POV Nominated for a Webby!

by |

2009 Webby Award nomineeWe are so excited to announce that we’ve been nominated for a 2009 Webby Award in the Movies and Film category! We’re also thrilled to have been nominated alongside stellar sites for Coraline, Pangea Day, IFC and Sundance. Check out the full list of nominees on the Webby Awards’ website.
This is our sixth nomination in six years — we won the award in 2004 for our Borders | Environment site. Go team!

You can support POV by voting for us for the Webby People’s Choice Awards.

Ruiyan Xu
Ruiyan Xu
Former POVer Ruiyan Xu worked on developing and producing materials for POV's website. Before coming to POV, she worked in the Interactive and Broadband department at Channel Thirteen/WNET. Ruiyan was born in Shanghai and graduated from Brown University with a B.A. in Modern Culture and Media.
  • http://www.worldofstrats.com/ZygorGuide/tabid/88/Default.aspx Willow

    FOREIGNID: 18246
    FOREIGNPARENTID:
    Congratulations! Hope you make it again this year.

    Zygor

  • Theresa

    FOREIGNID: 18247
    FOREIGNPARENTID:
    Thanks Zigor! That’s nice of you to say. We’re very excited about it.

  • Jeff Schmidt

    What is “balance”. Why must an opposing view always be presented? Now, if you have real scientific or engineering information which contradicts a claim made by the movie, that seems relevant. But, in the world of “journalism”, the word “balance” often means that one side presents known scientific facts, while someone else gets to come on and contradict those facts with unsubstantiated wildly false claims. Shouldn’t journalistic “balance” allow for filtering out the BS, and NOT presenting it as if it were equally valid with known scientific truths?

    • # FRE0

      That is a very excellent point. The movie is being criticized for not being balanced and it’s true that it is not completely balanced. But not long ago, PBS aired a program about nuclear waste; t was not balanced. It presented no information about nuclear technologies which would produce only a tiny fraction of the waste produced by our current reactors and, in fact, could use our current waste as fuel.

      When I contacted PBS about its unbalanced presentation of the problems of nuclear waste, I got no response. Considering that, it certainly seems unreasonable for PBS to criticize “Pandora’s Promise” for being unbalanced.

  • Jeff Schmidt

    John Sanbonmatsu: And how many people have been hurt by Pilgrim? How many people, for that matter, were hurt by Fukushima?

    ” NRC officials lying to the public, and shutting down debate;”

    When have NRC officials lied to the public? Can you please provide me specific examples that I can research? As for shutting down debate – there’s a time for public meetings. But, at the end of the day, it is the job of the NRC to make rulings, based upon the law and based upon known scientific and engineering expertise that the NRC *does* have and the public does *not* have.

    Quite frankly, while the public should be free to express concerns, and the NRC should be responsible to make sure that those concerns are adequately addressed to protect public safety, it is the NRC itself which is equipped to determine that it HAS sufficiently addressed those concerns, not the ignorant public. (And I consider myself part of that ‘ignorant public” – I’m not a nuclear engineer – what do I or anyone else in the public who aren’t nuclear engineers, know about whether a design is safe or not? If the construction and practices at the plant put the public at risk? I and the public are absolutely not equipped to make that technical evaluation, but many in the public are deluded into thinking they somehow do know what is and isn’t safe).

    If nuclear is so dangerous, where is the “parade of horrors” that surely should have materialized after 60 years and become self-evident?

  • # FRE0

    Mr. Sanbonmatsu, your post doesn’t seem to consider that the problems associated with our pressurized water reactors could be greatly reduced by using a better nuclear technology.

    At one time, many people broke their arms by crank-starting their cars. The dangers of crank-starting were completely eliminated by the electric starter. Surely it would have been unreasonable to label cars as too dangerous because of the broken arms resulting from crank-starting. Similarly it is unreasonable to label nuclear power as too dangerous when better nuclear technologies may be able to make nuclear power much safer.

  • PW

    Nuclear technology was originally designed as a weapon of mass destruction. It was only belatedly adapted to power generation. The problems with nuclear power to the core of the technology and the demonstrated inability of its handlers to control it. This has nothing to do with cars and handcranks.

  • WP

    There was a little place called Chernobyl. Another place in Russia call Kyshtym? Reactor meltdown with 1,000 victtim acknowledged by Russian (Soviet!) authorities, global fallout, and 800 sq. km of land uninhabitable for over 40 years, and some still closed. Three Mile Island and other smaller leaks have also produced radiation levels up to 100s of times above background levels (or the oft-mentioned chest x-ray). Show me another power generation technology that produces this? A better question is, why is anybody so anxious to prop up this expensive dinosaur technology when we have better alternatives available? To me, a failure of imagination combined with the financial and lobbying power of the nuclear industry.

  • Jeff Schmidt

    WP: Chernobyl was really the only epically bad accident of the ones you listed. Even that is expected to kill fewer than 10,000 people. It’s not absolutely known how many it will affect, but that is the upper bound. But, more importantly, Chernobyl was an old, dangerous design. In the US, there was NEVER a reactor design in use as bad as the Chernobyl design. The USSR’s epic fuckup isn’t a universal damnation of the entire technology.

    As for Three Mile Island, you need to check your sources, because almost no radiation was released at TMI, and no detectable increase in radiation in the surrounding area was ever found, so I call BS on your claim that “have also produced radiation levels up to 100s of times above background levels”.

    This is the whole problem with the nuclear/anti-nuclear debate. The anti-nukes don’t seem to do a very good job of fact-checking their claims.

    They claim, repeatedly, that we are just one accident away from massive killoffs of human and other life forms, but the science just does NOT support that. If that were likely, it would have already happened.