Talk:Pandora's Promise

Film Credits

As per concerns by User:Ddd1600, here's info from the credits:

Written and Directed by Robert Stone

Produced by
Robert Stone
Jim Swartz
Susan Swartz

Executive Producers
Dan Cogan
Paul Allen
Jody Allen
Sir Richard Branson
Aimee & Frank Batten
Eric Dobkin

Executive Producers
Lynn, Gavin & Diana Dougan
Steve Kirsch
Ross Koningstein
Ray Rothrock

Co-Executive Producer
Peter Wagner

Made with the Generous Support of
IMPACT PARTNERS
and its following members:
Diana Barrett for the Fledgling Fund
Steve Cohen
Peggy and Yogan Dalal
Ian Darling
Patricia Lambrecht
Dan Lynch
Gib and Susan Myers
Joan Platt
Beth Sackler & Jeff Cohen

Foundation Support
Lotus Foundation
Steven and Michele Kirsch Fund
Small World Institute Fund
Alex C. Walker Foundation
Peter Norvig Foundation
Alfred J. Guiffrida and Pamela J. Joyner Fund
Ross Koningstein and Patrisia Spezzaferro Fund
The Franklin & Catherine Johnson Foundation
Schwab Charitable Fund

Senior Science Advisor   Burton Richter

Associate Producers      Alison Guss
                         Holly Tarson
                         Noah Golden

Additional Photography   Tom Hurwitz

Production Assistants    Rebekah Aronson
                         Rupert Earl
                         Gordon Eckler
                         Tom Ralphs Laman
                         Rylan Morris
                         Caleb Stone
                         Luc Stone
                         Jurgen Straub

[...]

FOR IMPACT PARTNERS
Founder                   Geralyn White Dreyfous
Director of Operations    Amy Augustino
Assistant to Dan Cougan   Kelsey Koenig

FOR VULCAN PRODUCTIONS
Supervising Producer         Bonnie Benjamin-Phariss
Senior Producers             Susan M. Coliton
                             Hillary Sparrow
Production Coordinator       Miriam Larkin
Measurement and Evaluation   William Vesneski
Legal Counsel                Davina Inslee
Business Affairs             BJ Miller
Evaluation                   Mission Measurement

[...]

EXTRA SPECIAL THANKS FOR THEIR GENEROUS SUPPORT
Rachel Pritzker and Roland Pritzker

[...]

-- Limulus (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

References

This is the discussion from my talk page moved here for all to see and discuss.

Hey, just wanted to leave a (friendly and hopefully informative!) note regarding your edit where you removed two YouTube links from a reference (!) with the comment "No youtube on Wikipedia". FYI, that's not a Wikipedia policy; in fact YT (and remember, we're only talking about links, not embedded video or such) can be used (see WP:YOUTUBE) with the usual caveats (e.g. avoid copyright violations). Neither of those links were WP:COPYVIO, so unless you are online and inclined to self-revert your edit soon I will be restoring them as I want to work on that ref a bit more. -- Limulus (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Upon review of the policy you are correct but they should remain out of the article anyway. The Youtube links you are including show Caldicott at a rally. A reference for this line in the article would mention her appearance in the movie which the one right after her name does do. The article is not about Caldicott at the rally so including them here would be off topic. If you want to add them at her page I would have no objection to that.--Daffydavid (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The opening of the movie (have you seen it?) incorporates (basically the same) video of Caldicott from that specific rally, not i.e. clips from random speeches she gave, which is why I think they are perfectly on-topic for the article on the movie. But while the movie is not freely viewable online without copyvio, the YT vids are. Further, the YT vids are longer, so more fully in context. Curiously, I don't see any good reason that either of those two should be used in her page, since (other than being in the movie) they aren't particularly notable or different from what she's said elsewhere at other times. -- Limulus (talk) 07:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen the movie. Without specific mention of the movie in the Youtube video it amounts to WP:OR. Further, while you advocate for their inclusion based on the fact that they are "longer, so more fully in context", the point being referenced is that she was questioned and appeared in the movie, not that she appeared at the rally. --Daffydavid (talk) 07:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

This is not original research at all! What are you claiming is "facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist"? The two YT clips are footage from the same event at the same time as was used in the film; this demonstrates WP:VERIFICATION.-- Limulus (talk) 09:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I see now that you've made a second edit, removing more of the ref with the comment "remove ref that has nothing to do with the movie, off topic ref about Wasserman appearing at a rally". As you (apparently should) know, the movie incorporates footage of Wasserman from the same event and it's used right at the beginning of the film, right after the Caldicott clip! It is not off-topic at all. -- Limulus (talk) 09:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I see you have gone ahead and restored the material to the page without waiting for my reply. This is a violation of WP:BRD for the first removal. You are interpreting the Wikipedia policies to fit your argument and ignoring the parts that disagree with your interpretation. Let's begin, - I pointed out that your references are verifying something the sentence does not say " the point being referenced is that she was questioned and appeared in the movie, not that she appeared at the rally". This is still the case. So a big fail for WP:VERIFICATION. You deflected my claim that "the Youtube video amounts to WP:OR" by quoting - What are you claiming is "facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist"? I never quoted that part to you. From WP:OR - Sources must support the material clearly and directly. If you would have read further in the policy WP:VERIFICATION you would have seen Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it, which is why your asking "(have you seen it?)" and the comment "As you (apparently should) know" is completely irrelevant (seeWP:VNT"verifiability, not truth"). Does the Youtube video(s) verify that Caldicott appeared in the movie? Does the ref for Wasserman verify he was in the movie? The answer to both is a resounding NO. For these reasons I will remove the references again. I want to be clear here, the references do not belong in the article as they have failed WP:VERIFICATION. You will note that the reference I did leave in does verify the fact that Caldicott appears in the movie. --Daffydavid (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You are (again) wrong about Wikipedia policy- the "bold" edits were your two; I considered them "not an improvement" and explained why, asking if you would self-rv to avoid appearing hostile by simply reverting; you admitted that you were wrong but then claimed new reasons why you were right. I rejected them and THEN went ahead with a rv AND tried to 'refine' it to make it more acceptable. YOU are the one who then went ahead to rv again BEFORE further discussing. If you will note, the BRD page says you should have "[left] the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made". I still reject your arguments BTW. Also, having those links in doesn't hurt anyone (e.g. copyvio), so I will now rv pending input from other editors; please don't edit war. -- Limulus (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually if you were being honest you would see that you have restored an edit that should have been left as is as per Wp:brd but I'm not going to play the who's right or wrong game and yes I admit I restored 2 edits but only because it was easier than separating the edits as subsequent edits caused a conflict. But you have again avoided the point I was making and that is you have added original research. All the links are above so I am not going to link them again. I am at a loss to understand how you think " reject(ing) my arguments" is an acceptable response. So to clarify in case I have been unclear. How does the reference verify the sentence? Does the reference verify that either appear in the movie? Does the reference verify your changed sentence? Your change to the sentence does also fail verification and I cannot find any Wikipedia policy that says "having those links doesn't hurt anyone". Please explain specifically how the reference satisfies the verification requirement. Finally the one link I will provide wp:kettle, it would be a good idea to read that one. Please answer the questions. Thanks --Daffydavid (talk) 06:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to give you points Limulus for tenacity and creativity but I still object to the reference masquerading as a footnote. The "footnote" does not satisfy the verification requirement unlike the contents of the first ref in the sentence. In the WaPO reference it states very clearly "Physician and anti-nuclear activist Helen Caldicott also appears in the film, calling the nuclear industry a “death industry” and..." , very clearly verifying the statement that "Anti-nuclear advocate Helen Caldicott is questioned and appears." That is about all we can verify from the ref. Yes, I'm advocating to change the sentence to this. After this your "footnote" is a blatant example of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The footnote in no way verifies that Caldicott or Wasserman appears in the film. In order to add your Youtube videos(and the Westchester Guardian ref) we need a WP:RS that states "The video used in Pandora's Promise is video of Caldicott and Wasserman at the Indian Point anti-nuclear rally." Do you have such a source?--Daffydavid (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Added as ref: Stone confirming on twitter that's him filming for PP in the p1JvJWGlOGk YT video. -- Limulus (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Kennette Benedict from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

It's too bad Kennete Benedict and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists are sooooo ill-informed about nuclear power.

They have their nickers in a twist about safety and weapons proliferation, two scary but nonexistent bugaboos, about which one would expect scientists, especially those who put themselves forward as Atomic Scientists ought to know better.

According to the very large database of accidents related to production of electricity at the Paul Scherrer Institut in Basel, Switzerland, nuclear power in OECD countries has not caused even one fatality, and that includes Fukushima.

According to the report that UNSCEAR presented to the UN General Assembly in 2011, the Chernobyl fire caused 46 deaths: 28 plant workers who died from acute radiation syndrome (among 134 who were exposed to sufficient radiation levels to become ill), two who were killed during the fire by causes not related to radiation, one who died from coronary thrombosis, and fifteen excess cases of fatal thyroid cancer during the decade from 1996 to 2006 compared to averages in earlier decades, out of 6000 cases reported between 1986 and 2006. They remarked that there is no evidence of ongoing increased risk of cancer or any other disease related to radiation in Europe. They also conclude that radiation doses to the general public in the three most affected countries (Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia) were relatively low and most residents ``need not live in fear of serious health consequences." In the most affected areas, the average additional dose over the period 1986-2005 is approximately 9 millisieverts (mSv), which is less than one computed tomography (CT) scan.

According to the 2013 UNSCEAR Fukushima report, nobody was killed, injured, or made ill, except two plant workers who got first-degree burns on their feet when contaminated water overflowed into their boots. It notes that ``Japanese people receive an effective dose of radiation from normally occurring sources of, on average, about 2.1 mSv annually and a total of about 170 mSv over their lifetimes.... No radiation-related deaths or acute diseases have been observed among the workers or general public exposed to radiation from the accident.... For adults in Fukushima Prefecture, the Committee estimates [the increase in] average lifetime effective dose to be of the order of 10 mSv or less... discernable increase in cancer incidence in this population that could be attributed to radiation exposure from the accident is not expected."

For comparison, the dose from one abdominal and pelvic CT scan with and without contrast would be about 30 mSv, about three times the expected additional lifetime exposure to residents of Fukushima Prefecture. This increases lifetime cancer risk from 1 in 5 to 1.005 in 5.

Weapons proliferation has always been their favorite stinking red herring.

Used fuel from any municipal reactor does contain plutonium, but it has never been successfully used to make an explosion, let alone a deployed weapon, because it doesn't work. To make a bomb, the plutonium must be both chemically and isotopically pure, consisting of at least 93% pure plutonium-239. To produce Pu-239 in a reactor without making too much of other isotopes, it is necessary to control the neutron temperature much more precisely than is feasible in a municipal reactor, and to irradiate the fuel for a very short time -- weeks instead of years. Even a rudimentary inspections regime would notice this. Separating Pu-239 from the other isotopes present in used power station fuel is enormously more expensive than separating U-235 from native uranium.

Even if "weapons-usable" material from nuclear power stations existed, the premise is still a red herring, because every advanced industrial nation either already has nuclear weapons, or the means to make them far more effectively than by fiddling with used power-station fuel. There is no evidence whatsoever that building or not building, or operating or not operating, nuclear power stations in advanced industrial economies, has any effect whatsoever on weapons proliferation. Jimmy Carter's boneheaded decision to stop fuel reprocessing didn't prevent Pakistan and North Korea from developing nuclear weapons.

Don't pay any attention to the people behind the curtain at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

137.79.7.57 (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Van Snyder