SYNOPSICS
The Atomic States of America (2012) is a English movie. Don Argott,Sheena M. Joyce has directed this movie. Michelle Catts,Kelly McMasters are the starring of this movie. It was released in 2012. The Atomic States of America (2012) is considered one of the best Documentary,History,News movie in India and around the world.
In 2010, the United States announced the first new nuclear power plant construction in over 32 years. The 'Nuclear Renaissance' was born, and America's long-stalled expansion of nuclear energy was infused with new life. On March 11, 2011, a 9.0 magnitude earthquake hit Japan and caused chaos at the Fukushima Power Plant. That accident sent ripples all the way to the US and suddenly the fierce debate over the safety and viability of nuclear power was back in the public consciousness. Our documentary takes the viewer on a journey to reactor communities around the country. This film exposes the truths and myths of nuclear power, and poses the question of whether or not man can responsibly split the atom.
The Atomic States of America (2012) Trailers
Same Director
The Atomic States of America (2012) Reviews
Disappointing Film
On Netflix, the description of this movie suggests that it will reveal both the good and the bad of nuclear energy. It does precisely none of that. I very seldom watch a movie that I would want to give a one star review all the way through. This film is no exception, but not for lack of trying. With fictional movies, I can see no reason to subject myself to them if they are truly awful. In this case, though, I thought that the topic of the movie was too important. Maybe there would be something interesting. Something useful. There were some good points, but all in all, they weren't enough to salvage the movie. Problems exist with nuclear power (the dangers of weapons proliferation not being the least of them, although it largely went unmentioned in this film), but talking only to anti-nuclear crusaders creates a movie with the same level of objectivity as a "climatologist" paid by an oil company. Knowledge of how, exactly, radiation (or biology) works seemed abysmally low at some points. No, alpha-particles don't lodge in your tissue and emit waves of death. This might be a valid simplification of an alpha-particle emitter, but the danger of it being taken literally is very real. No, one mutation won't cause cancer. It takes two at a minimum (one to a gene regulating cell reproduction, and another to a gene that kills the cell through apoptosis if its DNA is damaged), and then the cancerous cell has to get "lucky" and not be killed by your body before it has a chance to duplicate. Serious discussion about nuclear power is important. There are issues, and there are benefits. This movie just isn't the place to find that serious discussion.
Decent production quality but mostly fear mongering
It seems like the creators of this documentary took their understanding of nuclear power straight from The Simpsons. If this documentary was on the subject of abortion then it would be scene after scene of fundamentalist Christians sitting in their living rooms spouting ignorance in one liners. The paranoid fears of radiation are returned to over and over again without even mentioning the fact that the average coal fired plant releases 100 times more radiation through it's ash than a nuclear plant. The sad fact is that the creators seem to have the skills to make a top notch documentary. At every point they assumed that they're preaching to the converted. Nuclear energy is a complicated issue and a more level headed approach could have made for a very interesting viewing.
Mislabeled emotional drama
This is a very slow and uninformative documentary, if you want to hear about atomic power. This is an emotional drama about US politicians lying to the public, as is customary for them, based loosely on real events. It unfortunately tries to paint all nuclear power as being as dangerous as the kind provided by cold-war US opportunists. Aside from the ominous music playing along with clips from poorly informed newscasts, we are asked to sit through longer segments of stories about people with cancer, after hearing that "any radiation is bad radiation." It goes tellingly unmentioned that cancer is often treated with nuclear radiation. Actual numbers on most of the dangers related to radiation are not to be found in this film. Neither are comparisons to the dangers related to other energy sources. In the end, this film makes me more afraid of visiting the US than of living next to a modern nuclear power plant.
A Good Documentary for Understanding the Context of the Debate over Nuclear Power
This documentary works from a book, Kelly McMasters's Welcome to Shirley, in which the author investigates the reasons for the high cancer rates suffered by residents of the town that she grew up in. The film's scope moves beyond the town of Shirley to investigate the history of nuclear power in the United States, the relationship between federal government and the industry, and promulgation of nuclear power as "green" energy. While all of these chapters are useful, the most pressing message of the film seems to be the need for citizens to work together for the benefit or health of their community rather than entrusting their welfare to government. The extent to which this is decisive in the debate over nuclear power is unclear; however, the film is convincing in its effort to demonstrate that citizens cannot abdicate responsibility for their own welfare and that a well-informed citizenry is both possible and necessary.