GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Rijndri Load of rubbish!!

ChicDragon It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Michael Smith This documentary makes some strong arguments in favor of nuclear power; however, it also fails in its arguments by utilizing some of the same arguments against other power sources that it complains are used against nuclear power. For instance, it argues that many arguments against nuclear power are based on dated information and that many of the problems people worry about aren't actually significant worries anymore. However, at the same time, it complains about problems with solar panels that were actually solved before the documentary was made. As a result, the entire documentary becomes overly cheerful about nuclear and dismissive about other options for generating power. With such a clear, strong bias, the value of the rest of the documentary is severely degraded. The quality of the film otherwise is very good - just too flawed for a strong recommendation.

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.

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.

Rick Maltese 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.