'Simpsons' exec producer Al Jean: 'I completely understand' if reruns with nuclear jokes are pulled by Dan Snierson
Japan�s nuclear power plant crisis is no laughing matter in Springfield: Networks in several European countries are reportedly reviewing episodes of The Simpsons for any �unsuitable� references to nuclear disaster. An Austrian network has apparently pulled two eps, 1992�s �Marge Gets a Job� and 2005�s �On a Clear Day I Can�t See My Sister,� which include jokes about radiation poisoning and nuclear meltdowns, respectively. Al Jean � exec producer of the animated Fox comedy featuring inept family man/nuclear power plant worker Homer Simpson � tells EW that he can appreciate the concern. �We have 480 episodes, and if there are a few that they don�t want to air for awhile in light of the terrible thing going on, I completely understand that,� says Jean, citing the previous example of the 1997 episode �Homer Versus the City of New York� that was pulled after 9/11 because it included key scenes at the World Trade Center. �We would never make light of what�s happening in Japan.�
Twentieth Television, the syndication division of Fox Television, has provided U.S. stations that air The Simpsons in syndication with a list of episodes that contain potentially sensitive material given the unfolding disaster in Japan, so those stations can decide whether or not to pull them. (This isn�t an uncommon practice in such situations.) Jean assures that no upcoming Simpsons episodes �even approach� the subject. �Some of them are workplace shows, but they are just about Homer being at work,� he says. �They�re not about nuclear power.� And in case you were wondering, there are no plans to have Homer leave his job at the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant. �He�s still going to work there,� says Jean. �We have a rich universe in which we can do a million things and not touch on that.�
PUSSIES. How about a reality check, science-illiterates? Oooo, better run out and buy that geiger counter!!!
26 March 2011 Last updated at 08:50 ET
Viewpoint: We should stop running away from radiation By Wade Allison University of Oxford
More than 10,000 people have died in the Japanese tsunami and the survivors are cold and hungry. But the media concentrate on nuclear radiation from which no-one has died - and is unlikely to. House and power station at Dungeness Modern reactors are better designed than those at Fukushima - tomorrow's may be better still
Nuclear radiation at very high levels is dangerous, but the scale of concern that it evokes is misplaced. Nuclear technology cures countless cancer patients every day - and a radiation dose given for radiotherapy in hospital is no different in principle to a similar dose received in the environment.
What of Three Mile Island? There were no known deaths there.
And Chernobyl? The latest UN report published on 28 February confirms the known death toll - 28 fatalities among emergency workers, plus 15 fatal cases of child thyroid cancer - which would have been avoided if iodine tablets had been taken (as they have now in Japan). And in each case the numbers are minute compared with the 3,800 at Bhopal in 1984, who died as a result of a leak of chemicals from the Union Carbide pesticide plant. Continue reading the main story Becquerels and Sieverts
* A becquerel (Bq), named after French physicist Henri Becquerel,
is a measure of radioactivity
* A quantity of radioactive material has an activity of 1Bq if one
nucleus decays per second - and 1kBq if 1,000 nuclei decay per second
* A sievert (Sv) is a measure of radiation absorbed by a person,
named after Swedish medical physicist Rolf Sievert
* A milli-sievert (mSv) is a 1,000th of a Sievert
* Q&A: Health effects of radiation
* Energy solution or evil curse?
So what of the radioactivity released at Fukushima? How does it compare with that at Chernobyl? Let's look at the measured count rates. The highest rate reported, at 1900 on 22 March, for any Japanese prefecture was 12 kBq per sq m (for the radioactive isotope of caesium, caesium-137).
A map of Chernobyl in the UN report shows regions shaded according to rate, up to 3,700 kBq per sq m - areas with less than 37 kBq per sq m are not shaded at all. In round terms, this suggests that the radioactive fallout at Fukushima is less than 1% of that at Chernobyl.
The other important radioisotope in fallout is iodine, which can cause child thyroid cancer.
This is only produced when the reactor is on and quickly decays once the reactor shuts down (it has a half life of eight days). The old fuel rods in storage at Fukushima, though radioactive, contain no iodine.
But at Chernobyl the full inventory of iodine and caesium was released in the initial explosion, so that at Fukushima any release of iodine should be much less than 1% of that at Chernobyl - with an effect reduced still further by iodine tablets.
Unfortunately, public authorities react by providing over-cautious guidance - and this simply escalates public concern. Over-reaction
On the 16th anniversary of Chernobyl, the Swedish radiation authorities, writing in the Stockholm daily Dagens Nyheter, admitted over-reacting by setting the safety level too low and condemning 78% of all reindeer meat unnecessarily, and at great cost. Bottled water distributed in Tokyo Bottled water was handed out in Tokyo this week to mothers of young babies
Unfortunately, the Japanese seem to be repeating the mistake. On 23 March they advised that children should not drink tap water in Tokyo, where an activity of 200 Bq per litre had been measured the day before. Let's put this in perspective. The natural radioactivity in every human body is 50 Bq per litre - 200 Bq per litre is really not going to do much harm.
In the Cold War era most people were led to believe that nuclear radiation presents a quite exceptional danger understood only by "eggheads" working in secret military establishments.
To cope with the friendly fire of such nuclear propaganda on the home front, ever tighter radiation regulations were enacted in order to keep all contact with radiation As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA), as the principle became known.
This attempt at reassurance is the basis of international radiation safety regulations today, which suggest an upper limit for the general public of 1 mSv per year above natural levels.
This very low figure is not a danger level, rather it's a small addition to the levels found in nature - a British person is exposed to 2.7 mSv per year, on average. My book Radiation and Reason argues that a responsible danger level based on current science would be 100 mSv per month, with a lifelong limit of 5,000 mSv, not 1 mSv per year. New attitude
People worry about radiation because they cannot feel it. However, nature has a solution - in recent years it has been found that living cells replace and mend themselves in various ways to recover from a dose of radiation.
These clever mechanisms kick in within hours and rarely fail, except when they are overloaded - as at Chernobyl, where most of the emergency workers who received a dose greater than 4,000 mSv over a few hours died within weeks. Continue reading the main story “Start Quote
Some might ask whether I would accept radioactive waste buried 100 metres under my own house?”
End Quote
However, patients receiving a course of radiotherapy usually get a dose of more than 20,000 mSv to vital healthy tissue close to the treated tumour. This tissue survives only because the treatment is spread over many days giving healthy cells time for repair or replacement.
In this way, many patients get to enjoy further rewarding years of life, even after many vital organs have received the equivalent of more than 20,000 years' dose at the above internationally recommended annual limit - which makes this limit unreasonable.
A sea-change is needed in our attitude to radiation, starting with education and public information.
Then fresh safety standards should be drawn up, based not on how radiation can be excluded from our lives, but on how much we can receive without harm - mindful of the other dangers that beset us, such as climate change and loss of electric power. Perhaps a new acronym is needed to guide radiation safety - how about As High As Relatively Safe (AHARS)?
Modern reactors are better designed than those at Fukushima - tomorrow's may be better still, but we should not wait. Radioactive waste is nasty but the quantity is small, especially if re-processed. Anyway, it is not the intractable problem that many suppose.
Some might ask whether I would accept it if it were buried 100 metres under my own house? My answer would be: "Yes, why not?" More generally, we should stop running away from radiation.
Wade Allison is a nuclear and medical physicist at the University of Oxford, the author of Radiation and Reason (2009) and Fundamental Physics for Probing and Imaging (2006).
Rich, you bring up an excellent point--as a child of birth defects you're trying to tell us it's possible to lead a normal and productive life, right? Your brain damage and deformed genitalia haven't stopped you from going out in the world and doing things. Look how helpful and interesting you are on Usenet! Your posts are the equivalent of getting an enema with muriatic acid.
Now crawl back in your rat hole and shut the fuck up.
But you forget, Japan is the home of the first mass victims of nuclear radiation. Poor Madame Curie died from it, but at least she was working with the stuff. Japan suffered badly in August of 1945. I was honestly surprised that they relied so much on nuclear power, since the Hibakusha are not that long in the past. A whole lot of people came over from Japan in June of 1982 to protest nuclear weapons, it was a very strong contingent, complete with an endless supply of strings of paper cranes, and they even gave us a party later in the week. Sato who walked with us had already walked across the US in 1976. We carried the Hibakusha photos everywhere we went. That banner we rolled out when we stopped said "No More Nuclear Victims".
The one reason I'd go to Japan, and oddly I was beginning to think again about doing it, is to walk between Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or is it the other way?) which is done every year in August.
No. If they were just pulling them in Japan, I'd understand. But this is insane.
Some of the best classic episodes will be affected by this. Matt Groening put those anti-nuclear gags into the show for a reason, he was warning us this that this could happen. And then it did. So the show is to be punished for being prescient?
I don't think there's been a nuclear joke in The Simpsons in as many years. The current writers seem to have completely forgotten that Homer works in a nuclear power plant.
Well, he'll still take credit for anything that's funny, but, what you said. I'm not convinced he's had anything to do with it since it was a spot on Tracy Ulman.
I find it amusing that he now claims credit for Itchy and Scratchy, when he initially denied having anything to do with it, saying in interviews that they sent the materials off to the Orient with the notation "the kids are watching TV" and it came back with The Itchy and Scratchy show.
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 09:15:47 -0700, Anim8rFSK wrote:
You mentioned this before in some other thread, but I've never heard this story anywhere else.
It sounds like you're mixing it up with what happened to the first aborted run at "Some Enchanted Evening" (the Babysitter Bandit episode), where Lisa and Maggie are watching 'The Happy Little Elves.' The script called for the scene on TV to be animated as generically as possible to give the impression of super-cheap barely-animated 80s toons, but when it came back they got a scene of bloodshed and chaos instead (along with about a million other bigger problems with the entirety of the episode). Some of the thrown-away version of the episode can be seen on the Season 1 DVD.
I've never heard it said that I&S was anything but an intentional parody of Tom & Jerry style toons right from the start.
I'm still wondering what will get edited. I have this strange feeling that the nuclear accident in the opening credits will be deemed ok and the mutated fish will be deemed ok and the leaky pipes at the plant might even be deemed ok...but I bet they edit out any Simpsons episode with a mushroom cloud.
Every single episode has plot elements about nuclear accidents since one is featured in the opening credits. I haven't seen a list of what episodes are being skipped or what elements are actually being edited out, though. So far, all that is happening is that stations are being given a list of 'potentially harmful' episodes. It remains to be seen if stations (at least in the US) will make any changes to which episodes air.
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:05:54 -0400, Barry Margolin wrote:
That's what they are doing. That's why they are providing a list of possibly sensitive episodes to the affiliates. So the affiliates can decide if they want to air those episodes or not. If they were going to edit the episodes that would likely happen at the studio and there wouldn't be any need to provide the affiliates a list of possibly sensitive episodes.
Which is ironic, because leaky pipes and mutated fish are some of the actual problems the Japanese are and will be likely dealing with. Mushroom clouds, not so much.
Exactly. This 'self-censorship's isn't an act of sensitivity to the Japanese so much as it is an act of bowing to the fear mongers that believe all nuclear issues end with a huge explosion.
Barry Margolin sent the following on Tue, 29 Mar 2011 23:44:49 -0400:
It's not enough that the TV stations are not *victims* of thuggery here; they should also not play the role of the thug.
Anything short of letting individual viewers decide for themselves is thuggery. About the only thing I can see that would be acceptable would be to put a warning tag at the outset on the episodes that might cause vapors for some of the audience. "In light of recent world events, the following episode may not be suitable for all viewers. Viewer discretion advised."
But your approach takes the choice entirely out of the individual viewer's hands. As such, you advocate thuggery.
In other words, you believe that any attempt to program a television station is thuggery.
Whether they change their schedule because of the situation in Japan, or they don't, they're still only putting one Simpsons episode on at any given time. So they're taking the decision out of the individual's hands. It's not as if they were offering an on-demand service and taking away some of the choices.
Are you suggesting a new disclaimer at the beginning of the relevant episode?
"Warning: This show deals with themes of nuclear energy accidents. During this time of crisis in Japan, sensitive viewers should consider whether they wish to watch."
And is it really thuggery? TV networks and stations make decisions all the time about what they'll put on the air. How is this significantly different?
Barry Margolin sent the following on Thu, 31 Mar 2011 20:29:18 -0400:
Only as the lesser of two evils, with a nanny state being the greater evil.
Exactly.
They're basically telling a subset of their audience that it's not sensitive enough, and that they're gonna force them to accept a level of sensitivity that they would rather not have to accept.
That's a far cry from numbers-based decision-making.
David Johnston sent the following on Sat, 2 Apr 2011 13:47:50 -0700 (PDT):
And by overdoing it in the eyes of the less sensitive fans, they come across as assholes to *that* segment of their customer base. Once again, it's best to let each viewer decide for himself or herself. The more I think about it, the more I see a "Viewer discretion advised" solution to be the best one.
It's unlikely "that" segment of their customer base would even notice that a couple of episodes have been taken out of rotation for a while unless for some inexplicable reason this story gets a lot of publicity.
If you made up different numbers, like, say, 10% of viewers appreciate when networks make gestures like that and 40% think it's asinine, you'd reach a different conclusion.
Thing about made up numbers is, you can draw pretty much whatever conclusion you wish from them. Those conclusions therefore can have little relevance to the real world. Specifically, they say far more about whoever made them up than they do about the rest of the universe.
Barry Margolin sent the following on Sun, 03 Apr 2011 17:31:25 -0400:
Well, if we're just gonna make up numbers, I'll say that 99% of the viewers think that it's a douche move on the part of the affiliate in question. I win!
(In other words, let's not waste time on made-up numbers.)
People need to just generally toughen the hell up. If a joke in a Simpsons episode from 10 years ago has you suffering the vapors because of a mishap a world away, then you have some underlying emotional problems that won't be cured by a few programming edits.
This is the same sort of nonsense that had "Law & Order" editing out stills of the WTC from the NYC skyline shots in the opening credits of the show, as if the only way we could deal with 911 was to pretend the buildings never even existed in the first place, to basically erase them from existence as much as possible.
This argument comes up every time there's a disaster and TV stations try to be sensitive to viewer's feelings.
Face it, lots of viewers DO feel that it's in bad taste to treat situations related to disasters that are still in their mind lightly. They complain to the networks, write blogs, threaten to boycott advertisers, etc.
Meanwhile, broadcasters get goodwill by making gestures like this. And people who say "just toughen up" come off sounding like insensitive jerks.
Of course they do. No one's denying that these people exist. They just need to grow a pair and realize that a 10-year-old Simpson's episode is nothing to be worked up over.
Maybe they do. But since they don't, the networks need to be sensitive to them.
I also wish viewers weren't bothered by adult language, so that network TV programs could have characters talking like real people instead of the Brady Bunch (now I'm imagining Marcia exclaiming "Shit, my nose!"). But enough viewers are bothered by it, so the networks water down their dialogue.
They don't need to be. They just choose to be. It's not like people are going to stop watching TV because they're fleetingly upset over the coincidental conjunction of an old joke on a comedy re-run and something happening somewhere in the world.
Why do you have to take things to ridiculous levels? It's not a matter of people stopping watching, or having "the vapors". It's called "being nice". It's the same reason you hold doors for people -- it's not like they're unable to open doors themselves, but we do it because that's how polite society works.
And in this case, networks choose to be nice by not showing disturbing episodes of a TV show during a time of crisis. Some people might not mind, but others find it distasteful. It doesn't even matter if they watch or don't watch, it's the very fact that the network chooses to air it that shows that they have less consideration for the public.
Still doesn't mean the networks need to do this as you claimed. It's not like people are going to stop watching TV because the networks aren't "being nice".
Okay, now you've gone from "the networks need to do it" to "the networks choose to do it", which (you'll note) was what I originally said.
We're on the same page, finally.
And anyone who is disturbed by a 10-year-old Simpsons cartoon isn't going to have their problems solved by a nice TV network.
I think you just may be interpreting "need" differently than I intended it. They need to do it in order to fulfill their goal of being considerate to this class of viewer. It's a social obligation, not a business requirement.
It's like the way husbands need to put the toilet seat down to avoid having to deal with complaints from the wife.
Barry Margolin sent the following on 3/28/2011 10:38 PM:
No one is suggesting that the sensitive should be forced to watch. OTOH, the sensitive sure seem to be wanting to force their sensitivity onto others here.
You don't see a difference between a replayed joke from a decade ago that's not aimed at a particular tragedy and a current joke that's clearly aimed at specific and current victims?
No, I don't. If a joke about nuclear disaster hits a sore spot now, what difference does it make when it was originally written?
No one is suggesting that the episodes are intentionally trying to insult the victims. It's just that this is a tragedy that's currently on people's minds. And during this period, it's polite to avoid making light of it.
Barry Margolin sent the following on Tue, 29 Mar 2011 23:51:51 -0400:
Because if it was originally aired ten years ago, then only the most brain dead would even remotely think that it was an intentional dig at current events or current victims. And more importantly, if you're *that* emotional over nuclear issues at this point in time, why would you be watching THE SIMPSONS in the first place?
And in terms of the larger picture, where would you draw the line? On any given day, people around the world lose loved ones. Should television stations ban any episodes of shows that make light of funerals and the like? What if they don't make fun, but just include a funeral scene? That might be all it takes to cause a flood of emotions for someone who just lost a loved one, after all.
In short, since we each draw the line at our own point of preference, the only truly fair and sane approach for an affiliate is to also let us each draw the line for ourselves in this context.
Thuggery is never polite. If you want to be considerate, then air a "viewer discretion advised" notice. Other than that, let people decide for themselves, and stop being a nanny.
Because if you take it that far, you can never show anything real on TV. It's not possible to totally sanitize entertainment, without completely destroying it.
These types of actions are taken when there's a big issue that they know a large segment of the viewers will be sensitive to. After 9/11, scenes of the World Trade Center were edited out of some shows, and "24" downplayed an airline hijacking. It's not possible to avoid reference to everyday tragedies, but extreme ones that are many people's minds are feasible to address.
Barry Margolin sent the following on Thu, 31 Mar 2011 20:36:39 -0400:
If the people getting the vapors over it don't even think that it's intentional, then they're even more sensitive than I thought.
That's exactly my point. Once you start in with this kind of social engineering or whatnot, it becomes possible to justify all sorts of things. That's why, as much as I believe that there's no place for certain vile content and the like, I also believe that it should always be up to the individual viewer to decide where to draw the line for himself or herself. As long as the programming isn't breaking any laws, of course.
Same thing. Flag 'em with a "viewer discretion advised" tag or some such thing, but leave it up to viewers to decide what they can and can't handle at a given moment in time, whether it's a funeral scene or a shot of the Towers or something nuclear.
What world do you live in? People get emotional over things that aren't intentional all the time. An aroma that reminds them of their childhood. Rainbows and scenic vistas.
No one is "getting the vapors", as you keep saying. They're just being reminded of disturbing events when they were hoping to be entertained.
Barry Margolin sent the following on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 15:59:55 -0400:
And in the cases where they don't deliberately subject themselves to those things, I can sympathize. But if, say, someone just lost his wife, and she was known all her life as a good baker, then he should probably give serious consideration to staying out of pastry shops for a while.
Admit it. You're that double rainbow dude, aren't you?
Entertained by watching a show that features an incompetent guy who works at a nuclear power plant. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Again, why is someone who is sensitive to nuclear matters at the moment even contemplating watching THE SIMPSONS in the first place?
Perhaps a show about incompetent(s) running a nuclear power plant might well provide some insight into how these now famous "accidents" have come about.
In the fullness of time, perhaps we might find some three eyed fish swimming in the Pacific Ocean just offshore of Japan.