Has anyone seen "Pandora's Promise" yet?

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   
I ask because I'd like to hear what people have to say about it.

I heard Robert Stone (the producer, I think) briefly on KPFK radio (maybe on truthdig radio) and he sounded very reasoned and he spoke a bit about the 'waste' problem and some solutions in practise or in the works - it was a very brief potion of the interview I heard but intriging. I'm very anti-nuc and have been since I learned of it. However, it is a reasoned fear and I read on the subject.

I went to the website to see when it would be available on Netflix and found a very slick web site. You can tell there is a lot of money behind this project (I'm looking into it). The premier of the film, in addition to the open letter from four major environmentalists in favor of nuclear energy smells of a very well financed Public Relations (read propoganda) campaign. Now, in all honesty, that could be wishful thinking on my part.

I don't have TV and will have to wait to see the film but would like to hear other peoples reactions to it. As I said, over the next weeks, I'll be looking into the money trail to the best of my ability.


Thanks in advance - Oh, I believe it is in rotation on CNN where it premiered last week and in selected theaters. I'm certain the production values are excellent - but the content value - well - tell me what you think.




posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Yes, it's disgusting pro-nuke propaganda. These people are maniacs.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Here is a review from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

allthingsnuclear.org...

Don't want to bias any responds by posting quotes - if you are intested take a look.

The film was funded by Paul Allen of Microsoft and Sir Richard Branson of Virgin.

Here's a link to an article on the funding of the film:

(from the always environmentally friendly, anti-big business Forbes)

www.forbes.com...

This has BIG BUSINESS uber alles written all over it.
edit on 9-11-2013 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


A well written and objective review at A.V. Club:

www.avclub.com...



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Im just downloading it now, ill let you know what its like tomorrow



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   

PhoenixOD
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Im just downloading it now, ill let you know what its like tomorrow


Thanks, I'll look forward to it.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Ive sent you a message FyreByrd



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Yeah, watch it, its good. CNN's films have been good lately. They advance an opinion, but it makes for an interesting watch.

In the case of this movie, the opinion advanced is pro nuclear energy. They make some compelling arguments, including an incredibly low death rate associated with nuclear power. There's some good science. Some bad science too, the producer over states the importance of background radiation related to meltdowns - and shows Fukashima area is lower than background radiation in many other areas (due to natural radioactivity). Of course real danger is from distributed particles, which effect a range of only a few feet, so he misses the threat of highly radioactive particles that don't deeply effect background radiation.

But its thought provoking. After watching it, I can envision viable nuclear solutions, plants in the middle of nowhere that produce either synthetic hydrocarbons or fuel cells to be shipped out, and are constructed in holes in the ground so the waste disposal site is the plant site, and all Yucca Mountain type politics are avoided, and at any time the whole thing can be buried in concrete. Nuclear can be done sanely.

en.wikipedia.org...

So its good stuff to think about.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 11:55 PM
link   

tridentblue
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Yeah, watch it, its good. CNN's films have been good lately. They advance an opinion, but it makes for an interesting watch.




Thanks tridentblue.

Do they have anything on the vast amounts of fresh water required to cool reactors? That's a big concern of mine as it hits us both in the Water Scarcity spot as well as provides a huge vector for radionuclide dispersal in the event of any accident.

Also - I dislike this minimizing of deaths caused by, rather then attributable to, nuclear power - they restrict it to direct and immediate deaths swithout considering the slow and cumculative deaths by increased cancer and birth defect rates. But that's an old pro-nuke argument.

Thanks again for the input. Are they running it regularly on CNN? Do you know?



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 12:27 AM
link   

PhoenixOD
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Ive sent you a message FyreByrd
me too plz


The Bot



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Yeah, its their film du jour. Last one was Black Fish, and it ran quite a few times, so this one should cycle for a bit.

You sound pretty well informed on the issues, so I think you'd enjoy it. Its clearly an argument for, so you need to be a critical thinker, as you seem to be. But in that context its a well put together argument.

I agree that the current paradigm of nuclear energy is undesireable. What I got out of the film was the sense that the core idea of nuclear isn't doomed, there are ways to do it that could be really positive.



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by tridentblue
 


Yes, except for that pesky radioactivity.

We're playing with fire. Oppenheimer knew it. No one listened.

We don't control nuclear power. Anyone who thinks we do is a fool.



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Restricted
reply to post by tridentblue
 


Yes, except for that pesky radioactivity.

We're playing with fire. Oppenheimer knew it. No one listened.

We don't control nuclear power. Anyone who thinks we do is a fool.


The problem is we are playing with fire in a lot of ways right now, other options look about as risky as nuclear.

I'll level. I think in 120 years, we will have fusion, and nothing else will be needed. So the question becomes can we create a short term nuclear solution which is totally cleaned up in 120 years. The current solutions don't address this. They leave waste with a lifespan of 800, 1000, or even hundreds of thousands of years. And some of it is bomb making materials. But is there a way to put the reactor in hole in the ground, where the waste will be buried, even to nuke the waste in the hole so it is forever destroyed? Maybe. And if it is possible, its worth pursuing because the cost of the other options is also so high right now.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Will add another quasi-review:

Pandora's Atomic Box Score: On the Nuclear Industry's Total Meltdown
by Harvey Wasserman

www.commondreams.org...



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Restricted
reply to post by tridentblue
 


Yes, except for that pesky radioactivity.

We're playing with fire. Oppenheimer knew it. No one listened.

We don't control nuclear power. Anyone who thinks we do is a fool.


Well, call me a fool (I guess you did that already) but, we can and do control nuclear power. To dismiss the entirety of the field with a single broad stroke is ludicrous.

I hope H3 fusion reactors can get started asap but, until then, pebble bed (Daniel's pile), thorium reactors, etc. seem to offer the best solution.
edit on 14-3-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   

greencmp

Restricted
reply to post by tridentblue
 


Yes, except for that pesky radioactivity.

We're playing with fire. Oppenheimer knew it. No one listened.

We don't control nuclear power. Anyone who thinks we do is a fool.


Well, call me a fool (I guess you did that already) but, we can and do control nuclear power. To dismiss the entirety of the field with a single broad stroke is ludicrous.

I hope H3 fusion reactors can get started asap but, until then, pebble bed (Daniel's pile), thorium reactors, etc. seem to offer the best solution.
edit on 14-3-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)


Really? Tell me all about how man is controlling those three reactors melting down in Japan. I'm dying to hear this.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Restricted
 


At the moment with water but, I concede, it needs to be handled.

This is a case of best plan vs right now so, once the Japanese decide on the procedure, I imagine recovery will be costly but effective.

My main point was that summarily dismissing all nuclear power simply isn't sensible and, in many cases, downright impossible.





new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join