Search

The central argument/narrative of the film is explaining what the Fukishima nuclear meltdown was and what was done to contain the explosions and the subsquent radiation that was leaking into the atmosphere. How to restore power to the plant in order to contain the fuel rods and prevent meltdown. Indirectly the argument was to persuade the public to be more informed about nuclear power and the affects it could have on the world- to learn how to prevent nuclear disasters; make emergency nuclear response teams.

I was compelled and convinced by the whole film, the footage and the interviews with first hand accounts provided compelling and persuasive evidence that the film was well made and valid.

I followed up on the Fukushima 50 what they experienced, their lack of food and water. How they faded into the background after the event was over. The government nor the public realized the ramifications of what they had done and how they had saved them all from radiation. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/11/fukushima-50-kamika…

I followed up on emergency nuclear response groups if they did exist as a cause of Fukishima and came across the possibility of using robots in the place of humans in these situations. The robots could go where the humans could not saving life and limb.http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fukushima-disaster-inspires-b…

I finally looked up the statisitcs of how much cancer was prevelant in the population after the small doses of radiation to the villages surrounding Fukishima. It was interesting to find that there were more then expected and it could be a fluke due to overlooking scanning for Thyroid cancer in children in the past. There is also no definite way to prove these cancers were a direct cause of radiation or not.http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/mystery-cancers-are-cropping-chi…

Very little in this film failed to convice me. The information was well thought out and put together, the resources that were in this film were vaild and cannot be refuted because they are first hand accounts. This film does shine a negative light on nuclear power, which made me a little concerned because nuclear power is not always dangerous, but other then that nothing was done sloppily or had incorrect information

The film was shot after the event had already taken place, however in the film it mentioned interventions that were used, methods of putting water on the melting fuel rods. It also indirectly mentioned (hinted at) a need to an emergency nuclear response team internationally.

Emergency response was portrayed in the film through the team of engineers who tried to contain the problem, those who laid pipes to attempt to pump water into the reactors, the team of firefighters who sprayed water into the reactors, and the miltary crew who dropped water over the exposed fuel pools.

More statistics could have been added to enhance the film's educational value and/or a plan of what the company or Japan would do about the future of nuclear power.

The stakeholders that are described/portrayed in the film was the fate of Japan, the nuclear disasters in th past that shaked Japan, preventing the same thing from happening. The kinds of decisions they had to grapple with before the aftermath is the powerfailure, the lack of generators, and the affect the water had on the plant, and the future of the fuel rods. During the event they had to figure out how to stop the meltdown, how to restore power to the plant, how to help the engineers who had no choice but to be stuck inside, how to save Japan from nuclear fallout,etc. The aftermath was how to get the plant up and running again, the future of nuclear power in Japan, how to clean up and prevent further contamination of the land surrounding the plant. Also the health,safety and preperation of further nuclear power plant endeavors.

The viewpoints that are not included in this film were the people who may have been affected by the radiation either in Toyoko or the rest of Japan.

It is made and sustained through interviews of people who were there in the powr plant during the event, the surrounding citizens in the villages, Americans who came to intervene on their citizens, and people in Japan's government. Film footage is used to support the argument. The scientific information that is provided for support in the film was saying the levels of radiation around the plant as the situation became better and worse, the structure of the power plant (briefly), how to stop a nuclear meltdown.