Pandora's False Promises
[ http://www.beyondnuclear.org/pandoras-false-promises/ ]
Pandora's Promise, is a new pro-nuclear propaganda documentary released theatrically in the US in July 2013.
It is funded in part by individuals with a vested interest in seeing the development of new reactors and is seemingly a vehicle by which to raise the profile of the anti-environmental Oakland think tank, The Breakthrough Institute, whose personnel feature prominently in the film.
Despite the film's premise and early claim that it features "a growing number of leading former anti-nuclear activists" who now support nuclear energy, no one in the film ever led the anti-nuclear movement. Nor was any credible, independent scientific or medical professional with expertise in the areas covered in the film consulted or featured.
Beyond Nuclear has bird-dogged the film from the beginning, and has produced numerous critiques.
We have also published a definitive report - Pandora's False Promises: Busting the pro-nuclear propaganda
[ http://www.beyondnuclear.org/pandoras-false-promises/ ] - and a two-page synopsis
[ http://www.beyondnuclear.org/pandoras-false-promises/ ].
These documents address virtually all of the myths, lies and omissions typically found in pro-nuclear rhetoric and are intended to address these long after Pandora's Promise fades into deserved oblivion.
Pandora's False Promises
6 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Pandora's False Promises
by Oscar » Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:32 am
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Pro-nuclear documentary takes a bold stand
by Oscar » Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:34 am
Pandora’s Promise, reviewed: Pro-nuclear documentary takes a bold stand
http://arts.nationalpost.com/2013/07/11 ... old-stand/
Chris Knight | 11/07/13 4:22 PM ET
More from Chris Knight | @ChrisKnightfilm
QUOTE: "The lone anti-nuclear activist given any significant screen time is Helen Caldicott, caught at her most crazy-sounding."
- - - - -
(NOTE: . . . another screening in Saskatoon on October 10)
http://arts.nationalpost.com/2013/07/11 ... old-stand/
Chris Knight | 11/07/13 4:22 PM ET
More from Chris Knight | @ChrisKnightfilm
QUOTE: "The lone anti-nuclear activist given any significant screen time is Helen Caldicott, caught at her most crazy-sounding."
- - - - -
(NOTE: . . . another screening in Saskatoon on October 10)
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Nuclear debate in Sask. fueled by controversial film
by Oscar » Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:46 pm
Nuclear debate in Sask. fueled by controversial film
[ http://panow.ca/node/393465 ]
Submitted on October 2, 2013 - 12:23pm
By Kelly Malone paNOW Staff
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission may be in La Ronge to talk about the re-licensing of three Cameco and Areva mines but the nuclear discussion has found its way to Saskatoon.
Tuesday night at the Roxy Theatre in Saskatoon the controversial documentary Pandora's Promise from Academy Award-nominated director and former anti-nuclear activist Robert Stone was screened.
Most of the people who packed the theatre seats to watch the film also stayed after the screening for a public debate that included two anti-nuclear experts and two nuclear experts to answer questions from the crowd.
"In my view, with the energy decisions that face Canada and the globe is that we need to make intelligent decisions about the use of all resources," said Organization of Canadian Nuclear Industries president Ron Oberth.
"I understand that in certain regions of the world where you have strong coastal winds and abundant sunshine... that wind and solar energy can play a role. But we also have to recognize that in most parts of the world including this one, Saskatchewan , relying on wind and solar will not be the answer to a secure and clean source of energy."
Oberth explained that greenhouse gases are a serious threat to the climate of the planet and that, like in the movie, he believes that nuclear energy is the most viable source of energy without creating greenhouse gases.
"I'm for intelligent resource development and we have to recognize that climate change is probably the most serious threat facing the planet and if we don't make use of the clean and non carbon producing nuclear energy we threaten this planet," he said.
- - - SNIP - - -
On the other side of the stage sat the anti-nuclear experts which included retired environmental and justice professor Jim Harding. He had previously been a consultant on the National Film Board award-winning documentary Uranium.
"This film keeps you in the maze but allows you only one exit and that is the nuclear industry can resolve the climate crisis. It is fundamentally dishonest as a documentary to close all these doors once you enter the question but the conclusion was there before the inquiry began," he said.
"The vision of replacing coal and nuclear with renewable is already underway. It is of course in the interest of the nuclear industry to say it is the only way to replace the fossil fuels."
He pointed to the International Atomic Energy Agency did a study that showed in 1986 nuclear energy reached 18 per cent of global electrical production and stayed there for nearly two decades. However, it started to drop in 2006 and now only reaches 10 per cent.
Both sides of the debate came with facts and numbers supported by different world, governmental, and private organizations. They used them to respond to many of the questions posed by the audience after the film screened.
One question involved the footprint from different energy sources. The pro-nuclear experts came in explaining that energy density for nuclear is high.
"Energy density of uranium is very high. By definition therefore nuclear power plants take less land volume than equivalent wind and solar panels," said Oberth.
Continuing the atmosphere of the night, the anti-nuclear side did not agree.
"It all depends on what we see. The volume question is used constantly it was used in the film," he said. "It's in the ability to contaminate. The water in Fukushima that's now been contaminated is 138 swimming pools...we don't know what the uptake is going to be in the Pacific... the footprint has to be assessed based on the magnitude of what might be considered a low risk incident because if the magnitude of a low-risk incident is so high then you start to look at other ways to provide low-impact energy."
news@panow.com
On Twitter: @princealbertnow
[ http://panow.ca/node/393465 ]
Submitted on October 2, 2013 - 12:23pm
By Kelly Malone paNOW Staff
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission may be in La Ronge to talk about the re-licensing of three Cameco and Areva mines but the nuclear discussion has found its way to Saskatoon.
Tuesday night at the Roxy Theatre in Saskatoon the controversial documentary Pandora's Promise from Academy Award-nominated director and former anti-nuclear activist Robert Stone was screened.
Most of the people who packed the theatre seats to watch the film also stayed after the screening for a public debate that included two anti-nuclear experts and two nuclear experts to answer questions from the crowd.
"In my view, with the energy decisions that face Canada and the globe is that we need to make intelligent decisions about the use of all resources," said Organization of Canadian Nuclear Industries president Ron Oberth.
"I understand that in certain regions of the world where you have strong coastal winds and abundant sunshine... that wind and solar energy can play a role. But we also have to recognize that in most parts of the world including this one, Saskatchewan , relying on wind and solar will not be the answer to a secure and clean source of energy."
Oberth explained that greenhouse gases are a serious threat to the climate of the planet and that, like in the movie, he believes that nuclear energy is the most viable source of energy without creating greenhouse gases.
"I'm for intelligent resource development and we have to recognize that climate change is probably the most serious threat facing the planet and if we don't make use of the clean and non carbon producing nuclear energy we threaten this planet," he said.
- - - SNIP - - -
On the other side of the stage sat the anti-nuclear experts which included retired environmental and justice professor Jim Harding. He had previously been a consultant on the National Film Board award-winning documentary Uranium.
"This film keeps you in the maze but allows you only one exit and that is the nuclear industry can resolve the climate crisis. It is fundamentally dishonest as a documentary to close all these doors once you enter the question but the conclusion was there before the inquiry began," he said.
"The vision of replacing coal and nuclear with renewable is already underway. It is of course in the interest of the nuclear industry to say it is the only way to replace the fossil fuels."
He pointed to the International Atomic Energy Agency did a study that showed in 1986 nuclear energy reached 18 per cent of global electrical production and stayed there for nearly two decades. However, it started to drop in 2006 and now only reaches 10 per cent.
Both sides of the debate came with facts and numbers supported by different world, governmental, and private organizations. They used them to respond to many of the questions posed by the audience after the film screened.
One question involved the footprint from different energy sources. The pro-nuclear experts came in explaining that energy density for nuclear is high.
"Energy density of uranium is very high. By definition therefore nuclear power plants take less land volume than equivalent wind and solar panels," said Oberth.
Continuing the atmosphere of the night, the anti-nuclear side did not agree.
"It all depends on what we see. The volume question is used constantly it was used in the film," he said. "It's in the ability to contaminate. The water in Fukushima that's now been contaminated is 138 swimming pools...we don't know what the uptake is going to be in the Pacific... the footprint has to be assessed based on the magnitude of what might be considered a low risk incident because if the magnitude of a low-risk incident is so high then you start to look at other ways to provide low-impact energy."
news@panow.com
On Twitter: @princealbertnow
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Film tackles the nuclear debate
by Oscar » Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:33 am
Film tackles the nuclear debate
[ http://www.thestarphoenix.com/business/ ... story.html ]
BY SCOTT LARSON, THE STAR PHOENIX OCTOBER 1, 2013
Pandora' s Promise
Directed by Robert Stone
Where: The Roxy Theatre
When: Tuesday 7 p.m. Trailer: [ http://pandoraspromise.com#trailer ]
Discussion panel to follow
Oscar nominated director Robert Stone's latest documentary is stirring up debate wherever it is shown. Stone's controversial Pandora's Promise tells the personal stories of some environmentalists and energy experts who have gone from being anti-nuclear to strongly in favour of pro-nuclear energy.
Pandora's Promise debuted at the Sundance Film Festival and will be screened tonight at The Roxy Theatre.
A subsequent panel discussion will include Dr. Gordon Edwards of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, retired environmental and justice studies professor Jim Harding and Canadian Nuclear Association's acting president Heather Kleb.
MORE:
[ http://www.thestarphoenix.com/business/ ... story.html ]
[ http://www.thestarphoenix.com/business/ ... story.html ]
BY SCOTT LARSON, THE STAR PHOENIX OCTOBER 1, 2013
Pandora' s Promise
Directed by Robert Stone
Where: The Roxy Theatre
When: Tuesday 7 p.m. Trailer: [ http://pandoraspromise.com#trailer ]
Discussion panel to follow
Oscar nominated director Robert Stone's latest documentary is stirring up debate wherever it is shown. Stone's controversial Pandora's Promise tells the personal stories of some environmentalists and energy experts who have gone from being anti-nuclear to strongly in favour of pro-nuclear energy.
Pandora's Promise debuted at the Sundance Film Festival and will be screened tonight at The Roxy Theatre.
A subsequent panel discussion will include Dr. Gordon Edwards of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, retired environmental and justice studies professor Jim Harding and Canadian Nuclear Association's acting president Heather Kleb.
MORE:
[ http://www.thestarphoenix.com/business/ ... story.html ]
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
HARDING: PANDORA’S PROMISE: MARSHALLING HOPE FOR YET ANOTH
by Oscar » Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:28 am
PANDORA’S PROMISE: MARSHALLING HOPE FOR YET ANOTHER NUCLEAR COMEBACK
BY Jim Harding For Publishing in R-Town News October 11, 2013
The Greek God Zeus sent the first woman, Pandora, to Earth where, compelled by curiosity she let evil escape from the jar gifted to her. But the Patriarchs apparently had a covert plan, for at the bottom of Pandora’s Box was the promise of “hope”. The Breakthrough Institute funders and Robert Stone, director of the new film Pandora’s Promise, want us to place that hope in a new generation of nuclear breeder reactors called the Integral Fast Reactors (IFR), to avert a climate crisis.
The film was shown Oct. 1st to a nearly overflow audience at Saskatoon’s Roxy Theatre. Cameco and Areva pre-bought the majority of tickets. I was asked to sit on a panel along with Clean Green researcher David Geary, the Canadian Nuclear Association’s Heather Kleb and Ron Oberth of the Organization of Candu Industries.
NUCLEAR MAZE
The film shifts fears about nuclear weapons and reactors into fears about climate change. This isn’t done by exploring cost-effective ways to reduce carbon but through denigration, omission and hyper-emotion. The film is like a maze: once you enter all non-nuclear pathways are dismissed to steer you towards the nuclear exit.
Using the “straw man” approach the film paints a picture of anti-nukes as irrational zealots. It features six people who have had a radical conversion to being pro-nuclear. Their language is revealing; one convert, a past activist in Earth First, says he previously believed “nuclear power is evil”, yet his new-found conviction remains similarly moralistic.
The film claims that U.S. light water reactors were chosen by the military and promoted by utility executives who “didn’t anticipate wastes”. Nuclear wastes are sometimes treated as hazards and the IFR technology is then promoted as the solution. However the film has a mixed message when later on a radiation measuring device is held by tanks of cooling spent fuel to imply there isn’t any danger. There is a purpose to such premeditated dissonance; Pandora’s Promise is a shock and awe film, intentionally unsettling us into awe of the IFR.
CONFUSED ABOUT SOLAR
The film uses personal attacks of anti-nuclear “celebrities” along with block-busting visuals and melodramatic music to slam the door on non-nuclear considerations. It is disinformation by omission. One convert implies that it was oil money that funded anti-nuclear demonstrations to oppose a local nuclear plant because, she says, they knew solar couldn’t replace oil as a domestic heat source. But solar thermal can heat domestic space and replace fossil fuels. Buildings can be designed to use passive solar for space heating; I live in one.
The dualistic approach equates anti-nuclear with pro-fossil fuel. One male convert is asked why he didn’t accept that nuclear is carbon-free; he answers he was “too scared”, creating the stereotype of bigoted anti-nukes. When you analyze nuclear, from mining and refining to enriching and reactor construction, it is not carbon-free. As the grade of uranium lowers and the carbon-mining footprint grows, nuclear could even surpass natural gas in carbon. And decommissioning and nuclear waste storage is going to be extremely fossil-fuel intensive long after electricity is shut off.
PLAY ON IGNORANCE
The film closes the door on international treaties. It goes for the jugular, making the energy gap between fossil fuels and renewables seem so huge that it’s impossible to fill without going all-out nuclear. There’s much ado about renewables being intermittent and lots of pictures of motionless wind turbines. The film takes the viewpoint of centralized utilities that plants must operate 24/7 for reliable base-load power. It’s out of sync with new technology; like the internet a renewable grid can be built around distributed resources. There’s no mention of smart grids using an energy mix to shape reliable energy production.
We get confessions, not investigation. One male convert says he “was a sucker” when “he bought the renewable myth”. The film degenerates into more denigration, this time of Amory Lovins, who isn’t given any voice but edited for the predetermined effect. It pitches that electrical growth is fundamental to quality of life, implying the anti-nukes are condemning “one half the world’s population to poverty and sickness”. A similar righteous ploy was used by the Blakeney NDP when it expanded Saskatchewan’s uranium mining in the 1980s. In 1987 the UN’s Bruntland Report called for a revolution in renewables so electricity could get to billions not living on costly industrial grids.
The film goes to great lengths to convince us that “a steady stream of electricity” is necessary to protect our modern life, including our cell phones; no mention that 3 of 4 of the world’s largest economies (Germany, China and Japan) now get more electricity from renewables than nuclear.
NORMALIZING RADIATION
The film uses the dirtiness of coal to make nuclear seem benign, but it doesn’t show any pictures of the huge coal plants used to enrich uranium in the eastern U.S. It claims that nuclear is safer than solar and that not a single death has occurred in the U.S.’s “history of nuclear power”. The newly converted claim one banana has more radiation than drinking the water discharged from a nuclear plant. The converts hold their radiation measuring device up at various nuclear sites to show low (mSv) readings. It all depends where and when you go; a recent leak of radioactive water at Fukushima measured 1,800 mSv, a deadly dose. The nuclear worker limit is 100 mSv over 5 years. There is no mention that ingested radiation can alter DNA.
The film is selective with World Health Organization (WHO) research, noting that the UN body is on the very low side of studies estimating Chernobyl’s cancer rates. It ignores mainstream Russian reports that many of the thousands in clean-up crews (liquidators) are now invalids, aging prematurely and have higher than average rates of cancer and psychiatric disorders. Many thousands have already died. UNSCEAR reports congenital deformations among thousands of children.
The filmmakers don’t explore controversies over radiation epidemiology nor do they mention that the WHO also says radon gas, a byproduct of natural uranium, is the world’s second cause of lung cancer. Also remember that the rates of skin cancer have mushroomed in part because of the thinning of the ozone that protects us from UV radiation.
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2013 has recently indicated that Tepco cannot control radioactive water going into the Pacific near Fukushima, noting that if a LOCA (loss of coolant accident) and fire occurs with the spent fuel at unit 4 they still might have to evacuate 10 million. Though the incidence of catastrophic nuclear accidents may be small relative to reactor years, the magnitude makes the risks unacceptable.
PUNCH LINE
The film claims that those promoting non-nuclear approaches are using the “same tactics” as those “used by climate deniers”, another version of “if you’re not with us you are against us”. Such fundamentalist thinking has no place in evidence-based energy policy.
The film sets everything up for its punch line; the IFR is a God-send and France is the nuclear utopia. It mentions that France has a lower carbon footprint than Germany but not that during recent droughts linked to climate change some reactors had to be shut down due to lack of cooling water. Nothing on what happened at Monju, Japan where after spending $10 billion dollars the breeder reactor only produced one hour’s electricity. Nothing on why the U.S. Congress cancelled funding of the IFR in 1994. New, improved nuclear is presented as magical: it can burn up waste, disarm nuclear weapons and will “withstand any calamity”. In any emergency “no action” will be required. “This is not a dream – this is real”, says the narrator. The film claims to “put nuclear in its proper context”. Actually it destroys context to shut the door on balanced, critical investigation.
At the end when the hard-nosed music softens it says this is the “beginning of something beautiful”. Something beautiful may be happening: two years ago the UNEP reported that “close to 80% of the world’s energy supplies could be met by renewables by mid-century”. In 2013 nuclear is down from its high of 18% to 10% of global electricity, while according to the International Energy Agency (IEA) renewables are set to surpass natural gas (2016) and double nuclear production by 2018, becoming the second major source of global electricity. All this without opening Pandora’s Box!
Go to Beyond Nuclear website for a detailed, referenced critique of this overrated film.
[ http://www.beyondnuclear.org/pandoras-false-promises/ ]
- - - -
Jim Harding PhD
Retired Professor of Environmental and Justice Studies
[ www.crowsnestecology.wordpress.com ]
BY Jim Harding For Publishing in R-Town News October 11, 2013
The Greek God Zeus sent the first woman, Pandora, to Earth where, compelled by curiosity she let evil escape from the jar gifted to her. But the Patriarchs apparently had a covert plan, for at the bottom of Pandora’s Box was the promise of “hope”. The Breakthrough Institute funders and Robert Stone, director of the new film Pandora’s Promise, want us to place that hope in a new generation of nuclear breeder reactors called the Integral Fast Reactors (IFR), to avert a climate crisis.
The film was shown Oct. 1st to a nearly overflow audience at Saskatoon’s Roxy Theatre. Cameco and Areva pre-bought the majority of tickets. I was asked to sit on a panel along with Clean Green researcher David Geary, the Canadian Nuclear Association’s Heather Kleb and Ron Oberth of the Organization of Candu Industries.
NUCLEAR MAZE
The film shifts fears about nuclear weapons and reactors into fears about climate change. This isn’t done by exploring cost-effective ways to reduce carbon but through denigration, omission and hyper-emotion. The film is like a maze: once you enter all non-nuclear pathways are dismissed to steer you towards the nuclear exit.
Using the “straw man” approach the film paints a picture of anti-nukes as irrational zealots. It features six people who have had a radical conversion to being pro-nuclear. Their language is revealing; one convert, a past activist in Earth First, says he previously believed “nuclear power is evil”, yet his new-found conviction remains similarly moralistic.
The film claims that U.S. light water reactors were chosen by the military and promoted by utility executives who “didn’t anticipate wastes”. Nuclear wastes are sometimes treated as hazards and the IFR technology is then promoted as the solution. However the film has a mixed message when later on a radiation measuring device is held by tanks of cooling spent fuel to imply there isn’t any danger. There is a purpose to such premeditated dissonance; Pandora’s Promise is a shock and awe film, intentionally unsettling us into awe of the IFR.
CONFUSED ABOUT SOLAR
The film uses personal attacks of anti-nuclear “celebrities” along with block-busting visuals and melodramatic music to slam the door on non-nuclear considerations. It is disinformation by omission. One convert implies that it was oil money that funded anti-nuclear demonstrations to oppose a local nuclear plant because, she says, they knew solar couldn’t replace oil as a domestic heat source. But solar thermal can heat domestic space and replace fossil fuels. Buildings can be designed to use passive solar for space heating; I live in one.
The dualistic approach equates anti-nuclear with pro-fossil fuel. One male convert is asked why he didn’t accept that nuclear is carbon-free; he answers he was “too scared”, creating the stereotype of bigoted anti-nukes. When you analyze nuclear, from mining and refining to enriching and reactor construction, it is not carbon-free. As the grade of uranium lowers and the carbon-mining footprint grows, nuclear could even surpass natural gas in carbon. And decommissioning and nuclear waste storage is going to be extremely fossil-fuel intensive long after electricity is shut off.
PLAY ON IGNORANCE
The film closes the door on international treaties. It goes for the jugular, making the energy gap between fossil fuels and renewables seem so huge that it’s impossible to fill without going all-out nuclear. There’s much ado about renewables being intermittent and lots of pictures of motionless wind turbines. The film takes the viewpoint of centralized utilities that plants must operate 24/7 for reliable base-load power. It’s out of sync with new technology; like the internet a renewable grid can be built around distributed resources. There’s no mention of smart grids using an energy mix to shape reliable energy production.
We get confessions, not investigation. One male convert says he “was a sucker” when “he bought the renewable myth”. The film degenerates into more denigration, this time of Amory Lovins, who isn’t given any voice but edited for the predetermined effect. It pitches that electrical growth is fundamental to quality of life, implying the anti-nukes are condemning “one half the world’s population to poverty and sickness”. A similar righteous ploy was used by the Blakeney NDP when it expanded Saskatchewan’s uranium mining in the 1980s. In 1987 the UN’s Bruntland Report called for a revolution in renewables so electricity could get to billions not living on costly industrial grids.
The film goes to great lengths to convince us that “a steady stream of electricity” is necessary to protect our modern life, including our cell phones; no mention that 3 of 4 of the world’s largest economies (Germany, China and Japan) now get more electricity from renewables than nuclear.
NORMALIZING RADIATION
The film uses the dirtiness of coal to make nuclear seem benign, but it doesn’t show any pictures of the huge coal plants used to enrich uranium in the eastern U.S. It claims that nuclear is safer than solar and that not a single death has occurred in the U.S.’s “history of nuclear power”. The newly converted claim one banana has more radiation than drinking the water discharged from a nuclear plant. The converts hold their radiation measuring device up at various nuclear sites to show low (mSv) readings. It all depends where and when you go; a recent leak of radioactive water at Fukushima measured 1,800 mSv, a deadly dose. The nuclear worker limit is 100 mSv over 5 years. There is no mention that ingested radiation can alter DNA.
The film is selective with World Health Organization (WHO) research, noting that the UN body is on the very low side of studies estimating Chernobyl’s cancer rates. It ignores mainstream Russian reports that many of the thousands in clean-up crews (liquidators) are now invalids, aging prematurely and have higher than average rates of cancer and psychiatric disorders. Many thousands have already died. UNSCEAR reports congenital deformations among thousands of children.
The filmmakers don’t explore controversies over radiation epidemiology nor do they mention that the WHO also says radon gas, a byproduct of natural uranium, is the world’s second cause of lung cancer. Also remember that the rates of skin cancer have mushroomed in part because of the thinning of the ozone that protects us from UV radiation.
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2013 has recently indicated that Tepco cannot control radioactive water going into the Pacific near Fukushima, noting that if a LOCA (loss of coolant accident) and fire occurs with the spent fuel at unit 4 they still might have to evacuate 10 million. Though the incidence of catastrophic nuclear accidents may be small relative to reactor years, the magnitude makes the risks unacceptable.
PUNCH LINE
The film claims that those promoting non-nuclear approaches are using the “same tactics” as those “used by climate deniers”, another version of “if you’re not with us you are against us”. Such fundamentalist thinking has no place in evidence-based energy policy.
The film sets everything up for its punch line; the IFR is a God-send and France is the nuclear utopia. It mentions that France has a lower carbon footprint than Germany but not that during recent droughts linked to climate change some reactors had to be shut down due to lack of cooling water. Nothing on what happened at Monju, Japan where after spending $10 billion dollars the breeder reactor only produced one hour’s electricity. Nothing on why the U.S. Congress cancelled funding of the IFR in 1994. New, improved nuclear is presented as magical: it can burn up waste, disarm nuclear weapons and will “withstand any calamity”. In any emergency “no action” will be required. “This is not a dream – this is real”, says the narrator. The film claims to “put nuclear in its proper context”. Actually it destroys context to shut the door on balanced, critical investigation.
At the end when the hard-nosed music softens it says this is the “beginning of something beautiful”. Something beautiful may be happening: two years ago the UNEP reported that “close to 80% of the world’s energy supplies could be met by renewables by mid-century”. In 2013 nuclear is down from its high of 18% to 10% of global electricity, while according to the International Energy Agency (IEA) renewables are set to surpass natural gas (2016) and double nuclear production by 2018, becoming the second major source of global electricity. All this without opening Pandora’s Box!
Go to Beyond Nuclear website for a detailed, referenced critique of this overrated film.
[ http://www.beyondnuclear.org/pandoras-false-promises/ ]
- - - -
Jim Harding PhD
Retired Professor of Environmental and Justice Studies
[ www.crowsnestecology.wordpress.com ]
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Pandora's Promise on CNN - cnn.com 9 PM ET Nov.07.13
by Oscar » Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:07 am
Pandora's Promise on CNN - cnn.com 9 PM ET Nov.07.13
Beyond Nuclear's Kevin Kamps (and native of Michigan) will debate Michael Shellenberger (re: Pandora's Promise) on CNN Headline News, Thursday, November 7th at 7:45pm! Everyone tune in!
Pandora's Promise on CNN - cnn.com 9 PM ET Thursday
www.cnn.com/ PandorasPromise
What Price Would you Pay to Power the Future?
Watch Thursday 9p ET.
- - - -
Help Counter Pandora’s Promise on CNN - Atomic States of America will air free online Nov. 6 - 8, 2013.
CNN will nationally broadcast the much criticized, pro-nuclear power film Pandora’s Promise on Thursday, November 7. CNN is airing the film without offering any opposing viewpoints despite requests and petitions from Beyond Nuclear and others.
To help provide balance and a critical perspective on nuclear power, The Atomic States of America film will be available to view free online from November 6 – 8. Atomic States provides a comprehensive exploration of the history and impact of nuclear power to date, and investigates the truths and myths about nuclear energy.
Please help promote the film’s availability to your networks and friends.
More
[ http://specialtystudios.semkhor.com/pag ... t_id=33505 ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - --
Beyond Nuclear's Kevin Kamps (and native of Michigan) will debate Michael Shellenberger (re: Pandora's Promise) on CNN Headline News, Thursday, November 7th at 7:45pm! Everyone tune in!
Pandora's Promise on CNN - cnn.com 9 PM ET Thursday
www.cnn.com/ PandorasPromise
What Price Would you Pay to Power the Future? Watch Thursday 9p ET.
Pandora’s False Promises [ From Beyond Nuclear]
Pandora’s Promise, is a new pro-nuclear propaganda documentary released theatrically in the US in July 2013. It is funded in part by individuals with a vested interest in seeing the development of new reactors and is seemingly a vehicle by which to raise the profile of the anti-environmental Oakland think tank, The Breakthrough Institute, whose personnel feature prominently in the film. Despite the film’s premise and early claim that it features “a growing number of leading former anti-nuclear activists” who now support nuclear energy, no one in the film ever led the anti-nuclear movement. Nor was any credible, independent scientific or medical professional with expertise in the areas covered in the film consulted or featured. Beyond Nuclear has bird-dogged the film from the beginning, and has produced numerous critiques. We have also published a definitive report – Pandora’s False Promises: Busting the pro-nuclear propaganda – and a two-page synopsis. These documents address virtually all of the myths, lies and omissions typically found in pro-nuclear rhetoric and are intended to address these long after Pandora’s Promise fades into deserved oblivion.
Beyond Nuclear's Kevin Kamps (and native of Michigan) will debate Michael Shellenberger (re: Pandora's Promise) on CNN Headline News, Thursday, November 7th at 7:45pm! Everyone tune in!
Pandora's Promise on CNN - cnn.com 9 PM ET Thursday
www.cnn.com/ PandorasPromise
What Price Would you Pay to Power the Future?
Watch Thursday 9p ET.
- - - -
Help Counter Pandora’s Promise on CNN - Atomic States of America will air free online Nov. 6 - 8, 2013.
CNN will nationally broadcast the much criticized, pro-nuclear power film Pandora’s Promise on Thursday, November 7. CNN is airing the film without offering any opposing viewpoints despite requests and petitions from Beyond Nuclear and others.
To help provide balance and a critical perspective on nuclear power, The Atomic States of America film will be available to view free online from November 6 – 8. Atomic States provides a comprehensive exploration of the history and impact of nuclear power to date, and investigates the truths and myths about nuclear energy.
Please help promote the film’s availability to your networks and friends.
More
[ http://specialtystudios.semkhor.com/pag ... t_id=33505 ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - --
Beyond Nuclear's Kevin Kamps (and native of Michigan) will debate Michael Shellenberger (re: Pandora's Promise) on CNN Headline News, Thursday, November 7th at 7:45pm! Everyone tune in!
Pandora's Promise on CNN - cnn.com 9 PM ET Thursday
www.cnn.com/ PandorasPromise
What Price Would you Pay to Power the Future? Watch Thursday 9p ET.
Pandora’s False Promises [ From Beyond Nuclear]
Pandora’s Promise, is a new pro-nuclear propaganda documentary released theatrically in the US in July 2013. It is funded in part by individuals with a vested interest in seeing the development of new reactors and is seemingly a vehicle by which to raise the profile of the anti-environmental Oakland think tank, The Breakthrough Institute, whose personnel feature prominently in the film. Despite the film’s premise and early claim that it features “a growing number of leading former anti-nuclear activists” who now support nuclear energy, no one in the film ever led the anti-nuclear movement. Nor was any credible, independent scientific or medical professional with expertise in the areas covered in the film consulted or featured. Beyond Nuclear has bird-dogged the film from the beginning, and has produced numerous critiques. We have also published a definitive report – Pandora’s False Promises: Busting the pro-nuclear propaganda – and a two-page synopsis. These documents address virtually all of the myths, lies and omissions typically found in pro-nuclear rhetoric and are intended to address these long after Pandora’s Promise fades into deserved oblivion.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
6 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Return to Uranium/Nuclear/Waste
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests