CNN keeps things "dishonest" by purchasing propaganda film

"Keeping them honest" is apparently not a mantra adopted by CNN Films, which has acquired the domestic television rights for Pandora's Promise. The department declares in its press release announcing the purchase, that, "The atomic bomb and accidents at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima bring to mind apocalyptic disasters, but the science and experience since suggest that long-held fears about nuclear power may be wrong." We are not sure what "science" or "experience" they are looking at, but evidently tens to hundreds of thousands of avoidable cancer deaths and countless more illnesses, birth defects and survivable but serious sicknesses as a result of Chernobyl do not constitute "disaster" at CNN. As for Fukushima, if there was serious attention paid to credible science by the film's protagonists, they could not possibly pronounce on the consequences of that disaster since the cancers it will trigger among exposed populations will take decades to manifest. The press have lapped up the CNN press release, repeating the rather dubious contention that the film's protagonists "have put their careers in jeopardy to tout the societal benefits of nuclear energy." That certainly should be the outcome. Perhaps we can all make it so!

More back-pedaling as Stone tones down the rhetoric in newly-released trailer

After pulling its earlier inflammatory trailer (the first of the "vanishing Pandoras") - that included Michael Shellenberger suggesting those who believed the high predictions of Chernobyl-caused fatalities had fallen prey to a vast "conspiracy" and claims by Mark Lynas that Chernobyl had harmed almost no one; there were no increased cancer indences among liquidators and so on; and that deliberately attempted to ridicule anti-nuclear activists; director Robert Stone has released a new, toned-down trailer. This one endeavors to make Pandora's Promise sound less like the propaganda piece it is and more "balanced" and rational. It remains to be seen whether the aforementioned Chernobyl health references by Shellenberger and Lynas - whose content has been totally discredited even by those who still espouse more conservative Chernobyl cancer predictions - remain in the film, which may have been re-cut since its Sundance debut. The new trailer appears on the website of Rolling Stone magazine with an accompanying blurb that fails to challenge the film's thesis. However, we have responded in the comments section below the Rolling Stone promo - which craftily includes links to pages which document to reckless continued use of the Fukushima-style reactors in the US; and the litany of near-misses at US reactors.

Update on April 30, 2013 by admin

In the film blurb on the Rolling Stone website, Brand asks" Can you be an environmentalist and be pro-nuclear?" We responded in the comments section:

Well obviously the answer to Stewart Brand's first question is "no" unless he is completely re-defining the term "environmentalist" which in fact this film endeavors to do. Nuclear power is an extractive industry: that during the uranium mining, which is necessary to provide its fuel, radioactively contaminates soil, water and air; depletes precious water resources; sickens those who mine the uranium; and leaves behind thousands of tons of deadly waste tailings; that routinely releases cancer-causing radioactivity during operation of electricity-generating reactors and in even larger quantities during reprocessing; is a carbon-intensive industry at certain phases of its fuel chain; creates deadly waste that is radioactive for tens and even hundreds of thousands of years with no "disposal" solution; destroys ecosystems, and wildlife, including endangered species during daily reactor operation; and, if it goes wrong, can kill and harm countless numbers of people across generations and render areas uninhabitable for the indefinite future. By what definition is someone like Brand (or Shellenberger, or Lynas) who supports nuclear power an "environmentalist?" This film is a propaganda vehicle for The Breakthrough Institute and, if it was honest in its publicity, would state that it features "former environmentalists who now support nuclear power." For more, see the "Pandora's False Promises" page on the Beyond Nuclear website.http://www.beyondnuclear.org/p...

And another Pandora perdita...

The description of Pandora's Promise is no longer located at Robert Stone Productions. Following the original link one is re-directed to the new version of the Pandora's Promise  website where the wording has now been modified (it does not open with Safari). However, we have captured the original, erroneous claim that the film features "leading former anti-nuclear activists," which can now be found here.

More deletions from the official Pandora's Promise website

The original "director's note" by Robert Stone on his Pandora's Promise website has been removed. It used to be here. This follows an intriguing trend - see posts below - of what we term the "vanishing Pandoras." Could it be that Stone was taking some heat for his so-called "Ahah moment" which was completely inaccurate? We captured the article as a PDF so you can still read the original, here.

Another case of a vanishing Pandora

Why do Pandora plugs keep vanishing? The latest was a blatant puff piece guest blog on Scientific American's website by nuclear power booster David Ropeik. Ropeik is of course another of The Breakthrough Institute's cronies (which he fessed up to on the Blog) - although his Breakthrough page seems also to have disappeared! But he still has a URL on the Insitute's site: http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/site/author-tag/David-Ropeik. The Breakthrough Institute is promoting the film and its personnel feature heavily in it.

Ropeik's piece was so full of holes, suppression of facts and fallacies that just maybe SA had the good sense to pull it. After all, should a fellow of the Breakthrough Institute be reviewing a film featuring its president, Michael Shellenberger, and which is a vehicle for the Institute's agenda?

Up for a day there was just time for Beyond Nuclear to post an initial rebuttal before the article disappeared. Titled, Will "Pandora's Promise" Start A New Environmental Movement FOR Nuclear Power? it was found at this URL. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/04/09/will-pandoras-promise-start-a-new-environmental-movement-for-nuclear-power/