As for the Moore sculpture, I initially felt uneasy about it as well. Then, I began to realize the ambiguities of it. In other words, the sculpture looks like the shape of a mushroom cloud, which often represents the scientific achievement and a triumph of the war, instead of evoking our imagination for people’s lives underneath the cloud. But it also appears to be a skull, doesn’t it? And I came to see the sculpture as embodiment of the ambiguity of science. We still do not know, as epitomized in our postings, how to address moral and ethical implications of nuclear science–is fulfilling human curiosity ethically neutral? Or can we point to intrinsic wrongness in certain experiments?

I did not think much of music, and thank you for drawing my attention to it.

I agree with Laura that “it is ultimately up to us to consider the full moral and ethical consequences of any technology,” not to let scientists off the hook, but not to create more victims due to my negligence. This is from my own experiences of learning about the crippled nuclear power plants in Fukushima. As a scholar who have researched atomic bomb victims and other radiation victims, I had always been against nuclear power plants, yet I did not commit myself fully. Somehow to abolish nuclear weapons seemed more urgent than to be independent from nuclear energy–and now this prioritization itself indicates the fact that I actually bought into the “safety myth” of nuclear plants, prevailed in Japan. Now I see that both nuclear weaponry and power plants are not separate issues, but are rooted in the same nuclear industry that is deeply embedded in our everyday life, beyond national borders.

I appreciate it that Kimberly problematizes “curiosity for curiosity’s sake.” It is, even for the betterment of humanity (the question arises: how to define the betterment), highly unsettling to me, too.

Still, it is easy to forget the promise nuclear technology was believed to have for society during its early development (and perhaps still today). Some believed that by the year 2000, half of the electricity produced in the United States would come from nuclear energy. Nuclear energy was thought to one day be economical for us to convert waste products into fertilizer, sea water into fresh water, coal into gasoline, and so forth. It could have been the answer for ‘have-not’ countries like India. It seems like most of the time we criticize the scientists for their immoral experiments (and they were sometimes pretty immoral..) it is mainly in retrospect, since we have realized that nuclear technology has not successfully evolved into the clean, safe energy source it was once believed to be. However, even though scientists may have realized how risky nuclear technology was back then, aren’t their experiments and continued development justifiable given their optimism of it developing into a great benefit for society? To me, it has never been “curiosity for curiosity’s sake,” but rather curiosity for the sake of humanity.

As Dr. Benedict clearly put, “either military use or civilian use”, at the end of the day it is nothing but the radiation risk to human, animals, and environment what we are all confronting. You may call it a biased propaganda, however, before the fact that one may not be able to take her son to see his grandparents in Japan indefinitely, which means that his old grandparents who have difficulties to travel to the states may not be able to see their only grandchild forever, the fact that one need to think twice if she would like to have a child in future given her planned research trip to Japan in next month, and the fact that women in Japan who have just gave births to their babies are worrying about not only how to nurse them when radioactive substances were found in a mother’s breast milk, but also whether it would be OK to bathe them in tap water when they have difficulties to secure safe water even for drinking, evaluations of merits and demerits of nuclear power, in/feasibility of non-nuclear options, or the differentiation between military and civilian use of nuclear power mean very little. I just want people to seriously recall Director Kamanaka’s appreciation for the air from open windows.

I do not oppose against an opinion that it would have been nice if ATH could include footage and words of nuclear power supporters as well, although, I realize the every efforts the director made to do so. Isn’t it too much burden for one filmmaker, if s/he is undervalued until s/he succeeds in including both sides to make a “balanced” claim? I do not oppose either against a suggestion that the symposium could have invited nuclear scientists to cover the diverse stances, with being surprised by its implication that Argonne and Fermi scientists are disqualified. All nuclear plants in the world were planned, designed, operated, and some of them went out of control under the expertise of scientists. Among them there indeed exist many scientists who take their responsibility and keep presenting the data and analyses to prove the enormous danger of nuclear power with their expertise. In fact in Japan 16 nuclear scientists who have been taking initiatives in the national nuclear energy policy made a public apology for their inability to estimate the risk. I wonder what if one of those 16 would have been invited to the symposium. Would it have satisfied all audience? Or would he have been also disqualified because he does not represent the other stance, –or because he is not known in the states, even if he is indeed a nuclear expert? History shows that when “the experts” are demanded as the absolute authority in nuclear discussions, what is often demanded indeed is not his expertise per se, but his supporting of nuclear power. You will see what I mean if you have a chance to watch news programs in Japanese TV after Fukushima.

I just hope everyone thinks about nuclear power and its incomparable risk as your own problem, not as a problem somewhere in Far East. Congratulations that we, at least the midwesterners, are highly unlikely to have earthquakes and tsunami. But tornadoes? Floods? Minor mistakes that can lead to a major accident? I cannot emphasize more that nuclear is not a clean energy no matter what merits it has. I beg each of you to use your imagination before it gets too late. We don’t want to repeat the phrase “we thought we would have more time”.

Ashes to Honey seeks to answer the question of how we can find sustainability in developed societies that are heavily dependent on energy. Japan has the dilemma of needing nuclear energy but possessing a history of pain inflicted by the atomic bombings. Japan is also a country prone to earthquakes, further raising the need for Japan to look for alternatives, as the current situation with Tohoku/Fukushima demonstrates. Although the film moves between two different countries (Japan and Sweden), the distinction only made me think of how specific the nuclear power situation is to Japan. For example, as the people in Iwaishima looked to the situation in Sweden, I wondered – are there fundamental differences between the political, social, and economic situations that may keep Japan from reaching the same conclusion in terms of energy? What about the United States? Will we be able to do the same? Is humanity defined by a specific set of circumstances or can we connect across borders and agree on the same conclusion?