Thor Crow So the main perspective in this documentary is "how our opinion of nuclear energy changed" following a few alleged environmental activists in changing their attitude towards nuclear power. While there is several interesting bits of information here and there, it's not examined closely and with the narrative being "what we feel about nuclear power and stuff", the documentary becomes a somewhat muddy propaganda for nuclear power without the necessary scrutiny.For example, the documentary shows and advocates plutonium breeder reactors that cannot melt down and produce less waste as they recycle plutonium, but it is for instance not mentioned that plutonium breeder reactors use a sodium coolant that can cause fire and explosion. Neither this issue with plutonium breeders is mentioned, nor the "solution" - thorium reactors use salt as a coolant.In fact, not mentioning the most promising type of reactor at all is telling for this off documentary entitled 'Pandora's promise'. I recommend the other negative reviews of this film, including the striking observation that the environmentalists still hold and profess their opinion of the immediate and catastrophic danger of climate change that they once offered nuclear power!Imagine a lame guy from the social sciences doing a documentary about the natural sciences, using former creationists feelings and opinions as the narrative and main theme of the documentary. Well, there you have it!For those interested in the best and safest way to do nuclear power, I recommend looking into thorium reactors. They cannot melt down and use salt as a coolant. To my knowledge, this leaves proliferation as the main criticism. So I will end my review with something i gathered from the "Liquid fluoride thorium reactor" article on Wikipedia:"Proliferation resistance. The LFTR resists diversion of its fuel to nuclear weapons in four ways: first, the thorium-232 breeds by converting first to protactinium-233, which then decays to uranium- 233. If the protactinium remains in the reactor, small amounts of U- 232 are also produced. U-232 has a decay chain product (thallium- 208) that emits powerful, dangerous gamma rays. These are not a problem inside a reactor, but in a bomb, they complicate bomb manufacture, harm electronics and reveal the bomb's location.The second proliferation resistant feature comes from the fact that LFTRs produce very little plutonium, around 15 kg per gigawatt-year of electricity (this is the output of a single large reactor over a year). This plutonium is also mostly Pu-238, which makes it unsuitable for fission bomb building, due to the high heat and spontaneous neutrons emitted. The third track, a LFTR doesn't make much spare fuel. It produces at most 9% more fuel than it burns each year, and it's even easier to design a reactor that makes only 1% more fuel. With this kind of reactor, building bombs quickly will take power plants out of operation, and this is an easy indication of national intentions."

MartinHafer "Pandora's Promise" is a challenging and engaging documentary about nuclear power. However, instead of it being promoted by the usual sources, this film is about LIBERALS pushing for nuclear power. This shows a divide between them and the old fashioned anti-nuke liberals. However, this film does NOT mean that it represents this group joining in with the Conservatives here in America because much of the basis for their new-found love of radioactivity is their fear of global warming. In essence, it is as if they are now saying 'we were wrong about nuclear power...we're sorry...but believe us now about global warming'--an argument that is bound to alienate many.So is this a bad film? No. While I think it is inconsistent in some ways, it IS thought-provoking and interesting from start to finish. But, occasionally it made me question some of their facts and conclusions--such as saying that 3,000,000 folks a year die as a result of fossil fuels! Where did they get that figure from and why does the film also mock the fantastic death figures thrown about by the anti-nuke movement. I BOTH are way overstating their cases in order to make their points. As for me, I'd like to see more about this subject but also from different sources.

John Paul Rice From purely a business point-of-view, this is all you need to know about nuclear power and global warming: http://youtu.be/mwIvGJJ_dtUI 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.

cliffa25 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.