Tonight, with Rose Scholars, I continued the “Chernobyl” HBO mini series. As I’ve written in previous blog posts, the film does a great job at capturing the deceitfulness of the USSR and how the government worked to downplay this among other human rights issues. However, in this post, I would like to focus on things the film did not do so well. One glaring dramatization, even falsehood, was how the film portrayed radiation in victims. It was looked at as a contagious disease, passable to visitors and medical professionals. I was confused by this, as I have never known radiation to be infectious. After looking at additional resources such as the World Health Organization and United Nations’ posts regarding the Chernobyl incident, I can confirm radiation is not a disease. Harm occurs in individuals who have been exposed, but once those individuals have bathed and changed clothes, the only damage is internal. No radiation can be passed from one person to another. The film’s narrative regarding radiation definitely added to the drama and deadliness of the accident’s portrayal, but also creates a false narrative that invokes even more fear into viewers. Typically, documentaries detailing accidents and mishandling make matters seem more severe than they are, or at least focus repeatedly on those severe effects. I see this as particularly problematic as nuclear power will only become more widespread as the earth starts to transition away from fossil fuels and misguided fears on top of rational ones won’t help the public’s enthusiasm to embrace the change. Chernobyl was a terrible and deadly accident, but I feel the cause was not solely nuclear energy or radiation. The root problem was in fact the corrupt system of government that took shortcuts in all of its proceedings, needlessly exposing citizens to dangers of all kinds.
I do agree with you that the film’s portrayal of nuclear radiation is problematic. While portraying the catastrophic damage of nuclear accidents might be intended, depicting radiation as contagious is definitely scientifically-incorrect and misleading. However, I doubt if nuclear power will become the primary source of energy in the future. We are indeed in a transition towards renewable energy, but nuclear energy is non-renewable (National Geographic) as it requires uranium. I would even say that radioactive waste can cause more harm to the environment than fossil fuel air pollution if not handled well. I hope we can make better use of safe, clean energy sources such as solar power for a more sustainable future.
Source: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/non-renewable-energy/