Close
Trending Articles
Godzilla vs. Kong (2020)
Godzilla vs. Kong 2020
Godzilla 2: King of the Monsters
Godzilla 2 2019
Kong: Skull Island (2017)
Kong: Skull Island
Godzilla (2014)
Godzilla 2014
Featured Content
Scified Network

Is MV Godzilla a inherently pro-nuclear metaphor?

1 Upvotes78 RepliesUpvoteAdd A Reply
Forum Topic

Gmkgoji #TeamRodan

Nov-05-2019 1:40 PM

In Godzilla king of the monsters, Serzawa uses a nuke to revive Godzilla, therefore allowing Godzilla to fight King ghidorah again. Simply put, the nuke is the one thing that is the saving grace in the movie. Burning Godzilla also practically nukes the entirety of Boston to kill Ghidorah, which, though Ghidorah was defeated, Boston was entirely destroyed. Also, the radiation fallout is seen as a good thing rather than a bad thing, as the titans leave behind radiation that bolsters plant life. HOWEVER, the original 1954 film portrayed the nuclear fallout as a horrific thing. The two films differ vastly in terms of the view Nuclear energy/power. Is Godzilla: king of the monsters saying Nuclear power is a nessacary evil?

Godzilla x Symphogear:

WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG

78 Responses to Is MV Godzilla a inherently pro-nuclear metaphor?

G. H. (Gman) #TeamGhidorah

Nov-06-2019 10:06 PM

"while mutations are still more prevalent than normal, (I'd reckon due to all the quarantine) the wildlife populations are probably higher than before the disaster."

The populations are up, but severely messed up, many of which are carriers that are effecting farms. And there's plenty of sources regarding the vegetation issue. Here's two major news/scientific sources regarding the plant nutrient problems:

Forests Around Chernobyl Aren’t Decaying Properly

30 years on, Chernobyl wildlife still feeling effects of nuke plant catastrophe

"...I'll spare you the fanfiction."

Which is the problem. It shouldn't be the fans' job to fill in the issues with these films. That's the filmmakers' job.

"Godzilla was made in response to that, not nuclear energy in concept."

Exactly. The Japanese had seen the devastation up close, not just from the war, but since it was sitting in between the two nations flexing their nuclear muscles. Godzilla is the side of the argument that decries this--Like it or not.

And why shouldn't it be? The argument is still going on and having something firmly represent and speak up for the side that was devastated is perfectly reasonable. After all, why do our dentists flee the room like their heads are on fire whenever our teeth are X-rayed? Within the plume of Three Mile Island there was up to 400% increase in lung cancer. 700% increase in Leukemia. Why do you think they haven't built one like those since the 1970s? Let's skip over the unpredictable earthquake issue which has plagued Japan multiple times and caused the Fukushima disaster. These plants pump out tons of nuclear waste and we have no idea what to do with the stuff. In the early 2000s plants from the US had 55 metric tons of nuclear waste and the number has only gone up. In the 1980s it was just dumped in the ocean, which is what Japan is now being forced to do with the waste left over from Fukushima. For a movie supposedly about "saving the Earth" and "nature's regrowth", being pro-nuclear certainly isn't very good for the environment--Unless you're retroactively making radioactivity good for it of course. I suppose it's the only way to get around the fact that writing a story that's both pro-nuclear and pro-environment is about as mindless as... well... the movie itself.

Sure, Batman can be Batman without bringing up his backstory. But if he starts fighting because he has fun doing it, instead of the higher cause based on that backstory, he's not Batman. Or at best, just Batman on a very surface level.

--
"It wouldn't be a true Godzilla film if you didn't touch upon those things. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not a true Godzilla fan." - Mike Dougherty, fellow gatekeeper-elitist ;)


Xenotaris #TeamMothra

Nov-06-2019 10:59 PM

Well it could be argued that the radiation spewed by Behemoth is some sort of mystical healing radiation, because not all radiation is nuclear.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/radiation-and-health/nuclear-radiation-and-health-effects.aspx

TheLazyFish #TeamGodzilla

Nov-06-2019 11:22 PM

G.H. (Gman)

 

I think that the movie isn't saying "radiation is good for the environment." I think the whole radiation healing thing is meant to be a "mystical" element to the titans, and to reinforce why they're so important for nature. If it is pro-nuclear as well, which is still unconfirmed, it is meant to show the benefits of nuclear power from a war standpoint, and from one of the "cleaner" sources of energy we have. The main message, though, is to coexist with nature, not that radiation is good for the environment. Still, it might be more preferable to oil, BUT not the best option ever.

 

And, I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but I think the pro-nuclear message in KOTM is set up for an anti-nuclear message in the next. The wide audience thought Godzilla was "good" in 2014, even though he was supposed to be neutral. So the same "pro-nuclear" argument could be made there, except MUTOS balanced it out to make it neutral. Now that Godzilla is the main radiation based Kaiju, how do they make nuclear power seem neutral when the big hero is a metaphor for nuclear power? Well, they double down, like in KOTM making him good, to set up him being practically evil in the next movie(s), which might be why MONARCH tries to get Kong to fight him, or something. I mean, they practically CONFIRMED it at the end of KOTM when the guy (forgot name of the guy lol) says "Glad he's on our side" and Dr. Chen says "for now." Then, for the rest of the series, he can remain a neutral force by accidentally or intentionally doing a bad thing per movie, followed by fighting a worse Kaiju. I feel like that's the angle they're trying to go for, to make Godzilla a neutral force rather than specifically good or bad. He just so happens to help us out of his own interest. I feel that kind of perfectly represents the viewpoints on nuclear power after the atomic bomb in Japan and America. In Japan, they began to fear it, resulting in Godzilla 1954 and Shin Godzilla (and basically all the other Godzilla movies, but mainly those two). In America, nuclear power helped them, but they still feared it in the Cold War, and recognized it wasn't an inherently good thing. I feel like that's how they portray Godzilla in the Monsterverse, as a neutral thing that ends up helping humans, or Americans in the context of WW2. Then if he does a bad thing, it would probably represent the Cold War or nuclear waste. I don't know, that's just my interpretation.

 

Also, once again, the metaphor for nuclear power thing could be a reference to WW2, as I said in my first comment. Just in case you weren't getting my references to WW2 because I ramble a lot, just go check that because I'm sleepy and too lazy to write it all again lol

If people weren't lazy, we'd get nothing done

Gomi: Ninja Monster #TeamMothra

Nov-07-2019 7:10 AM

Okay, so I think the best way to end this segment of the discussion is to say that Nature is managing fine in spite of the nuclear radiation, not thanks to it, except in that it's made people leave the area alone. The state of things currently isn't nearly as hyperbolic as you make it sound, but yes things aren't completely normal there by any means. The plant stuff was very interesting, it's not invincible to decomposition but the radiation inhibits the microbes and slows things down considerably.

They specifically say "Their radiation" is what causes life to sprout, not nukes. Since this is a universe where ancient species fed off and ran on radiation, extrapolating that the Titan's radiation must be different from the kinds we know isn't really a stretch. Could they mention that somewhere officially? Absolutely, but I don't think it's to crazy to assume that might be the case in the meantime.

Again, I'm not arguing with that, I'm questioning if every portrayal of nuclear energy in a G-flick must always be bad if the real message is "don't use this to hurt people and the environment." The issue isn't the tech, it's how we use and dispose of it that's causing the problems. Saying a problem is bad doesn't help anybody if you're not also trying to find actual solutions, or at least inspiring others to do so. Preaching a halt in all nuclear power is stupid, because there isn't any sort of suitable alternative that can take that load right now. What should be done is acknowledging the benefits of nuclear energy and working to reduce the impact it leaves behind while we look for something cleaner. Pro-nuclear doesn't have to mean "put a reactor up everywhere," just like being pro-environment doesn't have to mean "screw humanity." There is a balance in there, we just have to find it(Hmm, like the message of the movie...)

Uh, I think we mixed the metaphors a bit here. Batman is a character, not a propaganda mascot. Gojira(1954) is an anti-nuclear proliferation film, but Godzilla himself is a character now, and characters are allowed to have different interpretations and motivations.

And no, I'm calling bull on that bit about Three-Mile Island. The general scientific consensus is that the effects of the accident were very low to negligible. Three or four dissenting studies from noted anti-nuclear sources does not a convincing counterargument make. Should further studies from many sources back that up in the future I'll consider it, but until then majority rules in science. Oh, and please excuse medical professionals for taking the proper precautions when dealing with something that can be dangerous if not administered properly. Also please excuse construction workers for not leaving their feet next to running jackhammers, they really should have more faith in their technology.

Monster_Zero 2112 #TeamGodzilla

Nov-07-2019 7:38 AM

What if it was gamma radiation?

G. H. (Gman) #TeamGhidorah

Nov-07-2019 8:35 AM

"the radiation spewed by Behemoth is some sort of mystical healing radiation, because not all radiation is nuclear."

"I think the whole radiation healing thing is meant to be a "mystical" element to the titans,"

"Since this is a universe where ancient species fed off and ran on radiation, extrapolating that the Titan's radiation must be different from the kinds we know isn't really a stretch."

This is great and all, but why isn't it mentioned in the movie? The reason this comes off as so egregious and utterly stupid is because the entire genre is based on creatures harboring radiation that has caused considerable harm in films both within and outside of the Godzilla franchise. When we think "radioactive monster" in this genre, we not only have images of something deadly, but something that has, and is, leaving something deadly behind. It's been a staple of Godzilla, Rodan, Frankenstein Conquers the World, Ultraman, etc. Simply saying "the titans' radiation heals the Earth," is such a such massive deviation from the norm that it needed further explanation--And the filmmakers were too inept to do it or realize it. Even general audiences/non-fans I've watched it with give me a weird look during that scene. A friend of mine took the time to lean in and say, "That's not how radiation works." I tried to explain the rest of the franchise isn't like that, but here we're supposed to take it for face value, because radiation = good.

"Preaching a halt in all nuclear power is stupid, because there isn't any sort of suitable alternative that can take that load right now."


Of course there is. Solar energy has been proven, not just during the day, but capable of storing energy for night as well. Electrical power and cars have proven to be both cost effective and practical, governments just prefer to burn oil. And given all the hot air I'm reading in defense of a blatantly dumb movie (because "Monsterverse!"), I think wind powered generators could keep cities running, especially if comes from around these forums.

"The issue isn't the tech,"

I assume you mean radiation itself, which I wouldn't lump under the term "tech" per-say. I'd argue that it, in its pure form, it is indisputably deadly. There's more going on here than how we use and disposes of it. Radiation is harmful. Radiation may save lives to kill cancer, but why is it used to kill cancer? Because it kills tissue. Heat from the sun? Obviously radiation, but if we didn't have an ionosphere, the planet would be uninhabitable due to it. There is no getting around that radiation is dangerous and there's no problem with an entire franchise being dedicated to that reminder.

"And no, I'm calling bull on that bit about Three-Mile Island. The general scientific consensus is that the effects of the accident were very low to negligible."

Thank you for making my point--This is exactly the kind of deaf ear that makes the Godzilla series a necessity. Early reports, particularly in 1990, saw little to no effects, but those reports didn't factor in a number of variables left in the wake of Three Mile Island.

A 1997 reevaluation reported by four doctors stated, "associations were generally larger considering a 5-year latency, but were based on smaller numbers of cases. Results support the hypothesis that radiation doses are related to increased cancer incidence around TMI."

Further health news items, linked an increase to the plume, but weren't widely distributed due to the incident being old hat.

Yes. Science indeed.


--
"It wouldn't be a true Godzilla film if you didn't touch upon those things. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not a true Godzilla fan." - Mike Dougherty, fellow gatekeeper-elitist ;)


Monster_Zero 2112 #TeamGodzilla

Nov-07-2019 8:37 AM

Was that from wikipedia?

TheLazyFish #TeamGodzilla

Nov-07-2019 9:50 AM

"Why Isn't it mentioned in the movie?"

I think the directors either expected people to be able to make that distinction, especially when we see Mothra's radiation come out like "magic" stuff instead of actual radiation when she dies. The fact we can see a lot of the radiation makes it pretty obvious it's not the same as actual radiation, at least in my opinion. Also, B, if they didn't think people could make the distinction, then they also probably expected the same suspension of disbelief to have these creatures in the first place. 

 

"And given all the hot air I'm reading in defense of a blatantly dumb movie (because "Monsterverse!"), I think wind powered generators could keep cities running, especially if comes from around these forums."

 

Really man? Real mature. Also, you did a misquote there, but anyways, I said it's one of the "cleaner" options, but also said it wasn't the best. It could just be an "interim" energy source between oil and before we manage to make solar power cheaper and widespread. I think that's the usual viewpoint for when people support it.

 

"I assume you mean radiation itself, which I wouldn't lump under the term "tech" per-say. I'd argue that it, in its pure form, it is indisputably deadly. There's more going on here than how we use and disposes of it. Radiation is harmful. Radiation may save lives to kill cancer, but why is it used to kill cancer? Because it kills tissue. Heat from the sun? Obviously radiation, but if we didn't have an ionosphere, the planet would be uninhabitable due to it. There is no getting around that radiation is dangerous and there's no problem with an entire franchise being dedicated to that reminder."

 

Dude, you can make that argument about ANYTHING, even frickin nutella and diet coke because those can give you cancer, the former due to friggin palm oil. In otherwords, I spent a couple years trying to get off of nutella... I still miss it... The point, saying that something is inherently deadly because it CAN, not usually will, but CAN cause death isn't a good argument, because then practically everything is deadly. And saying "it's inherently deadly because TOO MUCH can kill you, not that it will kill you in small amounts" is also bad, because even eating enough bananas (not sure why that's my example either) would kill you, it's really just a matter of scale. 

 

Again, the main message is to coexist with nature, not that radiation is good for the environment. So this whole discussion we've been having is kinda moot.

If people weren't lazy, we'd get nothing done

Gomi: Ninja Monster #TeamMothra

Nov-07-2019 11:17 AM

Alright, I think we can close the book on the Titan Radiation by saying it should have been explained further either in the movie or ancillary media and it relied a little too heavily on suspension of disbelief, so while it worked for some it derailed things for others. That sufficient for everyone else?

"Of course there is. Solar energy has been proven, not just during the day, but capable of storing energy for night as well. Electrical power and cars have proven to be both cost effective and practical governments just prefer to burn oil. And given all the hot air I'm reading in defense of a blatantly dumb movie (because "Monsterverse!"), I think wind powered generators could keep cities running, especially from around these forums."

Maybe so, but the key part of my argument was "right now." Setting up all of those alternatives will take a lot of time and a ton of energy, we can't just turn every nuclear plant and car off and limp along with what we have now, society will screech to a halt. I'm saying we need to use nuclear energy as a stepping stone to better things, but at this point in time, without it we will flounder. People didn't switch from candles to the lightbulb in a year, it took decades for the necessary infrastructure to be fully developed. Also, I know I've personally been getting pretty heated despite my attempts, but insulting people and calling something they like "dumb" is a Terrible way to deescalate a situation.

Yes, I meant nuclear energy, tech was the wrong word. And I'm with TheLazyFish on this one, something being dangerous does not keep it from being useful. Horses can bite and kick and trample and spread disease, but we figured out how to work around those hazards and unlocked their usefulness as a beast of burden and method of transportation. A horse can still kill a person in a number of situations, but overall the benefits outweighed the risks and here we are today. Where's the "Horses are dangerous" franchise? PSAs are for constantly bringing up the dangers of things we're already aware of, I'd rather not have Godzilla be reduced to that.

Did you not read the rest of my point? I have no problem if TMI proves to have had major lasting effects, but as I see it there isn't enough new information yet to properly topple the old consensus, so until then I'll stick with that Both sides seem to have missed several variables, so again further research is required. That's how science works, you use what you have until there's substantial enough evidence challenging it to warrant a change, rinse and repeat. The Paleontological world is in an uproar because a couple of recent studies completely shook up the way we view the Dinosaur family tree, and it's being rigorously combed over trying to make sense of the new perspective. Time will tell if this is just a misinterpretation of evidence or if it's the start of a scientific revolution, but until we're more certain we won't be throwing out the old models just yet.

Yes Monster_Zero 2112, I'm using Wikipedia for my general understanding of whatever comes up, but I'm reading G. H.(Gman)'s articles when he presents them. I'm not a scientist, but I am trying to keep an open mind.

G. H. (Gman) #TeamGhidorah

Nov-07-2019 11:59 AM

"I think the directors either expected people to be able to make that distinction, especially when we see Mothra's radiation come out like "magic" stuff instead of actual radiation when she dies. The fact we can see a lot of the radiation makes it pretty obvious it's not the same as actual radiation, at least in my opinion. Also, B, if they didn't think people could make the distinction, then they also probably expected the same suspension of disbelief to have these creatures in the first place."

If that was the hope, it failed. It's confused enough general audiences and been a point of contention with enough fans to be considered a hole. What fans make of the visualization of radiation (and that's only an assumption of what we're seeing) is still conjecture and nothing more.

"It could just be an "interim" energy source between oil and before we manage to make solar power cheaper and widespread."

"People didn't switch from candles to the lightbulb in a year, it took decades for the necessary infrastructure to be fully developed."

Whatever came between candles and the lightbulb, likely didn't result in as many lost lives as nuclear power, barrels of waste being tossed in the ocean and warehouses full of the stuff--Except the ones shipped in black market circles to organizations without nuclear arms, anyway. This "interm" seems to be an excuse--Not to open up a completely separate argument entirely, but why not begin to exploit and mass produce the successfully tested alternatives instead of dance around and hang on to more dangerous forms of energy?

I guess a movie about how much better the lightbulb is would make a little more sense in terms of the nature angle.

"The point, saying that something is inherently deadly because it CAN, not usually will, but CAN cause death isn't a good argument, because then practically everything is deadly. And saying "it's inherently deadly because TOO MUCH can kill you, not that it will kill you in small amounts" is also bad, because even eating enough bananas (not sure why that's my example either) would kill you, it's really just a matter of scale."

"A horse can still kill a person in a number of situations, but overall the benefits outweighed the risks and here we are today."

No, I'm not saying radiation can be deadly, I'm saying it is deadly and it will kill. Your Nutella and horse can cause issues, but radiation will cause issues, because that's what its purest form does. The purest form of Nutella and a horse does not. You don't need a filter or shield of some kind to eat Nutella or brush a horse. You do to use radioactivity and even that has been prone to failure. You're taking objects and creatures that, when stripped down to their basics, have a "what if" warning label. You strip down radiation to what it is and it's deadly. Period.

As for Three Mile Island, I don't see how you could ignore all of the signs of what happened. The effects on people have mirrored that of Chernobyl and Hiroshima. The rates of cancer in the area are still abnormally high, even in 2019--So to conveniently stick to the "old data" because it was first is, in a word, off.

But hey, if you guys want to fist pump the world of radioactivity and wave the pro-nuke flag, be my guest. But that's not what the Godzilla series is for. I don't agree it was okay for it to take such a careless stance and it feels like a blatant slap in the face to the franchise. I'm glad people enjoyed the fan service, monster battles and ka-booms--But it all comes off as very shallow and tone deaf.

--
"It wouldn't be a true Godzilla film if you didn't touch upon those things. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not a true Godzilla fan." - Mike Dougherty, fellow gatekeeper-elitist ;)


TheLazyFish #TeamGodzilla

Nov-07-2019 2:35 PM

G.H. (Gman)


We're not saying we support nuclear power, we're just trying to give explanations as to why this move MIGHT be pro-nuclear. I, once again, don't think they took that stance without wanting to go back on it. I think that whole point of making Godzlla "good" was to make him evil in the next one, so that for the rest of the franchise he will be a neutral force, as he should be. That way making him good in this one would be incredibly true to the franchise, at least the Showa, Heisei, and Millenium eras. That way in GVK he can be bad, and in whatever other movies the Monsterverse makes, if any, will have a neutral-force Godzilla. Or one that is good and bad. Take it how you will, but I don't think they're going to keep Godzilla the goody two shoes pro-nuclear thing he is in KOTM. I mean, they practically had that down perfectly in 2014. Showed both aspects of nuclear warfare with different radiation based Kaiju on opposite sides, and Godzilla not being an inherently good character and showing all the destruction caused by the radioactive waste and plats across the planet. I think Godzilla's part in the Monsterverse as a whole will be like it was in 2014, which I feel, will be a good thing. It wouldn't be a slap to the face to the franchise; it would be TRUE to the franchise. Perhaps not the almost malevolent creature born from humanity's mistakes in the original movies, but as Godzilla as a whole in the vastly different eras, Showa, Heisei, Millenium, and even the anime. 

 

"No, I'm not saying radiation can be deadly, I'm saying it is deadly and it will kill. Your Nutella and horse can cause issues, but radiation will cause issues, because that's what its purest form does. The purest form of Nutella and a horse does not. You don't need a filter or shield of some kind to eat Nutella or brush a horse. You do to use radioactivity and even that has been prone to failure. You're taking objects and creatures that, when stripped down to their basics, have a "what if" warning label. You strip down radiation to what it is and it's deadly. Period."

 

That's when you are around TOO MUCH radiation. The same can be said if you eat or are surrounded by too much nutella. You're stomach will explode from too much nutella, or you'll suffocate in it. They're both dangerous in theory, it's just that it takes less of one to kill you. Saying something is "inherently dangerous" would apply to EVERYTHING, it's just a matter of how much of something you do or how much there is. 

 

"Whatever came between candles and the lightbulb, likely didn't result in as many lost lives as nuclear power, barrels of waste being tossed in the ocean and warehouses full of the stuff--Except the ones shipped in black market circles to organizations without nuclear arms, anyway. This "interm" seems to be an excuse--Not to open up a completely separate argument entirely, but why not begin to exploit and mass produce the successfully tested alternatives instead of dance around and hang on to more dangerous forms of energy?"

 

Well, we're not very good at using, collecting, or harnessing solar power yet. I mean, we're getting better, but until most things can be powered by it instead of nuclear power or oil, we can't exactly switch to it or else society will come to a halt, like how Gomi: Ninja Monster said. I agree we should put WAY more resources into developing that technology (and developing it for more important stuff than a grill, which is what some people are doing) so that we can finally berid ourselves of oil. However, the only "clean" source of power that is developed enough to work as an "interim", to my knowledge, is nuclear power. In the long run, it is a MUCH better alternative to oil. Sure, in case of a meltdown, it might render a place Chernobylized, but at least it won't make the world like a person's tongue after eating a ghost pepper like oil is doing. So converting to nuclear power while we wait for solar power and the like to catch up to speed is a MUCH better alternative than to keep using oil for the next few decades, especially when we might not even have that long because of oil. Honestly, it's much better to have 100 major cities become Chernobyl than the world will be in 100 years because of oil. At least humans and most life CAN exist in the unaffected areas instead of being like tinfoil in a microwave. Also, of course, I'm using hyperbole, so nobody give me any of that "it wouldn't really MELT us or set us on fire" shit. It would be understandable, and I'd do it myself, but don't you dare do it lol

 

Dear god that was a LONG ramble.

If people weren't lazy, we'd get nothing done

Gomi: Ninja Monster #TeamMothra

Nov-07-2019 3:26 PM

I... will cede on that point. We could be doing more to switch to more sustainable energy sources, but do not think the technology at its current level is fully capable of completely replacing nuclear and oil-based power, because it isn't yet. We're close, but there's still work to do.

Fire. Fire is deadly and fire will kill. Fire has caused and will continue to cause more death and destruction than nuclear energy, and yet until the last few centuries it was in every home and an integral part of society, because we figured out how to deal with it. Fire burned London to the ground how many times? Yet did Londoners give up fire? No, they learned from their mistakes and rebuilt stronger and safer so fire could be used with less danger. Fire and radiation are both incredibly good sources of energy, and both are incredibly dangerous when in the wrong amounts, used incorrectly, or just under unexpected circumstances. Strip fire down to what it is and it's deadly, yet all of us here using the internet would probably agree that fire has been a good thing for humanity overall.

Exactly, TheLazyFish, everything is dangerous in too high a quantity, some things just need to be in much smaller concentrations for them to be safe. Heck, sure, radiation at it's core is dangerous, but thanks to our atmosphere reducing the quantities we get, radiation is also one of if not the primary reason any of us are alive right now. All of our food comes in one way or another from plants, who need the sun to facilitate their growth. We need the sun to produce Vitamin D in our skin. So our very existence is a testament to the fact that proper amounts of radiation can be and are helpful.

That article is anecdotal, not the best source of scientific proof. The linked paper(from 2014) simply states that thyroid cancer in Pennsylvania is rising faster than the rest of the nation, potentially contributed to by the rising disease burden, and that possible causes(plural) need to be investigated and may provide insight into the drivers of the national increase in thyroid cancer. TL;DR: Thyroid cancer is on the rise across the country, but a little faster in Pennsylvania and we need to look into that. The article draws a conclusion which the paper itself did not. The "old data" is still data, and has not yet been sufficiently invalidated from what I or apparently the general scientific body have seen.

A possible flaw has occurred to me: Why is THIS a slap in the face to the franchise, but every other time Godzilla has been a heroic force isn't? Godzilla was birthed by nuclear radiation, yet after his 4th movie he was a protector of Japan for a very long run. Shouldn't every time Godzilla beat back space aliens, fought off worse monsters, or burned up sea pollution have been equally as egregious, because a nuclear-powered entity was clearly helping the earth? Or is what came before exempt because Japan made it? If it's "because heroes make money with the kids, can't blame business," than is KoTM not getting that pass because it wasn't a billion-dollar hit? Seems to me Godzilla Vs Hedorah should be getting just as much flack for showing a nuclear force cleaning up pollution instead of causing it as KoTM is getting for potentially slipping in pro-nuclear imagery on purpose.

Gmkgoji #TeamRodan

Nov-07-2019 7:01 PM

This is probably the second time i've made a topic that has sparked a LOOOONG debate.

Godzilla x Symphogear:

WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG

Gomi: Ninja Monster #TeamMothra

Nov-07-2019 8:05 PM

Gmkgoji:

Eh, somebody has to ask the hard questions, don't take it too personally. :P

Xenotaris #TeamMothra

Nov-07-2019 8:40 PM

Yeah, also connecting back to the mystical radiation I believe is a reference to the magical deradiation fruit from the original Mothra. Also we are irradiated everyday its called background radiation, radiation isn't going to kill you in small doses and a low mSv/yr.

2.4 mSv/yr Typical background radiation experienced by everyone (average 1.5 mSv in Australia, 3 mSv in North America).
1.5 to 2.5 mSv/yr Average dose to Australian uranium miners and US nuclear industry workers, above background and medical.
Up to 5 mSv/yr Typical incremental dose for aircrew in middle latitudes.
9 mSv/yr Exposure by airline crew flying the New York – Tokyo polar route.
10 mSv/yr Maximum actual dose to Australian uranium miners.
10 mSv Effective dose from abdomen & pelvis CT scan.
20 mSv/yr Current limit (averaged) for nuclear industry employees and uranium miners in most countries. (In Japan: 5 mSv per three months for women)
50 mSv/yr Former routine limit for nuclear industry employees, now maximum allowable for a single year in most countries (average to be 20 mSv/yr max). It is also the dose rate which arises from natural background levels in several places in Iran, India and Europe.
50 mSv Allowable short-term dose for emergency workers (IAEA).
100 mSv Lowest annual level at which increase in cancer risk is evident (UNSCEAR). Above this, the probability of cancer occurrence (rather than the severity) is assumed to increase with dose. No harm has been demonstrated below this dose.
Allowable short-term dose for emergency workers taking vital remedial actions (IAEA).
Dose from four months on international space station orbiting 350 km up.
130 mSv/yr Long-term safe level for public after radiological incident, measured 1 m above contaminated ground, calculated from published hourly rate x 0.6. Risk too low to justify any action below this (IAEA).
170 mSv/wk 7-day provisionally safe level for public after radiological incident, measured 1 m above contaminated ground (IAEA).
250 mSv Allowable short-term dose for workers controlling the 2011 Fukushima accident, set as emergency limit elsewhere.
250 mSv/yr Natural background level at Ramsar in Iran, with no identified health effects (Some exposures reach 700 mSv/yr). Maximum allowable annual dose in emergency situations in Japan (NRA).
350 mSv/lifetime Criterion for relocating people after Chernobyl accident.
500 mSv Allowable short-term dose for emergency workers taking life-saving actions (IAEA).
680 mSv/yr Tolerance dose level allowable to 1955 (assuming gamma, X-ray and beta radiation).
700 mSv/yr Suggested threshold for maintaining evacuation after nuclear accident.
(IAEA has 880 mSv/yr over one month as provisionally safe.
800 mSv/yr Highest level of natural background radiation recorded, on a Brazilian beach.
1,000 mSv short-term Assumed to be likely to cause a fatal cancer many years later in about 5 of every 100 persons exposed to it (i.e. if the normal incidence of fatal cancer were 25%, this dose would increase it to 30%).
Highest reference level recommended by ICRP for rescue workers in emergency situation.
1,000 mSv short-term Threshold for causing (temporary) radiation sickness (Acute Radiation Syndrome) such as nausea and decreased white blood cell count, but not death. Above this, severity of illness increases with dose.
5,000 mSv short-term Would kill about half those receiving it as whole body dose within a month. (However, this is only twice a typical daily therapeutic dose applied to a very small area of the body over 4 to 6 weeks or so to kill malignant cells in cancer treatment.)
10,000 mSv short-term Fatal within a few weeks.

Gomi: Ninja Monster #TeamMothra

Nov-07-2019 8:51 PM

Huh. Neat list, where'd you find it? 

Gomi: Ninja Monster #TeamMothra

Nov-08-2019 4:24 AM

Cool. Just keep in mind that's from the World Nuclear Association, so anti-nuclear people might not take that too seriously. I do like how they link all their sources on the webpage though. I also find it hilarious that on another list somebody thought to measure the radioactivity of a banana. :P

G. H. (Gman) #TeamGhidorah

Nov-08-2019 5:35 AM

"we're just trying to give explanations as to why this move MIGHT be pro-nuclear."

Explaining why doesn't change the fact that it is. As for your theory regarding GvK--At the moment it's only a theory. We only have the films currently released to go on and I don't have a lot of interest in speculation.

"That's when you are around TOO MUCH radiation. The same can be said if you eat or are surrounded by too much nutella."

You're still not wrapping your head around this flawed argument. Nutella, when you start to eat it, is something your body absorbs the nutrients from almost immediately. Radiation is something that starts eating away your body almost immediately. Again one can kill, the other is from the get-go.

"Honestly, it's much better to have 100 major cities become Chernobyl than the world will be in 100 years because of oil."

I find this comment extraordinarily suspect. There's no hard data, predictions or proof on this at the moment--And while I agree oil isn't great, claiming burning oil would be worse than 100 Chernobyls sounds like a pretty baseless stretch--And one that conveniently ignores 65 years worth of a franchise we're on a website for.

"Strip fire down to what it is and it's deadly, yet all of us here using the internet would probably agree that fire has been a good thing for humanity overall."

Well I'll give you this, for a comparison that makes sense for a change. Fire at its core does kill. But it also does not spread irreparable pollution and cause political tensions over who has it, who doesn't and who is getting it illegally. There are safeguards around nuclear power/radioactivity that are put in place for a reason. Those safeguards, physical and political, continue to fail on a routine basis. (See: Fukushima)

"The "old data" is still data, and has not yet been sufficiently invalidated from what I or apparently the general scientific body have seen."

But it hardly validates itself anymore, given the admittance of missed variables from the get-go. At this point it's cherry picking.

"Why is THIS a slap in the face to the franchise, but every other time Godzilla has been a heroic force isn't? Godzilla was birthed by nuclear radiation, yet after his 4th movie he was a protector of Japan for a very long run. Shouldn't every time Godzilla beat back space aliens, fought off worse monsters, or burned up sea pollution have been equally as egregious, because a nuclear-powered entity was clearly helping the earth? Or is what came before exempt because Japan made it? If it's "because heroes make money with the kids, can't blame business," than is KoTM not getting that pass because it wasn't a billion-dollar hit? Seems to me Godzilla Vs Hedorah should be getting just as much flack for showing a nuclear force cleaning up pollution instead of causing it as KoTM is getting for potentially slipping in pro-nuclear imagery on purpose."

Oh here we go. I love this argument. First at what point did anyone insinuate that being a heroic Godzilla equated a pro-nuclear Godzilla? And why?

People seem to forget that Godzilla was and has always been a victim of the bomb. He was awoken by the bomb - he was scarred by the bomb. (His design, all throughout the Showa series especially, purposefully had keloid scares instead of scales.) I even mentioned that as Godzilla was a superhero, nuclear power was still being criticized. Godzilla vs. Megalon showed the damage nuclear testing was causing on Monster Island which was again positioning Godzilla as a victim.

Never once did those movies make blatant pro-nuclear story points like a Japanese man willingly detonating a bomb as an overwhelming positive or claiming radiation triggered positive regrowth. But they did show the negative effects as Godzilla played superhero (Godzilla vs. Megalon). It did show that nuclear power could land in the hands of illegal organizations that shouldn't have it (Godzilla vs. The Sea Monster). It did show it could damage the environment (Son of Godzilla). So while the victim of atomic testing ended up fighting for humanity, just as the Japanese had ended up becoming allies with the U.S. (despite disagreements), not once did the films ever concede to a pro-nuclear message.

--
"It wouldn't be a true Godzilla film if you didn't touch upon those things. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not a true Godzilla fan." - Mike Dougherty, fellow gatekeeper-elitist ;)


Monster_Zero 2112 #TeamGodzilla

Nov-08-2019 7:52 AM

Your politics bore me

Gomi: Ninja Monster #TeamMothra

Nov-08-2019 9:03 AM

I thought we established that while not whole yet, the area surrounding Chernobyl was recovering from the radiation. It takes a whole lot longer than growing back from a forest fire, but the damage is repairable, just not in a helpful timeframe. Agreed to the political side of it, though I'd hypothesize whoever figured out fire might have had to deal with similar issues for a least a few years. That's just conjecture though, feel free to ignore that bit. Your definition of "routine" seems awfully long, seeing as Fukushima was only the second accident of it's size in history. There will always be accidents and failures around anything, to demand none is ridiculous.

Missing variables have been called out on both sides, so choosing either argument involves some cherry picking. I'm siding with the widely-held consensus until more research comes in to shift that consensus, at which point I'll be here laughing at myself for being ill-informed. Tail-dragging dinosaurs are laughable today, but it was peak science once. That's how it goes.

See, that's why I said possible, I figured I was treading on old ground. That all seems fair, though I'd point out that Godzilla would be at much more of a disadvantage without his Atomic Breath, which I'm pretty sure was a result of that nuclear awakening. So while certain uses/misuses of nuclear power were being decried, I'd argue that nuclear energy itself was more a neutral force in the series, just like it is in real life. Also, wasn't the whole inciting incident of KOTM that governments and rouge agencies were trying to either eliminate Titans or use them for war? Aside from Ghidorah I think we can safely peg the Titans as neutral entities, who can be either good or bad for humanity. Isn't it possible to highlight the benefits of something without forgetting the dangers as well?

TheLazyFish #TeamGodzilla

Nov-08-2019 9:48 AM

Gomi: Ninja Monster and Xenotaris

SO THAT'S WHY I KEPT USING BANANAS FOR A REFERENCE POINT!!!!! Damn, I CAN SEE THE FUTURE!!! Or... data that I will see the next day... eh...

 

G.H. (Gman)

"You're still not wrapping your head around this flawed argument. Nutella, when you start to eat it, is something your body absorbs the nutrients from almost immediately. Radiation is something that starts eating away your body almost immediately. Again one can kill, the other is from the get-go."

No, I don't think you're comprehending MY point. Everything is inherently deadly. If radiation is INHERENTLY deadly, that would mean it would have to kill at essentially the slightest touch. ANY amount would be enough for it to kill someone or something. But that isn't the case, or none of us would be able to go outside or eat or even exist. And HOW it kills is arbitrary, what matters is that it kills, which EVERYTHING does. I mean, the same thing goes for poisons, like Cyanide. They kill in the same way, by directly harming the body. Are they inherently deadly? Do they kill instantly no matter the amount? Can you eat a single apple seed and not die? Yes, it would take over 140 apple seeds to kill the average, 70 kilo person. It really is just a matter of AMOUNT with anything, not that they will inherently kill you. One cookie won't give you diabetes!

 

Again, a ramble, but the point is you misunderstood my concept. If radiation is inherently deadly, then so is everything else. The only reason you're saying that it is inherently deadly is because it just takes less of it to hurt people... and to support your argument, of course, or else we never would have brought that up.

 

"But it also does not spread irreparable pollution and cause political tensions over who has it, who doesn't and who is getting it illegally. There are safeguards around nuclear power/radioactivity that are put in place for a reason. Those safeguards, physical and political, continue to fail on a routine basis. (See: Fukushima)"

 

Yeah, mmhmm, I'm calling some bullshit on that one. The physical ones don't fail on a regular basis. If so... yeah, I think there'd be some news coverage on it. And nuclear power wouldn't be the "interim" power that is "championed", it would be solar power, hydro power, wind power, etc. Also "irreparable" isn't exactly the correct term. It may take thousands of years, BUT the radiation levels will go back down. And life finds a way to adapt to almost any condition. Besides that, back to the "100 Chernobyls" thing, I was using hyperbole, I thought that much was obvious. Even then, though, 100 cities becoming uninhabitable for thousands of years is, in my opinion, better than thousands of cities and ecosystems becoming uninhabitable for both humans and animal alike due to climate change. I mean, we're kind of fucked in that department. At least if 100 cities had a nuclear meltdown like Chernobyl, we could survive with the remaining tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of cities in the world. With climate change, billions could die and many species could go extinct, possibly even our own.

 

Monster_Zero 2112

Yeah, me too. Well, not that they're ENTIRELY boring, sometimes something funny can happen... but it's entirely comprised of whoever's bull shit sounds better. 

 

Really, I guess just comes down to a matter of opinion, how you look at it, and what direction the franchise goes. I don't think any of us are ever going to convince one another on whether or not this is a "slap to the face" of the franchise until more movies come out, so I think this argument is basically becoming pointless. 

 

If people weren't lazy, we'd get nothing done

Monster_Zero 2112 #TeamGodzilla

Nov-08-2019 9:51 AM

They argue like a bunch of married couples.

Monster_Zero 2112 #TeamGodzilla

Nov-08-2019 9:57 AM

Have any of you talked to Gmkgoji? He hasn't been responding to any of my messages. Either he's dead, taking a poop,making a sandwich or left his home.

Xenotaris #TeamMothra

Nov-08-2019 10:02 AM

We are exposed to 2.4 mSv a year, so a little radiation doesn't hurt anybody

Monster_Zero 2112 #TeamGodzilla

Nov-08-2019 10:22 AM

Nevermind. He responded back.

MinecraftDinoKaiju #TeamGodzilla

Nov-08-2019 1:43 PM

Hello everyone. Since I am finally back, I have decided on who I agree with, and unfortunately, I agree with G.H. (Gman) because the way that the Monsterverse takes for granted the original message of the franchise and makes the original message of the franchise something it is not. And then there's the fact the "healing radiation" is too fantasy-like, and it just desecrates on what the franchise originally meant.

TheLazyFish #TeamGodzilla

Nov-08-2019 2:09 PM

Fair point. I'd agree with you if I wasn't expecting them to pull an evilish Godzilla later. Speaking of which, out of curiosity, what if they're taking the angle I mentioned earlier?

If people weren't lazy, we'd get nothing done

MinecraftDinoKaiju #TeamGodzilla

Nov-12-2019 8:27 AM

Then it just takes itself too far to Godzilla being a good guy again. And then we'll have another incident like the later Showa Era in which Godzilla isn't cool anymore because they made him look like something meant for little kids again.

Add A Reply

Sign in to add a reply to this topic!

New Godzilla Forum Topics
How to include Toho Monsters into the Monsterverse
Latest Godzilla Fandom Activity

Godzilla-Movies.com is an information resource for fans looking to learn more about the upcoming blockbuster Godzilla: King of the Monsters. Providing the latest official and accurate information on Godzilla: King of the Monsters, this website contains links to every set video, viral video, commercial, trailer, poster, movie still and screenshot available. This site is an extension of the Godzilla Fandom on Scified - a central hub for fans of Godzilla looking to stay up-to-date on the latest news. Images used are property of their respective owners. Godzilla: King of the Monsters and its associated names, logos and images are property of and are in no way owned by Scified and its related entities. This is a fan-created website for the purpose of informing and exciting fans for Godzilla: King of the Monsters's release.

Scified is an entertainment media network covering the latest news on the most popular, upcoming science fiction movies, games and television. All content is property of Scified.com unless otherwise stated. Images and names of content we promote, discuss, review or report are property of their respective owners. Scified is independantly owned and operated by a team of dedicated sci-fi movie fans, who strive to provide the best information and community experience for other like-minded sci-fi movie enthusiasts.

© 2019 Scified.com