This blog post examines the choices we must make between the efficiency brought by nuclear power and the hidden dangers lurking behind it, using the film Silkwood as a lens. It questions whether convenience is truly worth accepting all the risks.
Nuclear fission is the phenomenon where uranium-235 absorbs a neutron and splits into two different atomic nuclei. This process involves a loss of mass, releasing an enormous amount of energy equal to E=mc². Initially, scientists researching the possibility of nuclear fission believed the energy produced was too small to be useful. However, they later realized that if two or more neutrons were emitted during the fission process, it could trigger a nuclear chain reaction, potentially yielding immense energy. This concept, intertwined with the power struggles of the major world powers of the time, ultimately led to the creation of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
After World War II ended, the world pledged to ban the use of atomic bombs. However, even now, long after the war, the technology used in atomic bombs—the nuclear fission chain reaction—is still utilized in nuclear power generation worldwide. Early nuclear power was introduced as a clean energy source that could prevent the depletion of fossil fuels by using pollution-free nuclear power instead of fossil fuels, and that would cause none of the environmental pollution generated by thermal power plants. Furthermore, it was a highly suitable power generation method for countries with scarce energy resources, as it could generate power for long periods using only small amounts of uranium. Consequently, nuclear power gained immense global popularity. South Korea also entered the nuclear power business and currently operates 24 nuclear power plants as of 2024.
However, the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake in Japan triggered a tsunami that caused successive explosions at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. This released enormous amounts of radioactive material and caused massive damage, prompting people to reconsider the risks of nuclear power that had been forgotten. Those who experienced the immense damage brought by nuclear power began to wonder: Can we truly abandon the benefits we’ve enjoyed from nuclear power and halt its use? Or should we continue nuclear power, even considering the low probability of a nuclear accident? Is it right to apply economic standards and make value judgments on an issue that involves countless lives?
The film ‘Silkwood, 1983’ depicts the impact of nuclear power on our society and the resulting conflicts among people, based on a true story, prompting audiences to question for themselves what is right. Karen Silkwood, the victim of the actual incident and the film’s protagonist, was an employee at a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. These plant workers faced an absurdly high risk of radiation exposure compared to others, yet they remained completely unaware of the danger they were in because the company provided absolutely no education about the risks of radiation. Even the doctor stationed at the company was not a human physician but a veterinarian. Yet, people were happily working in these poor conditions. However, the protagonist Karen gradually develops an interest in the effects of radiation after experiencing exposure herself and witnessing it happen to her colleagues. During this process, Karen discovers that the company is manipulating X-ray inspections to make defective products appear normal. When the factory union faces dissolution due to insufficient votes, Karen becomes a union member and meets with experts to save it. Through this, Karen learns the company is overworking employees without explaining the dangers of nuclear power. Realizing the company’s inspection fraud directly threatens millions of lives, Karen feels a moral responsibility. She joins forces with experts to expose the company’s corruption. However, as many coworkers lose their jobs in the process, Karen becomes both the company’s enemy and her colleagues’ enemy. Despite this situation, Karen refuses to back down and continues her work. Ultimately, however, she dies in a mysterious car accident.
This film focuses on the dangers of nuclear power. The biggest problem with nuclear power is the waste it produces. Nuclear waste itself is a highly radioactive substance, capable of destroying DNA, causing cancer, and posing a lethal threat to the human body. Karen’s company’s work involves reprocessing this radioactive waste to recover usable materials, meaning employees face daily exposure to radiation risks. Yet the company dismisses concerns, claiming even slight contamination is “acceptable” and nothing to worry about. However, the “acceptable” levels cited here are completely unreliable figures. Factory workers constantly labor in environments exposed to radiation, meaning even trace amounts can steadily accumulate in their bodies. Thus, even small quantities of hazardous material pose significant risks to them. Moreover, this problem isn’t confined solely to the workers. The reprocessed material, which the company deceitfully supplies as if it were a normal product, is a matter directly linked to the lives of not only factory workers but also countless local residents. Yet in the film, these small voices highlighting nuclear power’s harmful aspects are drowned out by the tyranny of giant corporations and the power of capital.
Considering this alone, one might even question whether nuclear power isn’t a technology developed recklessly by corporations solely for profit, without regard for workers’ safety. However, we must also consider the positive aspects of nuclear power. As mentioned earlier, nuclear power is a highly efficient energy source capable of generating significant power from minimal raw materials. Without nuclear power, a large portion of electricity would need to be supplied by thermal or hydroelectric power, leading to side effects like environmental pollution and resource waste. Furthermore, nuclear power generation is directly linked to the jobs of countless people involved in the industry. The most difficult part of Karen’s union work was precisely the conflict with her fellow employees. Seeing colleagues get laid off because of Karen’s actions, employees reacted fiercely—shunning her and openly criticizing her. While this stemmed partly from ignorance about radiation risks, the primary reason was their fear of losing their own jobs. Seeing employees yell at her to focus on wage negotiations instead of meddling in strange matters that could cost them their jobs was heartbreaking. It also made her realize just how significant a role nuclear power plays in society.
Considering these points, it’s unreasonable to condemn nuclear technology outright simply because it’s dangerous. While portrayed as a villainous corporation in the film, today’s nuclear operators establish their own standards for nuclear power and do their utmost to prevent factory workers from being exposed to radiation. Technologies like nuclear power, which carry inherent risks yet are indispensable, establish safety standards. For instance, they set limits on airborne pollutant concentrations or annual radiation exposure thresholds for workers, mandating strict adherence. These standards aim to minimize the probability of harm. The problem, however, is that such efforts cannot completely eliminate risk. Even at low concentrations, there is no guarantee that the human body will remain unharmed, and in reality, people do suffer harm, albeit with a very low probability. Furthermore, establishing these benchmarks does not guarantee that companies will adhere to them properly. Or, even unintentionally, a momentary lapse in attention could lead to non-compliance. Moreover, as mentioned in the film, this problem is not solely the workers’ issue. The nuclear power plant accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima, and the immense human casualties from radiation exposure they caused, are prime examples. No matter how low the probability is made, is it truly morally or economically rational to weigh the possibility of such a catastrophic disaster against the economic gains to find a “reasonable” standard? Some compare this to people driving cars despite knowing the relatively high probability of traffic accidents, accepting the risk for the sake of convenience. Thinking this way might reduce one’s sense of moral responsibility. One might think this level of risk is acceptable for the sake of convenience. But even when considering that a single traffic accident could kill me, my family, and countless local residents, can we truly accept that risk as sufficiently tolerable?
