Pandora's Promise (2013)

This documentary makes some strong arguments in favor of nuclear power; however, it also fails in its arguments by utilizing some of the same arguments against other power sources that it complains are used against nuclear power. For instance, it argues that many arguments against nuclear power are based on dated information and that many of the problems people worry about aren't actually significant worries anymore. However, at the same time, it complains about problems with solar panels that were actually solved before the documentary was made. As a result, the entire documentary becomes overly cheerful about nuclear and dismissive about other options for generating power. With such a clear, strong bias, the value of the rest of the documentary is severely degraded. The quality of the film otherwise is very good - just too flawed for a strong recommendation.

At about 1 hr into the film, they seemed to omit such highlight and important information of the film. A guy seems to be measuring the surrounding environment with radioactivity meter. A plant or weed was conveying such alarming measurement that it contains high dosage of radioactivity (44 microSv). They overlooked that...? Have they ever wonder why would the plant contain a higher amount of radioactivity than say concrete? Living organism are complex and sensitive biological system that intake and absorb radiation differently and generously. This is an important data and sometimes they are alerting us but we seem to overlooked these important messages... :( This is a film worth to spend time watching it but it contains some false information that might be misleading.

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.

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.