Meltdown: Three Mile Island

There is a saying in Germany that goes a bit like: blessed are the ones without knowledge. Not sure if there is a similar saying in English or if it is exactly like I wrote it or has some tweak(s) to it.

But I think the point it makes, is clear. Because there are so many things that happen out there, that sometimes you may feel like it would be better not to even know about them. Worry about them - having it hang over your head .. clouding your day/life.

On the other hand, isn't it good to know what has happened, so we can hold the powers to be to account? Not sure it always works like that - but I do hope that enough people are out there trying to uncover the truth. And I am not talking Q or other conspiracy stuff. I am talking about things that happen, things that can be scientifically proven and hopefully averted. Things like what happened so many decades ago and is subject in this docu-series.

Netflix knows how to produce these shows one can easily say. Still not everyones cup of tea I reckon. So much to watch - you have to know if it is worth your time - and your own mood of course.

I'm not sure why so many nuclear power fans are upset by this docuseries. It does lean on the dramatic, but the message of pro-nuclear power is repeated over and over by one of the main interviewees. The concern is not the technology, but the rich men we entrust to run nuclear plants safely. All this docuseries want is responsibility in the operation of public utilities, and I can't see why anyone would find that bad. It's a compelling view into the, pardon the pun, fallout of the accident, and worth the time for people interested.

Whoever produced this documentary clearly doesn't like nuclear power. Nearly every single interview & pundit gives an anti-nuclear biased account. The primary pundit (and only employee of TMI) is a disgruntled former employee who fell in love with an anti-nuclear campaigner in the middle of this thing, and greatly over-dramatises his account. A lot of focus is also put on near-clueless residents of the nearby town, who are quite irritating with their over-acted "minute of fame" accounts, and blame every rash on their butt on the incident. They certainly deserve to be heard, but shouldn't be used as replacements for educated voices. And there are barely any educated voices in this documentary. No international opinions, no voices from the current nuclear industry, no industrial safety experts, zero defence or applause of the actions taken by highly skilled people which probably saved many lives, zero mention of the fact the design of the facility worked exactly as it should and prevented a release, and no mention of the vastly improved safety record of the industry. The whole thing is accompanied by cheesy dramatic music to build tension and doom. It's a step down from Netflix's usual standard for documentaries - like something from 15 years ago - and certainly doesn't touch Chernobyl for viewing intrigue. In fact, Chernobyl probably does a better job documenting the incident, and it's not even a documentary.

I didn't feel like this was about fear in nuclear energy. This event set it back, but it's still viable and prevalent. This is about human error, regulation failure, and high level corporate and government corruption.

The main individual that this documentary centers around is Richard ("Rick") Parks. He was a nuclear engineer hired as part of the clean-up operation at Three Mile Island. As he unequivocally says at the beginning and end of the series, he's a believer in nuclear energy. He is a proponent.

What he's not a believer in, after his experience, is putting nuclear safety in the hands of private enterprise. The pressures to be profitable (or avoid losses) can force lapses in safety ... and that should never be on the table.

As far as a documentary is concerned, it's "ok". It lags a lot in the middle and didn't have much in the way of counterpoint experts. However, because it compiled and presented a lot of interesting information about the incident that I knew little about ... I have to give it credit. The idea that there was a second potential disaster involved (the polar crane operation) - was truly eye-opening.

As far as the downsides - there wasn't a lot of counterpoint from nuclear experts. This is understandable. From friends I have in the industry, they tell me the nuclear industry is a small community. If your name gets associated with anything anti-industry, the professional hit could be a career ender. Still, it would have been nice to see more scientific experts presented ... esp. If they had counterpoint ideas.

A fun fact they showed was that Pres. Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer and was once involved in repairing a damaged reactor himself. He showed up at Three Mile Island to calm tensions and support the industry.

Near the beginning I wondered if this would have been more interesting as a dramatization, like the Chernobyl mini-series. However, after a while, I understood why this may have been better as a documentary. The story they tell is more of disasters being averted ... which is great, but different than the stories of Chernobyl, Titanic, etc.

All in all - it's an interesting watch. The world is a bit different today than in 1979; there's a focus on solar, wind and even the sea for new sources of power. If they don't pan out soon, interest may eventually refocus on nuclear energy.

If you want nuclear accident suspense, watch "The China syndrome" and "Chernobyl". If you want whistleblower drama, watch "Silkwood" ... and (though it's a documentary) this series.