ericnottelling 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.

Dave E Crockett 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.

lillau-712-630864 Stone's earliest documentary used declassified footage acquired through the Freedom of Information Act to tell the story of the Bikini islanders and American servicemen affected by nuclear weapons testing. Pandora's Promise shows he remains a dedicated researcher twenty five years later. With captivating images of energy production from all over the world, Stone explores the contradictions of science and ideology related to climate change, urbanization, and nuclear power. The personal narratives of the people featured in the film provide an unapologetic point of view on disruption in the historic environmental narrative. Beautifully shot, enjoyable to watch, the film's highlighting of counter intuitive information will present inconvenient truths that inspire conversation after the credits roll.

negativeions101 This film assumes that the only alternatives to nuclear power are coal and other old and inefficient methods. This is a waste of time and space and pathetically researched if you could even call it that. Advocating nuclear energy is basically equivalent to advocating death to call civilization. That's what the sociopaths and psychopaths of the world want. They are trying to destroy the earth. But why the hell would anyone want to do that? That's a good question that needs to be answered. Why are sociopaths and psychopaths trying to destroy the planet? Because that's what they're doing isn't it? All these questions eventually lead to psychology. What does it mean to be a sociopath/psychopath? They can't seem to be able to treat others as they want to be treated. Maybe they hate themselves. I'm getting closer to the objective truth right now then you realize. That is the ultimate question. What is the objective truth? Ask yourselves this. I'll give you a heads up. We are immortal spiritual beings. We are here to raise the vibrational frequency of the planet. The physical reality is but a chemical reaction in the brain. The objective truth is spirit. The sociopaths don't know this or refuse to acknowledge it. Unfortunately they run most of society. Just keep spreading positive vibes. Do what you can. Advocate clean energy. Anyone intelligent knows that energy is free anyways.