Greenpeace on Nuclear Energy: SCIENCE DOES NOT MATTER

January 7th, 2008
submit to reddit Share

Apparently none. Yes that’s right. I absolutely love this video because it pretty much sums up the mentality of Greenpeace and the anti-nuclear movement. It’s not “about science.” No, that’s right it’s not. Here one of their advocates is caught off guard by the question as to whether any science or technical developments could ever convince Greenpeace that nuclear energy is safe and useful. Answer: It’s not about science.

HA! I think he came out and inadvertently said it all. And apparently there’s no science involving nuclear waste. Geeze, strange because I think there are a lot of geologists, health physicist, enviornmental scientists, nuclear physicists, chemists, materials scientists, geophysicists and many others who would disagree with that one.

Of course this just goes to show what we knew all along. It’s not about science but about dogma. “NUCLEAR BAD” is the kind of mindset that the facts are never going to change.

This entry was posted on Monday, January 7th, 2008 at 10:48 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Culture, Enviornment, Nuclear. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions

14 Responses to “Greenpeace on Nuclear Energy: SCIENCE DOES NOT MATTER”

  1. 1
    DV82XL Says:

    Of course there is no argument scientific of otherwise that would change the Greenpeace mind-set about nuclear energy, because it’s not about facts, it’s about keeping the donations rolling in. Donations those that they have terrorized into thinking that they will all be glowing in the dark, or (more likely in my opinion) from their sponsors in the carbon fuels sector.

    There is no question in my mind that most if not all of the antinuclear movement has been co-opted by those who would suffer loss of revenue from a resurgence of nuclear power. Consider that last year the National Wildlife Federation received a grant from the pro-coal industry Joyce Foundation. The purpose of the $122,000 grant is “to build support in Indiana and Michigan for coal gasification as an alternative to conventional coal-burning power plants. Indiana Wildlife Federation and Michigan United Conservation Clubs would be partners in this effort.” The Union of Concerned Scientists, also received grants from the Joyce Foundation, including one “To promote new policies supporting coal gasification and carbon sequestration for new electric generation in Illinois.” National Resources Defense Council is another recipient of Joyce Foundation largess. It has received “a $437,500 grant from the Joyce Foundation to promote carbon sequestration on coal industry’s behalf.”

    It would take an idiot not to see that the Joyce Foundation is acting as a coal industry front and as a conduit for Coal Industry money.

    No wonder the old guard Greens that founded these movements are leaving or being forced out; they have listened to the science and recognize the benifits of nuclear. They have become liabilities to the corrupted shells of their old movements.

    Quote Comment
  2. 2
    Dave G Says:

    Science never was the issue. If tomorrow someone announced that they had a way to build a fusion reactor that could run on hydrogen-1 and could be built for under a thousand dollars and produce megawatts of energy with zero waste, would they support it? No. Because it’s nuclear. And nuclear=bad. Simple as that.

    I’m just surprised one of them was dumb enough to admit that there’s no science involved. Usually they like to use a combination of psuedo-science and scientific data taken out of context or presented wrongly. For example “It has a half life of billions of years” or “More material than was used in the Hiroshima bomb by a thousand times.” Of course, such statements can be true but meaningless. But I’m surprised they would just come out and say it’s not science. Wow. Honesty for once!

    Quote Comment
  3. 3
    Nate Says:

    Well at least they did a pretty good job of backing one of them into a corner. I guess the cat’s been out of the bag for a while, but the public in general may not know that. They have a good PR machine, at least sometimes.

    Quote Comment
  4. 4
    JRG Says:

    Damn… greenpeace doesn’t care about logic, facts, science or reality? So what else is new.

    Quote Comment
  5. 5
    metatron Says:

    Looking at some of the related videos, I found
    this gem
    one of the “polluting things” things about Nuclear Power is “heavy water spillage”
    if people don’t know that +-20% of “natural” water is heavy water.

    Quote Comment
  6. 6
    drbuzz0 Says:

    Um… I’m pretty sure it’s considerably less than that, but it does compose part of natural water. It’s not toxic anyway. It might cause probelms if you drank it exclusively for a couple of days, but otherwise no biggie.

    Quote Comment
  7. 7
    The_Duke Says:

    I thought it was less than 1% of natural water. But maybe I’m wrong. Anyway’s this beauty product which is a deuterium oxide (heavy water) spray:

    It’s supposed to hydrate the skin without drying it out like regular water because it evaporates more slowely. Heavy water does evaporate (slightly) more slowly, but I’d doubt very much it would make a difference sprayed on your face. But there it is for you, obviously not deadly.

    Quote Comment
  8. 8
    DV82XL Says:

    metatron, Greenpeace Canada has been trying for years to get some antinuclear traction in Canada and with little success. Canadians in general support nuclear power especially in the Provence of Ontario where most of our reactors are sited, and whwere the only other option is coal.

    The Natural Resources Minister the other day, wrote a blistering letter to the president of Canada’s nuclear regulatory agency in what is going to be the first shot at reforming that organization after they shut down the NRU late last year. This is significant because the minister is in the cabinet of a minority government, and the Agency answers to the whole parliament, not the party in power. He must be very sure of broad support on both sides of the floor, and by extension the public, to take this route.

    The antinuclear groups have very barren ground to work on up here.

    Quote Comment
  9. 9
    drbuzz0 Says:

    i’ve seen polls in the US which have stated that something like 66 or 70 percent of citizens are in favor of more nuclear energy or nuclear energy as part of the energy plan. Only less than 20% oppose nuclear and the rest undecided or did not know.

    That’s pretty damn good, IMHO, considering how much bad info is out there and how much more attention the anti-nuke movement has gotten.

    Quote Comment
  10. 10
    CityG Says:

    I don’t know what “science” you can use to prove nuclear is good. I don’t know how you can prove that the sky is green either. I think Greenpeace and all the others have seen enough and done enough research that they understand what things are and how they work. Nuclear is all about radiation and waste and weapons and until science can prove that is wrong, which it never will, then it’s not going to happen.

    Quote Comment
  11. 11
    Giant Pulsating Brain Says:

    “I don’t know what “science” you can use to prove nuclear is good.”

    Of course you don’t know. You don’t actually take the time to educate yourself on it and you refuse to listen to those who try to present you with the facts.

    Quote Comment
  12. 12
    Amber Says:

    Have you guys ever heard of the precautionary principle? Basically it states that even though there may not be concrete scientific proof that something is harmful to the environment, if it might harm the environment, then you need to use serious caution- or not do it at all. It is better to be cautionary, than to be reactive to problems. Because then it might be too late!
    Look at climate change- the science is contested, but it is better to do something now as a precaution, than to get to the point of no return.
    This is what Greenpeace is working with- as well as the fact that science says that nuclear energy, in purely environmental terms, is harmful. I would rather support Greenpeace, than get to the point where we have seriously stuffed the environment. People who support nuclear energy are selfish- its more convienent for them- they havent thought about the consequences if it is proved to be harmful, and what that will mean for future generations.
    Greenpeace is doing great work for the environment and do so because most people refuse to put the environment first. As is shown in the statistic quoted by drbuzz- all that proves it that 70% of Americans are selfish, or ignorant.

    Quote Comment
  13. 13
    DV82XL Says:

            Amber said:

    Have you guys ever heard of the precautionary principle? ….. People who support nuclear energy are selfish- its more convienent for them- they havent thought about the consequences if it is proved to be harmful, and what that will mean for future generations.

    People who support nuclear energy are well educated folks that have looked very very carefully at this issue and after a great deal of self deliberation have come to the conclusion that this is the best chance we have to stop man-made climate change and guarantee a prosperous future for generations yet born.

    Just who the hell do you think you are telling us that we are in the wrong and we should follow some Green pied-piper whose own founders have declared them wrong. Who are you to tell US that we don’t put the environment first, when over and over we have presented evidence that nuclear is the best and cleanest way to make electricity. And who the hell you to call us ignorant when you haven’t bothered to research both sides of the issue.

    Now you show me proof that that “science says that nuclear energy, in purely environmental terms, is harmful”, or shut up and try and learn something.

    Quote Comment
  14. 14
    drbuzz0 Says:

    Precautionary principle is an excuse for all kinds of ridiculous policies. Yes, it is good to take some precautions, like if you find a liquid that may or may not be toxic, you are best off not drinking it etc. It is overused to a ridiculous extent. There is no conclusive evidence that chalk does not make your head explode into flames – actually there has never been a study on it so we just don’t know if the two are associated. Yet, we allow it in school, right? Why? Becuase everything we know and understand about everything tells us there is no reason to assume it would or even might.

    Nuclear energy has been evaluated and tested for decades and is very well established. It is not harmful to the environment when properly used and certainly less so than almost any other means of generating electricity.

    And don’t tell me I’m selfish. The reasons I support nuclear energy are because of the enviornmental impacts, cost, sustainability and in general the potential to bring better standards of living to more people in the world.

    Quote Comment

Leave a Reply

Current month ye@r day *

Please copy the string mcnwT3 to the field below:

Protected by WP Anti Spam