The many 1-star reviews alleging that this series is inaccurate are notably lacking in specific examples. What's more, they all take as a given (perhaps because they're *programmed" to do so?) that the documentary is "anti-nuclear" - which is not correct.
Amidst both pro- and anti-nuclear spin, we should remember that there are actually three separate aspects to the nuclear question:
1. The scientific concept. Can we safely derive energy from the fission breakdown of radioactive materials?
2. The technology. Do we have the engineering know-how to use fission safely, and to make nuclear energy competitive with other sources?
3. The management infrastructure. Can for-profit corporate entities be entrusted with a technology as potentially destructive as nuclear energy?
The answer to 1 is clearly yes. We know more than enough about the atom to release it's energy, and to control that release.
The jury is still out on 2. Nuclear power is insanely expensive, with plants costing billions and often taking decades to bring online. The economics look still worse if you factor in the environmental cost of mining the 'fuel', the cost of disposal of wastes (still nowhere close to being a solved problem), and the cost of ultimately decommissioning the plant itself, when it passes its best-by date. All these 'external' costs are currently left to taxpayers, and are generally not included when calculating the cost of electricity.
HOWEVER: aspect 3 is the *only* one addressed by the mini-series Meltdown: Three Mile Island.
Not once does the series claim that the design of the Three Mile Island plant was seriously faulty. Or that the underlying science was inadequate. What the series focuses on is the inability of for-profit enterprises to safely build, operate and maintain something as potentially dangerous as a nuclear power plant. Or to respond swiftly and appropriately when something goes wrong.
As an engineer myself, I absolutely believe that is is *possible* to build safe and economically-viable nuclear power generating facilities. But given everything we know with absolute certainty about how corporations put return on investment above all other priorities, it is clearly impossible that they could be dependable stewards of nuclear technology. Corners will *always* be cut, and executive butts will always be covered when something goes wrong.
Anyone who watched the series to the end (rather than quitting after fifteen minutes to write a negative review) would have heard this message explicitly stated: not that nuclear power is evil, just that it has been entrusted to organizations that are singularly ill-suited to its management.
The series is also a rather touching portrayal of people who (even if you disagree with them) have chosen to fight and sacrifice for their homes, their beliefs and their professional integrity. Definitely worth watching - all the way through.
Amidst both pro- and anti-nuclear spin, we should remember that there are actually three separate aspects to the nuclear question:
1. The scientific concept. Can we safely derive energy from the fission breakdown of radioactive materials?
2. The technology. Do we have the engineering know-how to use fission safely, and to make nuclear energy competitive with other sources?
3. The management infrastructure. Can for-profit corporate entities be entrusted with a technology as potentially destructive as nuclear energy?
The answer to 1 is clearly yes. We know more than enough about the atom to release it's energy, and to control that release.
The jury is still out on 2. Nuclear power is insanely expensive, with plants costing billions and often taking decades to bring online. The economics look still worse if you factor in the environmental cost of mining the 'fuel', the cost of disposal of wastes (still nowhere close to being a solved problem), and the cost of ultimately decommissioning the plant itself, when it passes its best-by date. All these 'external' costs are currently left to taxpayers, and are generally not included when calculating the cost of electricity.
HOWEVER: aspect 3 is the *only* one addressed by the mini-series Meltdown: Three Mile Island.
Not once does the series claim that the design of the Three Mile Island plant was seriously faulty. Or that the underlying science was inadequate. What the series focuses on is the inability of for-profit enterprises to safely build, operate and maintain something as potentially dangerous as a nuclear power plant. Or to respond swiftly and appropriately when something goes wrong.
As an engineer myself, I absolutely believe that is is *possible* to build safe and economically-viable nuclear power generating facilities. But given everything we know with absolute certainty about how corporations put return on investment above all other priorities, it is clearly impossible that they could be dependable stewards of nuclear technology. Corners will *always* be cut, and executive butts will always be covered when something goes wrong.
Anyone who watched the series to the end (rather than quitting after fifteen minutes to write a negative review) would have heard this message explicitly stated: not that nuclear power is evil, just that it has been entrusted to organizations that are singularly ill-suited to its management.
The series is also a rather touching portrayal of people who (even if you disagree with them) have chosen to fight and sacrifice for their homes, their beliefs and their professional integrity. Definitely worth watching - all the way through.