Gasland & Pandora’s Promise: Film Assessment
Q 1. Gasland: film assessment
Gasland revolved around filmmaker Josh Fox, traveling the United States and exposing the dirty secrets of hydraulic fracturing and natural gas drilling. He went all over the United States to states such as Colorado, Wyoming, and Texas to talk to residents and other figures who believe they were affected by this epidemic that was slowly sweeping the nation.
He started this journey after a natural gas company offered him $100,000 to lease his property and land so they can drill for gas that they had discovered, which sparked some interest in him about this ordeal. He traveled to major states where fracking had affected resident’s living conditions and interviewed people who have been living around these wells. Throughout the movie, Fox, along with all the other residents, is advocating how hydraulic fracturing is causing numerous damages to the land and environment around them. They all believe that strict rules and regulations must be developed. Many people had realized that they now have unusual health problems that they did not have before the process started. These damages are not only affecting them- but their children and their pets and animals that they care for. Their overall case about this is that there needs to be changes and laws implemented in the process to make it safer for people who live around these fracking locations.
Throughout the film, the individuals being interviewed do make valid statements that make a very compelling argument. There is clear proof that the poor fracturing process has affected these resident’s water, which in result has affected their health. These residents showed test results from the water samples that prove that there are harmful and unnatural elements in the water that came from drilling these holes and hydraulic fracturing. Some information can be argued, is left out from these arguments, and sometimes these sources may not be that reliable. The majority of the residents claimed that their health had deteriorated greatly since this epidemic, their hair had started falling out and their kids having asthma. There was no reliable evidence shown that their health deterioration was due to this and not some other unknown causes. Some can argue that these people’s health could have been like that before the fracturing process even started. But there is still other considerable evidence and tests that have been shown which have proven the harm caused by drilling.
Since the major focus of the film is fracking and what the damage it causes, it felt that the film might have been a little biased. The film could have maybe posed different questions and also ventured out to see what other possible reasons there may be for these damages to occur in these towns. Although the point of the film was to focus on the negative aspects of the hydraulic fracturing, I don’t think they mentioned or emphasized what significant steps have already taken place to fix these issues. Even though this film was directed towards the general audience, someone who has researched this topic understands that there are also positive benefits that come from this. This film did not mention and left out all the benefits. It only seemed to focus on the negatives, which could affect how the general audience viewed fracking. After watching this film, someone will only understand that fracking causes health problems, pollutes the environment, and contaminates drinking water, but not anything good.
Conclusion
Throughout this essay, The movie of Gasland has been seen to mobilize communities, activists, and individuals. It has pushed political and social actions to safeguard their communities and their loved ones from the natural gas industry that was causing harm to the environment. Although fracking has been seen to be emphasized through the essay, the positive impacts from the movie cannot be fully ignored.
Work cited
Fox, J. (2011). Gasland. International Wow Company prod.: Gasland prod.
Q 2. Pandora’s Promise: Film Assessment
According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, the definition of the word worldview is a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world, especially from a specific standpoint. In today’s society, we live in a multi-cultural world, and along with these differences in beliefs comes many different viewpoints. Differences in worldviews tend to focus on areas such as knowledge, culture, and science. The film Pandora’s Promise focuses on aspects related to the topic of using Nuclear power as an energy source. Attempts to persuade the target audience, which appears to be environmentalists, are made to soften their opposition to using nuclear power as a primary source of energy; and compares it to coal-burning and other sources of energy that could potentially be more detrimental to society.
Anthropogenic global warming is a significant problem that continues to persist and has a considerable impact on sea-level rise, changes in climate, declines in Arctic sea ice and glacier retreat (“All About Coal,” 2019). However, opposition towards Nuclear power, which could help resolve this problem, is still prevalent among environmentalists. Pandora’s Promise brings to light some of the issues surrounding the nuclear power debate as it relates to global warming and other environmental hazards, such as radiation. Exposure to high levels of radiation can cause problems with respiration, cancer, bone abnormalities, etc. (Kollar, 2013). When compared to other sources of energy, nuclear power plants use minimal amounts of radiation. Also, using radiation dosimetry, which measures, calculates, and assesses ionizing radiation in the environment, can be used to keep pollution at a minimal (Pandora’s Promise, Stone 2013).
In contrast, coal-burning power plants produce about the same amount of energy but emit far more radiation into the environment. This is partly due to its content of uranium and thorium, which are highly radioactive elements (Kollar, 2013). Furthermore, coal-burning gushes carbon dioxide, a significant contributor to global warming (“All About Coal, 2019).
The anti-nuclear movement predates far back into history, both as a source of energy and in war. Correlation between the movement and environmental consciousness is a major contributing factor to aspects surrounding the relationship between ecological hazards and nuclear power (Pandora’s Promise, Stone 2013). Because of this, concerns regarding the effects of nuclear power on the community lends to general opposition towards using nuclear power as a primary source of energy. Moreover, environmentalists in Pandora’s Promise stated that it was hard to ignore the events that took place at the Chernobyl accident in 1986. In which a series of activities such as failed safety systems, reactor design flaws, and default of reactor operators resulted in a colossal steam blast explosion causing death and lethal radiation exposure to the community. This accident was known as the most disastrous nuclear power plant accident in history (Pandora’s Promise, Stone 2013). The Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2011, also led to radiation contamination and along with the Chernobyl accident were the only events ever to be classified as a level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale (Kollar, 2013).
The use of Solar panels is another leading source of energy. Pandora’s Promise compares the effects of coal-burning and solar panel energy on the environment as it relates to negative impact. The argument is clear; nuclear power is second only to wind turbines in terms of safety (Pandora’s Promise, Stone 2013). Air pollution from burning coal contributes to more deaths. Besides, the process of making solar panels can be lethal, and, according to Pandora’s Promise, they are toxic to produce. Conflicting viewpoints throughout the film show a significant division between those who are for and against using nuclear power. In other words, those who are against it are entirely against it and reference the events that took place at both the Chernobyl accident and Fukushima. Correctly the reported death tolls to drive home the dangers of nuclear power; when it goes wrong, it has an enormous effect on the community—killing massive amounts of people, animals, and vegetation (Pandora’s Promise, Stone, 2013). Those who are in favor of using nuclear power as a main source of energy have complete faith in its ability to be able to deliver in all aspects such as effectiveness, safety, and quality.
The film does a subpar job of supporting its argument in favor of nuclear power. Although compelling, from a logical and analytical approach, much of the fight towards using nuclear power as a primary source of energy comes from a very bias viewpoint. In my opinion, a solid blueprint was left out, and much of the focus was on past events and negative aspects related to the topic of nuclear power as a basis for why it is not used today. Although very important, these aspects can be used as somewhat of a foundation to focus on what can be done today. To make this transition a reality, and if so, how can safety measures, laws, and regulations be implemented to ensure a low detrimental impact on society while still delivering quality?
Works Cited
All About Coal. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-impacts
Kollar, L. (2013). Retrieved from http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2013/06/04/pandoras-promise/#sthash.KjOdDukC.dpbs
- S. (Director). (2013). Pandora’s Promise [Video file].