Masaryk University

Department of International Relations and European Studies

Contemporary Trends II

Framing Energy in Pop Culture

Atomic Culture

Course: Contemporary Trends II

Author: Sára Jungwirthová

Date: 30. 4. 2018

 1. Introduction

In this short essay I will try to briefly examine the impact of nuclear energy and nuclear warfare
on shaping popular culture of the 20th and 21st century. My argument is that the omnipresent
nuclear theme in both movies, novels, graphic novels and music is a trend benefiting from the
fact that a nuclear disaster is something the humankind has not yet experienced, but it’s
(however slightly) possible that it one day might. It is fascinating to trace how has the atomic
theme been depicted since the 1940s – throughout the seventy years since the U.S. dropped
two nuclear bombs on Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki the perception did change
somehow, but some generally shared features remained much the same. In the following
chapters I will try to identify those distinctions and similarities.

2. Overview of the Atomic culture in the 20th and 21st century

It is interesting to note that nuclear energy has not always been perceived purely negatively.
Actually, quite the opposite – at the beginning of nuclear research before the World War II it
was perceived as a potential source of clean and safe energy, but its reputation has been
deteriorating ever since then.1 The trauma of the only case of a nuclear bomb being used in a
warfare was the first and ultimate stimulus for pop culture adopting its catastrophic stance
towards everything atomic. It makes perfect sense to me that the first country to produce an
atomic theme-based movie was Japan itself – the first and so far only country to have a real
life experience with the horrors of an atomic blast. The movie Godzilla from 1954, a legendary
and truly classic piece of sci-fi cinematography, depicts the story of a giant monster created
from dangerous radiation escape that emerged from the sea to destroy Japan’s capital Tokyo,
causing chaos, fear and the loss of many innocent civilian lives.2

The still live memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, together with the emergence of Cold War
(which resolved primarily around nuclear proliferation) was why in the 1950s atomic culture
experienced a wide boom, with most pop culture products depicting nuclear energy/nuclear

1
Beth Kelly, „Nuclear Power and Pop Culture – Not a Positive Reaction“, Nuclear Street, 22 June 2015,
https://nuclearstreet.com/pro_nuclear_power_blogs/b/mixed-reactions-nuclear-energy-
media/archive/2015/06/22/nuclear-power-and-pop-culture-not-a-positive-reaction#.WuC__i-B3OR (accessed
25 April 2018).
2
Gloria Goodale, “Nuclear radiation in pop culture: more giant lizards than real science”, The Christian Science
Monitor, 30 March 2011, https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0330/Nuclear-radiation-in-pop-culture-
more-giant-lizards-than-real-science (accessed 25 April 2018).

2
weapons as the ultimate destructive threat that an enemy can possess, focusing on the
dangers of radiation, but also on spreading awareness about civil defense measures. The
attempts to base movies on the fear of radiation seem fairly understandable, since radiation
(as a threat that is invisible, untouchable, but extremely dangerous) is a perfect impulse for
minds with a wild imagination. It is very interesting to note though that the U.S. in the Cold
War era produced mainly superheroes made out of atomic radiation, unlike Japan where
atomic monsters prevailed.3

The 1960s and 1970s experienced a rather significant decline in nuclear themes in pop
culture, most probably because of the mass destruction threat becoming somewhat less
realistic and urgent. “While 64 % of Americans in 1959 said that nuclear war was the most
pressing issue for the United States, by 1964 that number had dropped to just 16 % […] It was
the Era of the Big Sleep.”4

A fairly radical change came with the Three Mile Island Accident in 1979, when a nuclear
reactor partially melted down in a nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. This incident had a
tremendous effect on the American society and on the public’s perception of the non-military
use of nuclear energy. The popular culture reacted in taking a “more serious, dramatic and
realistic turn”.5 The (globally) even much worse incident of Chernobyl in 1986 only further
enhanced this trend. Atomic culture suddenly wasn’t just about the use of fatally destructive
nuclear weapons, but also about the threats posed to humankind by civilian nuclear usage. A
good example of this is the movie China Syndrome (1979), which was released just twelve
days before the Three Mile Island Accident – a truly eerie coincidence/prophecy.6

The depiction of nuclear power plants in popular culture has remained a hot issue up until
today, however the most current depiction of the atomic culture focuses on nuclear terrorism,
as we can see for example in the movie The Sum of All Fears (2002).7 Nuclear weapons also

3
Samira Ahmed, „How The Bomb changed everything“, BBC, 2 July 2015,
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150702-how-the-bomb-changed-everything (accessed 25 April 2018).
4
„Atomic Culture“, Atomic Heritage Foundation, 9 August 2017,
https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/atomic-culture (accessed 25 April 2018).
5
Gloria Goodale, “Nuclear radiation in pop culture: more giant lizards than real science”, The Christian Science
Monitor, 30 March 2011, https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0330/Nuclear-radiation-in-pop-culture-
more-giant-lizards-than-real-science (accessed 25 April 2018).
6
Kevin Hurlbutt, „Nuclear Power in Cinema“, http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph241/hurlbutt2/
(accessed 25 April 2018).
7
Ibid.

3
often don’t make the main story line but contribute to it partially as some sort of an intro or
subtle background storyline – such as in the TV series Lost or in the movie Mad Max (2015).8

3. Nuclear energy & The Simpsons - lack of scientific facts?

One of the most influential products of recent pop culture that covers nuclear energy quite
extensively is the legendary American TV show The Simpsons. The show has it all – an evil
power plant owner Mr. Burns, the incapable workers led by Homer Simpson, Blinky the three-
eyed fish and many other nuclear references. Nuclear energy is portrayed overall in a mocking
and negative way, making fun of all aspects of the power plant’s role in the Springfield town.
Of course it can be argued (and should be!) that The Simpsons are just a satirical comedy
mocking a whole range of other social/cultural/political aspects of the current Western
societies, but it is somewhat understandable that nuclear energy supporters are not exactly
thrilled about nuclear power plant workers being portrayed as completely incapable of
operating such a potentially dangerous facility. It is however also fair to say that to a large
extent The Simpsons “sacrifice technical correctness in favour of humour.”9 The U.S.
government is obviously one of the parties not thrilled with such a portrayal, which is why it
actively tries to correct all the nuclear misconceptions from the show by stating that control
work operators don’t work by themselves, that nuclear power plants are well-maintained,
nuclear waste is safely stored, that there are rigorous safety standards at place, etc. It’s true
that some of the things from the show are clearly nonsense, especially that power plants
would cause mutation (Blinky the three-eyed fish) or that commercial nuclear spent fuel is
liquid.10 Doubting the safety and good maintenance of U.S. nuclear power plants is, however,
something quite different.

The show’s creator, then executive producer Sam Simon actually agreed to go on a
power plant tour to San Onofre plant in California (in reaction to a wave of governmental

8
Meaghan Webster, „Nuclear Weapons: The Pop Culture Villain You Might Not Have Noticed“, NTI, 27 April
2017, http://www.nti.org/analysis/atomic-pulse/nuclear-weapons-pop-culture-villain-you-might-not-have-
noticed/ (accessed 25 April 2018).
9
„The Simpsons and the Nuclear Energy“, European Nuclear Society News, April 2008,
https://www.euronuclear.org/e-news/e-news-20/ygn.htm (accessed 25 April 2018).
10
„7 Things The Simpsons Got Wrong About Nuclear“, Office on Nuclear Energy, 4 April 2018,
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/7-things-simpsons-got-wrong-about-nuclear (accessed 25 April 2018).

4
criticism) and later stated that he would cut the nuclear mockery down a bit.11 But it is a great
irony that the same nuclear power plant he visited was shut down couple years later in 2013
for security reasons which included a radiation leak – something that probably shouldn’t
happen in a well-maintained and safe facility.12

I personally don’t think that The Simpsons’ misconceptions about nuclear energy are
anything unusual in the pop culture, since more or less significant absence of scientific facts is
an ever-present problem of the atomic pop culture. If we look at it from the perspective of
pop culture being a purely entertaining business, then this probably won’t worry us so much.
But it’s important to realize that the depiction of both nuclear weapons and nuclear power
plants can become highly political, influencing the public’s perception and serving as a
powerful propaganda tool.

4. Conclusion

To conclude I can say that the Atomic culture has become a true phenomenon throughout the
20th and 21st century – in fact it became so ordinary, such an integral part of our everyday lives
that we hardly even notice it anymore. The depiction of nuclear themes in pop culture has had
their peaks and their lows, mainly responding to current socio-political situations: the nuclear
weapons hysteria after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the calm during the détente period of the
1960s and 1970s, the nuclear power plants hysteria after the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl
incidents and the current focus on nuclear terrorism. It’s clear that the topic remains highly
attractive for all pop culture medias, since for more than seventy years the nuclear doom
seems to be the most horrifying and globally destructive event that the humankind can think
of and which isn’t ever 100 % unrealistic – especially now with escalated tensions with Iran or
North Korea.13

11
Dan Sarto, „To Nuclear Energy Industry, ‚The Simpsons‘ Was No Laughing Matter“, Animation World
Network, 13 March 2015, https://www.awn.com/blog/nuclear-energy-industry-simpsons-was-no-laughing-
matter (accessed 25 April 2018).
12
„Boxer wants U.S. probe on San Onofre“, Politico, 28 May 2013,
https://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/san-ofre-nuclear-plant-investigation-barbara-boxer-091922
(accessed 25 April 2018).
13
Jon Savage, „Pop in the age of the atomic bomb“, The Guardian, 31 October 2010,
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/oct/31/pop-music-atomic-bomb-jon-savage (accessed 25 April
2018).

5
 5. Bibliography

Samira Ahmed, „How The Bomb changed everything“, BBC, 2 July 2015,
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150702-how-the-bomb-changed-everything (accessed
25 April 2018).

„Atomic Culture“, Atomic Heritage Foundation, 9 August 2017,

https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/atomic-culture (accessed 25 April 2018).

„Boxer wants U.S. probe on San Onofre“, Politico, 28 May 2013,

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/san-ofre-nuclear-plant-investigation-barbara-
boxer-091922 (accessed 25 April 2018).

Marko Fey, Annika Poppe and Carsten Rauch, “The nuclear taboo, Battlestar Galactica, and
the real world: Illustrations from a science-fiction universe,” Security Dialogue 47, no. 4
(2016): 348 – 365.

Gloria Goodale, “Nuclear radiation in pop culture: more giant lizards than real science”, The
Christian Science Monitor, 30 March 2011,
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0330/Nuclear-radiation-in-pop-culture-more-giant-
lizards-than-real-science (accessed 25 April 2018).

Kevin Hurlbutt, „Nuclear Power in Cinema“,

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph241/hurlbutt2/ (accessed 25 April 2018).

Beth Kelly, „Nuclear Power and Pop Culture – Not a Positive Reaction“, Nuclear Street, 22
June 2015, https://nuclearstreet.com/pro_nuclear_power_blogs/b/mixed-reactions-nuclear-
energy-media/archive/2015/06/22/nuclear-power-and-pop-culture-not-a-positive-
reaction#.WuC__i-B3OR (accessed 25 April 2018).

Dan Sarto, „To Nuclear Energy Industry, ‚The Simpsons‘ Was No Laughing Matter“,
Animation World Network, 13 March 2015, https://www.awn.com/blog/nuclear-energy-
industry-simpsons-was-no-laughing-matter (accessed 25 April 2018).

Jon Savage, „Pop in the age of the atomic bomb“, The Guardian, 31 October 2010,
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/oct/31/pop-music-atomic-bomb-jon-savage
(accessed 25 April 2018).

„The Simpsons and the Nuclear Energy“, European Nuclear Society News, April 2008,
https://www.euronuclear.org/e-news/e-news-20/ygn.htm (accessed 25 April 2018).

Meaghan Webster, „Nuclear Weapons: The Pop Culture Villain You Might Not Have
Noticed“, NTI, 27 April 2017, http://www.nti.org/analysis/atomic-pulse/nuclear-weapons-
pop-culture-villain-you-might-not-have-noticed/ (accessed 25 April 2018).

„7 Things The Simpsons Got Wrong About Nuclear“, Office on Nuclear Energy, 4 April 2018,
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/7-things-simpsons-got-wrong-about-nuclear (accessed
25 April 2018).