiate between nuclear power and nuclear weapons, despite knowing that "this will not be easy."
Bradshaw adds that the film was able to take us back to a thorny topic for environmentalists around the world, reminding them that "the last realistic hope for avoiding climate catastrophe is to stop worrying, and learn to love nuclear energy as a clean, very efficient, climate-friendly source."
Swimming against the current
"Atomic Hope" does not deny the importance of renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, but argues that progress is very slow, and time is running out. It is also undeniable that the dangers of nuclear power are real, just as there are clear global risks and harms from fossil fuels.
But he emphasizes that the dangers of nuclear power are being exaggerated and misunderstood after a myth of horror was perpetuated around it, hindering debate and thinking, and no longer commensurate with "today's evolution of safety measures."
Critic Tara Brady describes it as a "swim against the current" that promotes the cleanest and greenest sources of energy, but it's very scary.
Drawing on a group of environmentalists and pro-nuclear activists, they insist that "deep-rooted concerns should not overshadow current climate concerns."