Negative Positive
Title: Doubt they'd have made this show in 2012
Review: A major pontification from 2007 about how safe nuclear energy is. I wonder what they'd say post Fukushima. The US has plants subject to similar catastrophes. That kind of flies in the face of a lot of their analysis in this episode. In fact, seeing this post Fukushima makes them look pretty ridiculous. They'd probably find some rationalization to rebut this, by interviewing the right industry spokesperson who will say Fukushima is exaggerated. Their general approach is to find somebody with credentials who agrees with them somebody without credentials who doesn't, and then to call the latter person an obscene name. Hilarious when they're right, and they often are, but shameful when they're dead wrong, as is the case in this episode.
Is the review positive or negative? 