Plantaganet,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power :

"Research and development of thorium-based nuclear reactors, primarily the Liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR), MSR design, has been or is now being done in India, China, Norway, U.S., Israel and Russia."

"India's government is developing up to 62, mostly thorium reactors, which it expects to be operational by 2025. It is the "only country in the world with a detailed, funded, government-approved plan" to focus on thorium-based nuclear power."

Cold fusion, is it real? At least a working thorium LFTR has been built "Molten salt reactors (MSRs, LFTRs), The Oak Ridge National Laboratory designed and built a demonstration MSR using U-233 as the main fissile fuel; it was operational from 1965 to 1969."

This is one of the most dishonest reviews I've seen. The human propensity to disregard the truth when we think that the means justifies the ends, knows no bounds. Does the strutting televangelist really believe what he spews? Does it matter? It isn't true in any case.

Go here if you want to see some honest, well-informed reviews:
http://pandoraspromise.com/#reviews

The film never claimed that nuclear power is "the" major solution.

The film is not a "soft sell for the nuclear industry." It informs and appeals to reason.

The film does not use "voices of people, mainly from the nuclear power lobby." Everyone is a staunch environmentalist. Nobody is a nuclear power lobbyist.

The film's spokespersons do not "all portray themselves as former anti nuclear activists"

It is not true that the "scientific consensus, including the World Health Organisation, is that ionising radiation is dangerous to health, even at low levels." Millions of people die from cancer due to solar radiation every year.

I could go on and on. Almost nothing in this review is true. Read

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/experts-foresee-no-detectable-health-impact-from-fukushima-radiation/?_r=0

Luciferase

Yes research on "Thorium-based reactors", which can't function without fissile Uranium or Plutonium inputs, have been conducted since the 1960s. This slow moving research process is just one indicator of how technically and economically problematic "Thorium-based reactors" are. Its all academic until Thorium reactors become economically viable energy producers in what 2060?

FUKUSHIMA

Concerning those who deny Fukushima indicates an inbuilt problem and risk of running reactors. Nuclear industries privatise the profits but when disasters happen the nuclear industry can't afford the clean-up costs. The Japanese Government is paying $Billions to clean up the mess left by Tepco's unsafe reactors.

Commenters haven't mentioned that the Fukushima complex continues to leak radioactive water - a problem too great even for the highly organised Japanese. Large populations around Fukushima have been advised to live elsewhere due to the radiation risk.

Pete

Another red herring?
If there was an earthquake tomorrow off Japan of similar size to the one that destroyed Fukushima, it would cut this argument short .
A lot of the population would be on their way to an early death solving the problem of overpopulation.
When I hear the proponents of nuclear power exclaiming about the "new" safety, I think of the way that even our politicians cannot be trusted to claim expenses without rorting the system. Could any other countries be trusted not to cut corners or cheat on reports?

2010 National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) report concluded the thorium fuel cycle ‘does not currently have a role to play in the UK context [and] is likely to have only a limited role internationally for some years ahead’ – in short, it concluded, the claims for thorium were ‘overstated’.
http://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/busting-the-spin-about-thorium-nuclear-reactors/
All other issues aside, thorium is still nuclear energy, say environmentalists, its reactors disgorging the same toxic by-products and fissile waste with the same millennial half-lives. Oliver Tick ell, author of Kyoto2, says the fission materials produced from thorium are of a different spectrum to those from uranium-235, but ‘include many dangerous-to-health alpha and beta emitters’.

Robert LePage,

You are an example of what "denier" really means. You and several others commenting here provide and example of closed minds - immune to facts.

This presents the case for nuclear in Australia well (although I don't agree with some of it): https://theconversation.com/pro-nuclear-greenies-thinking-outside-the-box-with-pandoras-promise-18941