Pandora's Promise

source: Pandora's Promise

source: Pandora's Promise

This film is much better than what people rank it. Not a surprise, as these reviewers are by far liberals who could not accept the message. I watched it on CNN. It was a very interesting film in many ways. I found most interesting the education of two of the old leading environmentalists. Who blatantly admit they were closed minded in their view of how energy production could be made feasibly. They slowly educated themselves to understand that wind and solar were not realistic options for producing the massive amount of energy that is needed globally and that it would be impossible for the globe to solve it's energy needs with just them. They admit feeling lied to and stupid for believing that wind and solar were going to solve the worlds problems. As someone who didn't need a video to state the obvious, I am left wondering how people can really believe those blatant lies. With out spoiling the doc and getting into specifics. This guy does a good job at taking a hard look at things. He does not say we should never use solar or wind. Simply it will never be enough and they use a natural gas when to keep the plants running when their is no wind or it's cloudy. And he's right. Nuclear is his better than the rest of the other options solution. As someone who personally thinks clean coal is a better option, I will say he makes a strong argument. My only, concern with his theory, is that he never talks about what to do with the spent fuel. These critics of the film are hell bent on 2 arguments. Conservation and solar. Conservation isn't put much into the video, but he clearly states in interviews that we will never conserve enough and we will always use more. Which studies and both common sense prove to be true. But he never address that fissile fuels can be made to burn cleaner. 1 thing he definitely got right. It's not just the US. The emerging world that is starting to use more and more energy is going to massively increase pollution. Which there is no fix. I am waiting for the day we start having the Chinese global debate for 1 child.

This film is unfortunately very poorly edited and organized. I was really open to the basic idea this film wanted to convey but have come away not anymore convinced to be for or against nuclear power. That is because this is just not a very good film. The experts were not very compelling. They are smart, articulate, and probably nice. But, the story of their journey from being against to being for nuclear power really was fell flat. Perhaps that is the fault of the editing or perhaps they are not very compelling people. On the plus side the production values are very good. It is a pretty film to look at. I didn't like the overly dramatic shots of the experts (not speaking) looking into the camera or staring off into the distant future (or something like that). I never felt very connected to the experts as people. The music was very ominous in tone. The overall production made me feel that something very bad is waiting for us in the future. If the filmmakers want to motivate people to action in support of nuclear power - an ominous tone is probably not the best strategy.

I am no nuclear expert, but I've had plenty of debates about nuclear power based on what I could glean from websites, typical news coverage, and the few documentaries I've watched. I've heard opposing laymen make rather poor and often hyperbolic arguments for nuclear power with little effect; largely from the lack of hard information. These arguments never struck me as more than regurgitations of industry talking points. Something about this documentary coming from the perspective of people who are environmentalists softens the message. There's no excoriating attack on those who would dare oppose the "obvious logic" of nuclear power. There's no absence of raw data. There's no ideological slant or demagoguing of the environmental movement. It's simply a documentary presented in the perspective of people who changed their minds. One of the most powerful images in this documentary is the repeated use of the Geiger counter (or whatever measures milliSieverts) at different locations on Earth, including sights of recent disasters. We see that the hype over nuclear disasters is exactly that. A beach in South America has a natural radiation level far higher than that in Chernobyl as well as that in Fukushima. I gave this documentary a 10 because it completely flipped my opinion on nuclear power. I just watched this and I am in a state of shock from what I saw. How our international culture reached the point that nuclear power has had such an undeserved bad rap is beyond me. If public opinion changes, we're talking about doing away with fracking, expensive solar panels and fields of wind turbines. I do reserve my final judgment somewhat until I've heard other contrarians make academic counterarguments to this documentary, but the snippets I've heard don't sound like they'll change my mind. If you're of the same opinion as I had, please watch this and let me know if the arguments made are flawed and present them here. As it stands, I'm convinced.

This film oversimplified lots of issues and totally ignored others in the attempt to make a persuasive argument for adapting nuclear energy as the choice for our future. The real health risks inherent in nuclear waste and contamination (eg Fukishima) were minimized and ridiculed. There is no questioning the archaic practice of burning fossil fuels for energy production, but the investments required for nuclear power are astronomical compared to those of local coal fired power plants. The film makes some useful points clarifying how the newer technologies can provide for safer nuclear plants than the past, but the propaganda aspect of this work is very apparent.

Compared to wind power, nuclear power is much safer, more reliable, cost justified, and environmentally better. My TOP pick would be hydro-electric power, however, there are only so many waterfalls in the world. SECOND would be nuclear power, THIRD would be solar, however that would be costly and require 'solar farms'... still a possibility.. but is still an 'on- demand' source of energy, however it could be fed back into the grid. FOURTH would be coal-fired plants and LAST (and least) would be wind power. There are just too many cons regarding this source of 'energy'... too invasive on people and environment (dangerous, noise, flicker effect, affect on birds, bats, etc.), costs return (installation plus kickback)... it has been proved that wind power will make us pay more in electric bills... and they average a 20-yr lifespan (or less).... Monsters in the hills.... they have taken over our natural landscapes.

From purely a business point-of-view, this is all you need to know about nuclear power and global warming: http://youtu.be/mwIvGJJ_dtU I watched this film on Netflix recently and was sickened by the outright lies this film tells the viewer. Like the Pharmaceutical industry, the Nuclear industry always shields itself from critics, "alarmists" and those who dare to challenge the industry's track record through the lens of science. Science and technology are pure. They are neutral. The PR firms for the nuclear industry know that when they talk in these frames, the concern, worry and anger people have expressed fade into images of scientists in lab coats and hardworking people who are "trying to make a difference" for our future. This is far from the reality of the nuclear industry. It is a FOR PROFIT ONLY industry. Maximization of profit over the cost of safety. I would invite anyone who thinks otherwise to not only look at the track record of the past but also Google "Hanford", "Fukushima", "WIPP" – for starters today. Every single one of these sites is run by a corporation with a track record (before these recent accidents occurred) that cut corners on safety from day one continues to do so now. For proof, here is a short list of articles to being learning the truth about the nuclear industry... List of Radiation Induced Diseases - http://bit.ly/1rpkAEQ Background Radiation Has Increased 600 Percent since 1950: http://bit.ly/1rpkAEQ 100's of sourced articles: http://enenews.com Wall St. Journal: Report reveals WIPP containment system leaked radiation — 'Unfiltered' plutonium released into environment for 20 days after accident(VIDEO): http://bit.ly/1rqbvO3 RT News - Fukushima disaster: Tokyo hides truth as children die, become ill from radiation - ex-mayor: http://bit.ly/1jxv155 NBC: New data shows spike in babies born missing parts of brain around leaking US nuclear site: http://bit.ly/1puhKCW The truth is out there if you want to find it. The few in this industry who stand to profit in the 10's of billions (General Electric, Hitachi, Toshiba and others) will never relinquish their power unless we stand up and say "no more". What is being developed and carried is not done so in the name of science or technology. It is pure insanity.

The documentary is a complete mess in regards to facts. A few are there to be sure, but so scattered and disconnected that you will learn nothing about nuclear energy, good or bad. Indeed, if you have a real interest in the subject, it will take less effort to simply pick a physics book and start reading from chapter one. What the documentary does (if it does anything at all) is to display a tiny portion of human stupidity. From activists to scientists, and various other creatures, we hear unsophisticated social/political theories that make absolutely no sense but that they are delighted to tell the world about nonetheless. And when the documentary does allow a professional politician to speak (e.g. Thatcher), it is to manipulate the audience by misconstruing the very manipulation of the politician herself. In other words, it is a mess. In sum, it isn't worth watching on account of the presumed topic. Regarding the human folly, one can turn the TV on any channel for much of the same.

This really was quite a disappointing film. It states it's going to look at the issue but then hardly manages to hide it's agenda at all. Anti nukes are portrayed as nutters as they select the mad woman who can't back up their stories and pro nukes are all chin stroking intellectuals who used to be anti but have come to realise the error of their ways. All problems with nuke power was played down, and the safety can't melt down new reactors were hyped big time, accidents can't happen they explained, but see, they kind of did, just a couple of years ago, and they still haven't figured out how to deal with it, or if that can, and that is the key problem with Nuclear power. They start a fire that no one has figure out how to put out yet. I'm actually pro nuclear power, it makes sense, we've got massive amounts of it and the universe is filled with this stuff going down, BUT we can not and should not use it routinely until we figure out how to control it, and we have not done that yet. The fukushima meltdowns are unsolvable,and that will always be a risk for these accident proof facilities. Get back to us when you've got that one solved. Thanks for the propaganda though. nice to see it so we can practice identifying it in daily life.