BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

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.

David This film interviews several environmentalists and peace campaigners who have changed their mind on nuclear, and explores the reasons why they have changed their mind from "anti" to "pro". The film doesn't gloss over the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima; some of the speakers visit these locations in person and acknowledge their unease in a thoughtful way, but they also press on and discuss quantitatively whether people have been poorly informed about the actual dangers. The film is a myth-buster, which gives the open-minded viewer the chance to compare polemics with facts that the viewer can verify. The film makers take a radiation dose meter around the world, showing on screen the readings in capital cities, inside a nuclear power station, in aeroplanes, on a beach in Brazil (to which people flock for its natural radiation), near Fukushima, and near Chernobyl. Viewers who like me love numbers are advised to take a sheet of paper and pen to note down the readings at the beach, near Fukushima, and near Chernobyl. No doubt the main response to this film will be a brawl between "pro" and "anti" people, most of whom have not seen the film. They all need to calm down and watch this film. Some people compare this film with An Inconvenient Truth. I think Pandora's Promise is a better documentary. Contrary to what other reviewers say, it is not "propaganda by the nuclear industry" - only a couple of the people involved in the film were ever employed by the nuclear industry; most of the people interviewed are genuinely independent thinkers, mainly environmentalists, with no hidden agenda, who have taken the trouble to look at facts and data, and who have been willing to imagine that their opinions might be wrong. This is a trait to be admired. See the film, study the facts, then decide. (And, incidentally, I should say the film's photography is great!)

Alex Cannara 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.

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.