Laughable lies from film “Pandora’s Promise”

Academy Award for presenting: FALSEHOOD AND FABRICATION http://www.rense.com/general96/outrag.html
CNN Airs Outrageous Lies About Nuclear Energy Pandora’s Propaganda By Dick Allgire Honolulu 11-8-13
I happened to catch the CNN special program “Pandora’s Promise” last night. CNN has reached a new zenith of falsehood and fabrication……. Interesting title, alluding to Pandora’s Box, the artifact of Greek mythology that when opened released all the evil that spread throughout the world. We may have indeed opened Pandora’s Box with the full China Syndrome meltdown of three reactors and the upcoming ignition of the thousands of tons of highly radioactive spent fuel rods at Fukushima. But this is not a problem, according to the producers of “Pandora’s Promise.”

The show was produced by the nuclear industry, and dutifully broadcast by CNN without any attempt at balance, fairness or accuracy…… Now, with deadly radiation pouring constantly and continuously out of Fukushima, and no conceivable way to stop it, with the Pacific Ocean being destroyed, CNN gives us these absurd declarations:

“No birth defects resulted from the Chernobyl disaster.”

“No American has ever been killed as a result of nuclear energy.”

“Solar power is many time more dangerous than nuclear power.”

“No one living in the exclusion zone near Chernobyl has ever died of cancer or any other diseases because of the radiation.”

“Nuclear energy is the safe solution to global warming.”

Really, it was better than Baghdad Bob, delivered with great videography, beautiful graphics. The outrageous lies in Pandora’s Promise were so absurd as to be humorous. But this is no laughing matter. Fukushima is the worst catastrophe in human history.

Millions of years from now, when the earth’s crust reforms and obliterates the scars and ditritus of our failed time on the planet, a new civilization may detect a layer of abnormally high radioactivity and wonder how the entire planet was so contaminated all at once. Pandora’s Promise.

November 11, 2013 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, media

7 Comments »

“Fukushima is the worst catastrophe in human history.”

LOL! What an ignorant statement.

Comment by MOBrien | November 11, 2013 | Reply
Could you maybe focus on the essential message of the movie: that many of the old and clearly literate acolytes of the anti nuclear front are capitulating and embracing nuclear? Could it be that you are the one so wedded to the anti nuclear rhetoric that you are unable to realise the greater danger in global warming?

Comment by Chris Cavanagh | December 30, 2013 | Reply
- Glad you talk about global warming as “the greater danger” – this implies that you do recognise nuclear power as a danger. Advocating nuclear power to fix global warming is indeed like advocating smoking to fix obesity- one toxic industry doesn’t solve the problems of another toxic situation. Indeed, it takes attention away from real solutions – energy efficiency and renewable energy.
  The essential message of that film? – it’s a glossy expensive sales pitch for the nuclear industry. As for “many” environmentalists “embracing” nuclear. They managed to drag up 3 or 4, probably paid them well. And their qualifiactiosn as formerly anti nuclear are a bit suspect, too.
  
  Comment by Christina MacPherson | December 30, 2013 | Reply
Christina: Thank you for your response.

I do recognise Nuclear Energy as a danger only in so far as motor vehicles, smoking and drinking are far greater dangers. Your analogy is so far off the mark: nuclear energy can and will be the safest form of energy generation into the foreseeable future if we take an aggressive development program to make it smaller, more controllable, safer and more widely distributed so that we don’t waste massive amounts of energy in transmission.

I fully support the view that global warming is the preeminent danger for all species on this planet, followed by human overpopulation. And yes, I fully support alternative energy development and hope that it will take over from all forms carbon based power but the numbers, i.e. the amount of energy that we can generate with current clean, renewable energy is minuscule compared to the presently required and rapidly increasing demand.

Are you suggesting that all those poor folk who presently have little or no access to power should forego it? Would you lower your present standards and forego your computer etc?

I prefer the known, local, quantifiable and controllable risks of nuclear energy to the serious, worldwide and certain risks of carbon based power. On clean energy and global warming we are on the same side. Only I see nuclear as a solution, not part of the problem. And, more seriously, your stance would have us take of the table the most serious contender for an interim solution until alternate energy can be made mainstream. Please view or review Pandora’s Promise and consider the graphic which shows the relative size of the energy generation, from carbon based and alternative sources, at present, Perhaps then you will understand the gulf between our dream of alternative energies and the reality we face right now. Then perhaps you will understand that, while you and I agree on the long term solution, our civilisation and planet may not make it to that halcyon solution if we don’t embrace nuclear in the short term.

Comment by Chris Cavanagh | February 5, 2014 | Reply
- hi chris , some interesting points there..
  
  but how are we going to deal with the technology end of it when the big energy corporations and their friends, are blocking innovations like the Aluminium fuel cell? The big corporations and their government lackies blocked this technology.. The resistance was global.. only big energy projects and batteries that re charge from those networks..
  
  Added to that the redundant services like canals that could be used to shift much cargo running on horses.. we need to innovate not make limited choices, things are serious and old technology that works to cut emmissions should be a priority not untested designs that require bilions in research, years in time to find out if that will work..
  
  If we used more people to create things instead of machines providing all our needs we would have an educated skilled population that have a good quality of life.. What seems to stop that? shareholder profits and military strategy..
  
  I realise you were directing your comment to christina but i couldnt help making a quick comment
  peace
  
  Comment by arclight2011part2 | February 6, 2014 | Reply
Who is the “nuclear industry”, specifically, that funded this film? I’m having trouble finding that info.

Comment by Jeremy | October 23, 2014 | Reply
- The Breakthrough Institute – USA’s nuclear and fossil fuel front group
  
  Comment by Christina MacPherson | October 24, 2014 | Reply