Paper: CNN’s nuclear propaganda film “is dishonest to its core” — It’s “actually an infomercial”

Published: June 12th, 2013 at 10:19 am ET


Title: Pandora’s Promise: Would You Buy a Nuclear Reactor
Source: Seattle Weekly
Author: Brian Miller
Date: Jun 11 2013

My ears prick up whenever I hear how Bill Gates and Paul Allen are spending their money. Putatively a documentary about the resurgence of nuclear power, Pandora’s Promise is actually an infomercial for a business still stigmatized by Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and our fears of all things atomic. […]

[…] Pandora’s Promise, which was produced by CNN and Paul Allen’s Vulcan Productions. (Robert Stone is the director-for-hire.) […]

But the doc’s bigger flaw is that no one is allowed to make a reasoned anti-nuclear argument. […] And when I hear Pulitzer-winning author Richard Rhodes (The Making of the Atomic Bomb) say that “to be anti-nuclear is fundamentally to be in favor of burning fossil fuels,” it sounds perfectly sensible. And that’s the problem with Pandora’s Promise: Though many of its claims may be truthful, the film is dishonest to its core.

See also: Experts: The planet can be powered solely by wind, water and solar energy (NO ‘fossil fuels’ or nuclear power)

Related: [intlink id=”shock-cnn-to-air-nuclear-power-propaganda-irrational-fears-of-nukes-systematically-debunks-the-myths-and-misinformation” type=”post”]{{empty}}[/intlink]

Published: June 12th, 2013 at 10:19 am ET


Related Posts

  1. CNN to air nuclear power propaganda: “Irrational fears” — “Systematically debunks the myths and misinformation” April 30, 2013
  2. Michael Moore: Thank you so much for making pro-nuclear movie — What a risky, brave idea — France doesn’t seem to have problems with it — I hear ‘Solar and wind are not going to save us’ — I’m concerned about statements by environmental groups against nuclear power (VIDEO) December 15, 2013
  3. Gov’t Report: CNN, Huffington Post listed as ‘external stakeholders’ in NRC, alongside nuclear industry and pro-nuclear blogs — Both outlets help NRC to increase online influence, as CNN produces pro-nuclear infomercial December 16, 2013
  4. American Students Featured in Fukushima Propaganda Film: The cherries are delicious — The nuclear power plant has brought us together — “Fukushima is here, unchanged to this day” (VIDEO) September 5, 2012
  5. Tornado hits U.S. nuclear facility – Uranium enrichment building damaged — Parts of cooling towers destroyed — Alert declared for ’emergency condition’ (PHOTOS) November 19, 2013

60 comments to Paper: CNN’s nuclear propaganda film “is dishonest to its core” — It’s “actually an infomercial”

  • "well-rehearsed …"

    "Pandora’s Promise is actually an infomercial…"

    Manipulation of information to influence public opinion.

  • ftlt

    The entire corpo-globalist media's "news???" is raw noise and misinformation that is spun then woven into a raft of purposeful distortion… Making it all but meaningless gobbledygook…

    We as a people lap it up… A great example is; we are trained to feel outrage about sports!!! Listen to a sports talk show sometime – a stunning human disconnect from reality..

    The Corpo-Fascism state and society is now our way of life.. We are drinking the Kool-Aid… Heil, Bush, Obama, The Daily Show (where questioning the truth have become punchlines)..

    Trust nothing you hear out of the main stream media without verification from other sources – like this one – and then question that..


    Runaway Capitalism is killing the planet and us along with it…

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    Oh..ya..I raed a story this morning..the query..
    Will the supposed truths..told in this documentary..lead to pro-nuclear protest?
    (Sorry no

    I'll say this..
    A.I wouldn't want to be on their team.
    (Time and scientific circumstance..will prove my point here.

    B.The 'opposition' remains unmoved..
    (something about the comfortability of truth)

    So it's day in day out…
    We're good.

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    Guhh..a typo…'read'.
    Good morning all..
    The opposition.. the pro-nuke nerds..have worked on this.
    But this does not change the physical condition of Fukushima.
    Even the fact that nuclear power is on the way out..can not change the FACTS.

    I have always held..that this movement was layered.
    There is the anti-nuclear movement..and there are those who know the true conditions of Fukushima…and what we choose to do with this knowledge…and a combination of both as required.
    We are here to help the victims..which by Jove.. that seems to be ourselves.
    We have the right to save ourselves.
    And will make all efforts to do so.

  • VyseLegendaire VyseLegendaire

    People actually still watch CNN?


    keep in mind, reality has a way ripping 'truth' to pieces. These people can pour all the money they want into these 'infomercials' and they still won't hold-off the unseen threat that's now drifting about…and within…

  • bwoodfield bwoodfield

    You know I still stand by my simple comment about nuclear power; WHEN an accident occurs how many lives are effected and for how long?

    I don't like burning of fossil fuels, but I would rather live beside a coal plant than a nuclear plant. If an accident occurs at a coal or gas plant it might take years to clean up, but it's a visible reachable goal of the clean up. A NPP accident, a clean up is measured in decades or centuries with thousands to millions of people effected.

    I know the oil and nuker companies have the the governments in their pocket so I'm not under any delusion here, but it still baffles me how governments will intentionally stifle, misdirect and out right lie about viable alternatives. About 12 years ago I was listening to the radio about a 10 million dollar research project that the government paid for to investigate the negative effects of wind turbines. 10 million that could have been put into advancing the technology instead of finding reasons not to use it.

  • weeman

    The propaganda machine is in full swing and in recovery mode, you can fool us once( three mile island, you can even fool us twice ( Chernobyl ), but seriously you want to pull the wool over our eyes a third time (Fukushima ).
    I will put it to you as simple as I can fossil fuels are carbon based, we are carbon based, yes it has detrimental effects if not kept in check, but nuclear is not carbon based and is the most lethal compounds know to carbon based entities, given a hundred years we can clean our environment of fossil fuels, but nuclear release is forever and can never be cleaned up and lethal.
    We are striving for clean renewable energy and neither fossel fuel or nuclear fits the bill, no less is acceptable.

  • Mack Mack

    Here is another negative review of "Pandora's Promise"–?instance=letters

    Read the entire review, but here are 2 points from it:

    (1) "The idea that nuclear plants are zero carbon emitters is fantasy. Comparing cradle to grave – nuclear is 1/3 the carbon of coal, 1/2 of gas. However it is 10 times more than solar and 30 times more than wind. With the risks of nuclear being so much more."

    (2) "This film uses people who were supposedly anti-nuclear environmentalists who now support nuclear. When, in fact, they were never anti-nuclear activists nor outspoken critics."

  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture

    There's nothing to debate.

    People don't want nuclear.

    The ill-unformed will catch up.

    Be patient.

    We're on track.

    • moonshellblue moonshellblue

      Exactly they still have no means of disposing the waste or viable means of storing. These plants should have never been built. Sometimes I think we're past the tipping point, rather most of the time. I mean even if all the nuke plants were decommissioned today, we still have to deal with all that spent fuel thus I hope someone is working on how to dispose of this devils brew. Ahh, ignorance truly is bliss, tis folly to be wise.

    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

      narrow minded wierdos are in control, and its already too late for so many

  • Mack Mack

    Even the pro-nuclear New York Times gives Pandora's Promise a negative review, saying it's very stacked and one-sided and sums the movie up with this statement:

    "A parade of like-minded nuclear-power advocates who assure us that everything will be all right just doesn’t cut it."

  • patb2009

    the whole industry has been pushing propoganda for 50 years.

    "Too cheap to meter".

    "Safe, clean, economical".


    Reality was it was so expensive, the damned things were never making money so they kept building them cheap.

    Then when trouble happens, they lack the systems to handle problems.

    • We Not They Finally

      The part about NOT being "safe" is academic. If it were "safe" AT ALL, then how come no private insurance company will insure? It's always on government subsidies and tax-payer insurance.

  • Sickputer

    "And that’s the problem with Pandora’s Promise: Though many of its claims may be truthful, the film is dishonest to its core."

    SP: A resounding yes to that statement!

    And you can take that to the bank…or on vacation if you like…try "sunny" Fukushima Island:

    Thanks to JHewes76 on Enenews.

  • Sickputer

    Reposted from my riposte with James Conca's pronuke commentators at Forbes in particular one who was gushing over Pandora's Box:

    SP: "Robert Stone commentary about his new pro-nuke documentary Pandora’s Promise:

    “If there was a single AHAH moment it was when I was granted entry into a room in France (the size of a basketball court) where all the waste from powering 80% of the country for 30 years is stored: four cylindrical tubes 10 meters long and 1 meter wide are all that’s left from powering the city of Paris for 30 years with clean nuclear energy!”

    WS (aka SP): Kind of reminds me of the famous Reagan quote from 1980: “All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk.” Ronald Reagan (Republican candidate for president), quoted in the Burlington (Vermont) Free Press, February 15, 1980.

    Let’s examine the truth or untruth of such statements as Stone and Reagan. Can waste from a year or 30 years of spent fuel rods be compressed into such a space? We’re talking tons of material…and millions of gallons of contaminated water. So how does someone flippantly make such a statement?

    Because they are omitting a few details. Like the toxic low level waste water which pours out into the English Channel from Areva’s Normandy disposal unit. Nice touch there with the underwater pipeline for 5,000 meters into the Channel. Leukemia rates are soaring among the poor Dutch.

    To be continued…

    • Sickputer

      Part 2:

      Gee…I think even Forbes printed something to that effect. *;-)

      So we are to believe this filmmaker’s propaganda that fuel reprocessors which work so poorly (look at Monju in Japan and the horrible track record of the French nucleocrats) can compact those thousands of tons of uranium waste into a tidy little package for our filmmaker? And yes Pandora’s Promise is a propaganda film and admitted as such by Stone:

      “All documentaries are propaganda to one degree or another in that they express a point of view”.

      An interesting former classified nuclear industry document I happened to find from 1984 also addresses the reprocessor topic:

      Take a look at pages 15 and 16 about the French comments on nuclear proliferation and their efforts to get plutonium to the Japanese nuclear industry. Very topical considering the MOX fuel at Unit 3 blowing up and contaminating all of central Japan (and 6,000 troops on board the USS Ronald Reagan).

      But I digress a bit…how about Mr. Stone and his sudden 180 degree flip from environmentalism to nuclear proponent? What happened there?

      To be continued…

      • Sickputer

        Part 3:

        I am not going to be as naive to think he didn’t get remuneration from SOMEBODY for his filmmaking skills. After all he makes documentaries mainly and his 2009 film Earth Days cost $1.2 million to produce and made a whopping $23,000 at the box office. Then it was picked up by PBS which also took his next film in 2009-2010 (The Civilian Conservation Corps).

        Now the real mystery as noted earlier is who funded Pandora’s Promise? Yes, I am sure there were many small contributors, but who gave the lion’s share? I am not going to name any person or organization, but we would assume it wasn’t a neutral party. If they were neutral we would have the open list of the top ten contributors.

        The film was essentially produced, directed, and filmed by five people (Stone and four others) with a cast of a handful of relative unknown PR folks and professional documentary workers including two fairly famous Neo-environmentalists in Michael Shellenberger and Stewart Brand.

        Oh, but wait…Wikipedia is considering deleting the entry for Neo-environmentalism (defined as “a term that has emerged to describe an environmentalist view that is optimistic that technology and the capitalistic business model can resolve the ecological crisis that faces the Earth”).

        Are the natives getting restless at Wikipedia? Or maybe there is a pushback against the perceived liberal slant of the hot topic entries…. End..

    • ML

      France ships their waste to Siberia where it lays in the open in 55 gallon drums. Is the amount they are referring to what hasn't been shipped out of France?

      • ML

        "Recycling Atomic Waste: Nuclear Materials Stored In Siberian Parking Lots

        A French documentary has revealed that radioactive materials from nuclear power plants are being being stored in containers in a Siberian parking lot. Meanwhile the largest power company in Europe, France's EDF, which sent the materials there, says it is not responsible."


        This is how responsible the nuclear industry is with nuclear waste. Do we want any more of the same????
        Just how responsible has TEPCO been, followed by the Japanese government, in dealing with the worst nuclear accident to date?
        Probably equal to the French, and any other. Is anyone impressed that any of the nuclear regulatory agencies can handle their Pandora's box in reality?

        • ML

          Here's the rhetoric now:
          Life After Fukushima: "The New Normal" – Remarks of NRC Chairman Allison M. Macfarlane, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Nuclear Energy Assembly (published in NRC News No: 13-008 )
          "…to reduce the potential for another accident and ensure that our mitigation strategies are robust should an accident occur." [WAS THAT THE CASE WITH TEPCO BEING IN CHARGE?]
          "Taken together, these activities represent a demonstrated commitment to maintaining a high level of nuclear safety and security here and abroad. This commitment is essential in enhancing public confidence in the work we do."
          "After all, there’s no going back to the mindsets that existed prior to March 11, 2011."

          Does that mean they won't let private industry be in charge after an accident? But that private industry should be held accountable for the cost involved in any aftermath of an accident?
          They do have issues with public confidence. Because of a history of lies, and the lack of understanding the implications of waste storage issues and accident vulnerability.
          What was the "pre-Fukushima mindset"? I think the former NRC chairman Jaczko stated it during a recent hearing re: SONGS: they believed that the probability of an accident was so low that they didn't need to worry about it.

          • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

            "the probability of an accident !!KABOOOM!! is so low we dont have !!!KAABOOOOM!!, as I was saying we dont have to worry. The public is safe and !!KAABOOOOOOM!! secure. Did I say secure? rest assured"

        • ML

          Herein lies the lies: "It is important to differentiate between radioactive material that is being recycled from actual nuclear waste, as the nuclear industry qualifies it," Noualhat told SPIEGEL ONLINE. "What we really wanted to show was that we do not recycle 96 percent of this material, as some people pretend we do." The figure of 96 percent recyclable nuclear waste with four percent being disposed of in high tech storage is one that has been used before by those in the French nuclear industry."

    • NoPrevarication NoPrevarication


      It's always amusing to read a Reagan quote: "…Reagan quote from 1980: “All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk.” I always wondered why anyone, knowing Reagan was an actor, would believe anything he said…. But it did make him the perfect politician.

      • We Not They Finally

        People don't remember that far back, but Reagan got his start into corporate America with "The General Electric Theatre."

      • Actually, they got the quote wrong; he said it would all fit inside of a match box.

        And if things went wrong inside a nuke plant, a lowly maintenance man could just walk over, and stuff the fuel into a shoe box and carry it over to the sink, and pour water on it, to cool it off..

        Problems solved.. Nuclear is PERFECT!


    • We Not They Finally

      If you have not already seen it, there is a GREAT YouTube document called "Secret Nuclear Waste: The Dark Side of Humanity." Goes into France contaminating the English Channel, Russian disasters, the disastrous Sellafield plant in the U.K. and much more.

  • combomelt combomelt

    Even the lib rags hate this piece of garbage, that HAS to tell people SOMETHING doesnt it?. Its a criminally insane film meant for screenings in mental institutions. I saw a preview months ago and it is an infuriating one-sided goebbels pos, and an absolute waste of digital storage media. The production staff should ALL BE ASHAMED of their participation in this VISUAL LIE. get it from a TORRENT site, watch it and do the exact opposite from what the film tells you to believe. DO NOT PAY ONE CENT TO SEE THIS "FILM"

  • We Not They Finally

    Saying “to be anti-nuclear is fundamentally to be in favor of burning fossil fuels" is like saying that we never heard of wind or water or sunshine. It's also incredibly pernicious — it's not running our cars that gives people cancer, heart disease, diabetes, thyroid disorders, leukemia, etc., etc. In fact, carbon dioxide itself doesn't cause ANY illness so long as we are still breathing oxygen. It's all the toxins mixed in with it. So when there is a giant oil spill, e.g., like the one in the Little Rock suburb that we hear NOTHING about, those people aren't headed for the emergency room over CO2.

    I guess "Pandora" was a good name for the title, however (LOL). Except that "Vulcan Productions" should have probably been named "Vulture Productions."

    I'd say what happened to CNN, but it seems to have happened some while back by now. And this is not even just about point of view. How do these people just IGNORE the mass deaths nuclear energy causes?

    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar anne

      I just heard the explanation. All the deaths since Fukushima are because the people had to evacuate and they are afraid. The deaths are not due to radiation, but fear.

      I think this former professor was paid to say what he said. I doubt seriously he actually believes what he said. But humans are great at being ostriches, denial, and rationalization. The individual I am talking about is very old. Maybe he will be coming down with Alzheimer's, but most probably he doesn't want to face the guilt of being part of an industry which has killed so many. Maybe the denial is to keep the guilt shut away.

      And then, if this is an ELE, they just don't want people panicking. They just hope that everyone will fall asleep and they won't have to face any punishment.

      The quiz in my class actually said reactors last 6.34 times 10^2. This would be 634 years. These physicists aren't good at math after all. And of course 40 years is stretching it.

      And I was taught that reactors can't detonate because the uranium is only 2-3% enriched. But, wait a minute. They are creating weapons grade plutonium. At the end of the reactor life of the fuel, 40% of the energy comes from plutonium. It is very difficult to watch someone who is so deceitful. Dante puts the people who are deceitful about reality in the lowest ring of hell.

  • We Not They Finally

    Another thing, as we (husband and I) say a lot: Do you REALLY think nuclear power is tolerable? Then prove it. Take a long long trip to Japan. Tell us how you do.

  • IN THE NEWS – The nuclear industry and the government – the cozy deals.

    Former Congresswoman receives payments from federally funded nuclear labs.

    Former New Mexico Republican Rep. Heather Wilson received nearly half a million dollars in “questionable” payments from four federally funded nuclear laboratories after leaving office, according to the Department of Energy’s inspector general.

    …the four facility contractors paid approximately $450,000 to [Heather Wilson and Company, LLC] even though they did not receive evidence that work performed under the agreements had been completed,” reads the IG’s report. “These payments were fully reimbursed by the government.”

    According to the inspector general’s report, Wilson failed to provide documentation for work she did for Los Alamos and Sandia national laboratories, for which she was paid $20,000 per month.

    Both the labs seem to have asked Wilson to secure them more work, which is in violation of Wilson’s contract, according to the report.




    • We Not They Finally

      We're in NM. Heather Wilson is a one-woman menace. The $20,000/a month was likely for LOBBYING. And since it is federal money, there SHOULD be a scandal over it. She's tried to run for Senate twice here and thank God she failed.

  • Baha 2012 Baha 2012

    While any motivated who can do any and everything possible to end the era of a murderous nuclear warfare … and do so in their bravest attempt to better a world for future generations, while the world prepare for the worst which is surly to follow even when the shutting down of these reactors occurs … aside from perilous times of earth’s transformation consider this;

    “The long-term danger of nuclear power plants is the disposal of over a fifty year accumulation of radio active waste products. This waste includes materials that were used in the nuclear fission process. Spent uranium rods contain the highest level of toxins and radiation. They need to be stored in facilities that provide secure and protective barriers to prevent theft or exposure to the soil or water. Most of these facilities are located deep underground. Countries that use nuclear power need to manufacture ways to store these wastes for thousands of years.
    Low-level waste is also a concern for many companies. Used protective clothing or tools need to be securely stored as well to prevent contamination through ingestion or inhalation."

    With these nuclear reactors the damage has been done … the future of this world is sealed, but there is still that promise of deliverance … and that place where harmful radio active elements has and never will be

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    Let's talk about psyop…New York Times..the operatives.

    Seeking Constructive Debate on Nuclear Energy

    (ooh..a debate)

    To be debated..

    Richard Rhodes..

    Richard Rhodes and the Bomb
    Nov.14 1987

    ''In 1976, I received a Guggenheim to write a novel set in Los Alamos,'' Mr. Rhodes said. ''I found that I couldn't quite bring it off. I thought that the right way to tell the story would be factually. The making of the bomb is a story on the scale of Moby Dick. I don't see much of a difference between writing fiction and fact except, of course, that fact has to be documented.''

    Researching the world of the atomic bomb opened up new areas of thought for him, he said. One of the documents he happened to be carrying with him was ''The Los Alamos Primer,'' a then-secret bomb manual that had been put together in 1943 by Robert Serber, a physicist at Los Alamos, to instruct experts in various disciplines.

    ''The Reagan Administration is somewhat paranoid about disclosing secrets,'' he said. ''It was denied to me but I was able to get a copy from a physics professor who teaches from the declassified manual quite openly. It's a historical document – and anyway you can't build a bomb

    A fiction writer with a nuclear fetish…oh the got the right man alright.

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    …lies..deception..shill work for the nuclear industry..
    It must be a dream come true for him to pass himself off as an expert in the nuclear field.

    And by the sounds of it..a threat to so-called..national security.

  • Even PBS is not immune to the nuclear propoganda machine…

    PBS; Radioactive Wolves In Chernobyl Exclusion Zone Movie Review


    Here's my take on Pandora's Promise: First of all, why is this on CNN, and why do these idiots have the gall to say that nuclear power has caused so little harm?
    I want to have some respect for people who disagree with my point of view but in this case these people are minimizing the billions of people harmed by increased radiation in our food, water, and atmosphere emanating from improperly stored waste, nuclear accidents, and the day to day nuclear power operations, both military and civilian.
    By purposely omitting this information, and negating it's impact on civilization and wildlife they prove who they really are. I'll just call them idiots but what I really think is they're lower than what I scrape off my shoes. You can call them what you want.
    CNN is run by people who are socially liberal but fiscal conservatives. These are people who were raised in opulent wealth and their admirers who want to be like them. Their thinking is that this world can not unite and over-come the incredible power of the mega-corporations that will never allow renewable power to get the political backing it needs to meet the massive energy needs of the growing human population. So, they believe they're doing us a favor by convincing us, by whatever means necessary, to take the bone of nuclear power they're throwing us.
    They believe nuclear power has a better chance of filling the world's future energy needs than the concerted united all out effort that it will take to…

  • oglaevanz oglaevanz

    Can anybody tell me how many solar panel or wind power the US government has to install to generate the same amount of power nuclear is generating so that it could be substituted and can anybody tell me how many wind/solar power systems that could be deployed in Africa to develop it to a first world economy? it only when those questions are answered will nuclear nuclear power be deemed "of no great importance"

    • butler43

      imagine that they had started developing these technologies 50 years ago instead of nuclear power and you must, must, must look at the waste they have generated which is mainly sitting in fuel ponds, not in containers as they'd like you to believe. during world war two the populace came together to conserve so the armed forces had enough fuel. it can be done when there is enough will.

      • Mack Mack

        Well, let's see.

        (1) Nuclear energy only provides 8% of consumed energy in the U.S.

        (2) Each nuclear power plant supposedly produces around 1GW of energy

        (HOWEVER, it has been debated that nuclear energy actually consumes more energy than it creates)

        (3) But let's say that each npp produces 1GW of energy.

        There are now 99 npp's working in the U.S.

        That's approx. 99GW of power.

        (4) Right now Wind Energy alone in the U.S. is capable of producing 60GW of power, the energy-equivalent of 60 nuclear power plants.

        (5) Right now Solar Energy in the U.S. can produce 10GW of energy, the energy-equivalent of 10 nuclear power plants.

        (6) Both of those numbers, Wind and Energy, are expected to increase exponentially every year.

        (7) At present, the U.S. actually uses more Renewable Energy than nuclear energy.

        (8) So replacing nuclear energy with Wind Power, for example, would be a breeze (haha, a little humor there)

        (9) Also, Conserving 8% of energy so that nuclear power plants could thereby by shutdown and decommissioned is absolutely do-able.

        (10) In addition, other Renewable Energy sources such as Hydropower, geothermal power, biomass power also contribute to the energy supply.

        (11) Finally, this map shows how Wind and Solar Energy alone could power the world:

  • US Offshore Wind Energy; 4 X The Energy Potential Of ALL Existing Power Plants In US Today; via @AGreenRoad

    Environment And Renewable Energy

  • Did that answer your question Og?

  • butler43

    If that woman in Pandora's Promise and the film producers also make themselves out to be experts, how come they don't know that it's not tritium – it's tritium!
    I watched this the other night and wow – a whole 60 seconds on Fukushima. The entire movie, if you can call it that, is a bunch of BS. No mention of Hanford; no mention of how much spent fuel sits in the US ponds; a complete lie about the US waste being in containers while most of it sits doubled up in ponds.
    THey should be sued! LIes, LIes, and more lies!
    THey must be really nervous to make this Bull****. I wonder what's coming down the line?

  • butler43

    sorry – a bit upset – they kept saying tritium – not tritium.

  • butler43