Film Commentary: Pandora’s Promise
"The nuclear industry is a death industry, it’s a cancer industry, it’s a bomb
industry. It's killing people and will for the rest of time. It’s wicked".
This is how the controversial documentary film, “Pandora's Promise” by Robert
Stone, begins.
The documentary that was first shown in 2013 and is approximately 83 minutes
long, does an excellent job of creating a debate about the perception of nuclear
energy in challenging global climate change during the 21st century.
This documentary film's main argument is that nuclear power, yet contradicted
by many environmentalists, is a relatively safe and harmless source of energy if
compared to other energy sources and can counteract …show more content…
The radiation from nuclear power stations
that many are afraid of, we are actually exposed to daily.
An example is the city Pripyat, next to Chernobyl where radiation is much
higher than in Chernobyl and thus more contaminated even though many thinks
it is the opposite.
In the end of the documentary, Lynas explains that he is optimistic of the future
of nuclear power and thinks it is exciting to see how the new generation will
deal with it. He believes that the opinions of the old generation from the 60s will
not change but feels very confident that the next generation will.
“The next generation will be able to understand the challenges the environment
will face in an energy hungry world and put nuclear in its proper context”, he
says. He believes that we can have a world of 10 billion people living high
energy, modern lives without killing the climate.
Lana Asinger
The film has strong opinions and believes strongly in a future of nuclear power
in order to counter the climate changes, which many fear today. Are nuclear
power stations really an important tool in the fight against climate change or
merely a harmful distraction? What will the costs be? What modern
"The nuclear industry is a death industry, it’s a cancer industry, it’s a bomb
industry. It's killing people and will for the rest of time. It’s wicked".
This is how the controversial documentary film, “Pandora's Promise” by Robert
Stone, begins.
The documentary that was first shown in 2013 and is approximately 83 minutes
long, does an excellent job of creating a debate about the perception of nuclear
energy in challenging global climate change during the 21st century.
This documentary film's main argument is that nuclear power, yet contradicted
by many environmentalists, is a relatively safe and harmless source of energy if
compared to other energy sources and can counteract …show more content…
The radiation from nuclear power stations
that many are afraid of, we are actually exposed to daily.
An example is the city Pripyat, next to Chernobyl where radiation is much
higher than in Chernobyl and thus more contaminated even though many thinks
it is the opposite.
In the end of the documentary, Lynas explains that he is optimistic of the future
of nuclear power and thinks it is exciting to see how the new generation will
deal with it. He believes that the opinions of the old generation from the 60s will
not change but feels very confident that the next generation will.
“The next generation will be able to understand the challenges the environment
will face in an energy hungry world and put nuclear in its proper context”, he
says. He believes that we can have a world of 10 billion people living high
energy, modern lives without killing the climate.
Lana Asinger
The film has strong opinions and believes strongly in a future of nuclear power
in order to counter the climate changes, which many fear today. Are nuclear
power stations really an important tool in the fight against climate change or
merely a harmful distraction? What will the costs be? What modern