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."

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.

Should awaken folks like my fellow Sierra Club members, NRDC & Greenpeace contributers, etc. to the folly of their organizations' uninformed, anti-nuclear stances.The myths around radiation from nuclear plants are exposed clearly, as is the extreme variation in normal (background) radiation around the world, up in the air, etc. The director is innovative in how these facts are exposed to the viewer.The movie also does an excellent job of deflating myths and downright lies about Chernobyl's effects, and the exploitation of that event by irresponsible people like Helen Caldicott who choose to spread fear and sell books rather than discuss the facts. The movie shows Ukrainians who never left their homes & church in the exclusion zone. To complement this, www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Z5__IkaCs -- Chernobyl's radioactive wolves is an excellent documentary.

This movie is a wake up about nuclear energy. It explains common misconceptions about nuclear energy. The speakers are all convincing and at least one of them goes through his transition (like the others interviewed he was once anti-nuclear and becomes pro nuclear) during the Fukushima crisis. All those interviewed care very much about what has been happening to the environment and the effect it will have on our future if steady and growing amounts of CO2 and other pollutants and green house gases continue. Since nuclear plants emit no CO2 they can replace coal very effectively. Robert Stone is a respected documentary maker and his successful Radio Bikini was an Oscar nominee in 1988. I think the most effective moments in the film are when the dosimeter is used to measure radiation. The areas that trigger radiation are not anywhere near a plant. There is natural radiation where we don't expect to detect it that measures very close to that of Chernobyl and Fukushima. Not only did the subjects interviewed have a change of heart but so did the director. These environmentalists are pro nuclear because they recognize that renewable energy is just too sparse and difficult to ramp up because of the low density of the power sources.