Slashdot Mirror

Even chernobyl only killed around 50 people.

Some might disagree

A sane person would not believe a single word that comes out of the mouthpiece of that insane bunch. Even former Greenpeace co-founders have gotten sick of Greenpeace's anti-corporate anti-capitalist propaganda that has to do with the environment vaguely at best.

Even chernobyl only killed around 50 people.

Some might disagree

Greenpeace has an impressive number of scalps on its belt. A recent campaign against Nestle's Kit Kat chocolate bars resulted in the company changing the way it buys its materials. Clorox began using a new, more expensive way to transport chlorine after a FUD campaign from Greenpeace. Greenpeace successfully stopped a clean coal plant from being built in the UK, and its activists were cleared of any wrongdoing on the defence of 'lawful excuse' - claiming they shut the power station in order to defend property of a greater value from the global impact of climate change (the first time 'lawful excuse' was used in the context of climate change). Apple phased out PVC plastics due to Greenpeace's online campaign (it won a Webby award...see what I mean about their influential friends). Greenpeace got Argentina to ban the incandescent light bulb after a media campaign. Greenpeace got Spain, Sweden, Germany, Italy and Belgium to abandon nuclear power.

Whistle past the graveyard if you wish. But Greenpeace is powerful, and more importantly, has a lot of fellow travelers who will promote their agenda for free. Read the list of Greenpeace victories. It is long and impressive. Every victory was won in a developed country or the UN - the real sources of power in the world. You will note a total lack of victories in powerless areas like China, India, Africa, and so on.

As usual, they're simply trying to make a statement in a controversial manner.

In what way is this making a statement in a controversial manner? There is an issue that needs addressing so they released a report. That sounds quite normal to me. And is power consumption of data centres a controversial topic? No, it has been discussed quite a lot over the years. Long before climate change became so prominent in people's minds.

The internet isn't it's own country, it's a communication medium.

They didn't say it was a country, they just put the power usage into perspective to show why we should care.

If they wanted to make a serious statement, they could focus on the waste involved in the manufacture of disposable (quickly obsolete) electronics or focus on the power plants we get our energy from.

But they do already talk about those things. I found plenty of e-waste articles with a simple Google search, and as for talking about where we get our energy from - that is part of the report we are discussing now!

No-one's going to give up the internet to save the planet, arguments like this just continue to paint Greenpeace as a collection of sensationalist, attention-whoring, hippies.

Except they never suggested that we all give up the internet. This is purely about making the data centres that run the net less relient on dirty power. By suggesting that they are saying anything else is just you being a sensationalist, attention-diverting, anti-hippie!

http://greenpeace.org is a great place to start. ... and nothing of value was lost.

the greanpeace number is claimed to be a additional deaths to due cancer, not all cancer cases. Their pessimisc view is that this number can rise to 200.000.

Not that that really matters now, because it impossible now to reverse what happened in chernobyl 1986.

One thing is for sure: the "Don' panic" numbers released by authorities are only one hlaf of the truth.

The hypocrisy here is thick enough to cut with a knife. Every minute of every day US corporations (from Microsoft to Monsanto to Chevron and thousands of others) and the US military break the law in over 100 countries, heedlessly and without accountability or redress. Yet the FBI has the astonishing chutzpah to make a statement like, "Foreign firms that choose to operate in the United States are not free to flout the laws they don’t like simply because they can’t bear to be parted from their profits".

The iconic example of US corporate intransigence might be Union Carbide/Dow's all-but-deliberate poisoning of Bhopal, India, where tons of toxic, unstable nerve poison, improperly and carelessly stored in an American pesticide plant, killed 8,500 horribly in one night, and permanently injured 100,000s. No proper reparations have been made and nobody has been held to account.

In the Amazon, Chevron has committed one of the largest environmental crimes in US history - and thousands of US companies are doing the same every day.

More recently, the behaviour of Blackwater has illustrated that indiscriminate murder of foreign citizens is now just an accepted part of American corporate practice. Countless Iraqi citizens killed and injured by Blackwater (and other mercenary firm) employees have not seen justice.

Another example from this morning's timeline.

Here's another: Indonesia is just one of many countries now being flooded by a tsunami of toxic electronic waste from the United States.

Funny thing about karma...

First off, you speculating on what might have happened - while enlightening as to the depths you're willing to go to invent boogymen - has little to do with reality

What you don't seem to understand is that I speculate with the information that I have access too. I'm not willing to invent boogy-men; I was at some point this past week genuinely worried for my two little kids, although I live on the very opposite part of the planet.

I'm too young to remember much about TMI, however I vividly remember Chernobyl. What I retain from this event is that: first the disaster was shamelessly denied by the Soviets, but we really didn't expect much more from them. The consensus in western Europe at the time was that the USSR was a tyrany with gulags and thought police, pretty much similar to what North Korea is now, and that the guys in power would have dropped babies in the nuclear furnace if it would have advanced their fucked-up ideology.

Secondly the French governement lied openly to the public by pretending that the radioactive cloud stopped at the German border. How nice of this pretty little cloud! So the conclusion, right or wrong, was that the nuclear industry in France, in bed with the governement and the military, was ok to let some kids absorb some amount of radionucleides and get a few additional thyroid cancers, provided it could be hidden and avoid turning the public against nuclear energy.

Then the IAEA issued an official report evaluating the consequences of the disaster to 4000 additional deaths by cancer. This figure was afterwards challenged by the WHO itself it seems(!) as being a "political communication tool". Greenpeace says 60,000 deaths, some russian biologistsays 985,000. Who to believe? Definitely not the IAEA who appears as a corrupt organization in bed with industry interests.

Finally a quick search on google brings back haunting images of a world where "the living envy the dead". Since those consequences were seemingly not even considered by the IAEA, brushed away as collateral casualties to the advance of a certain concept of "progress", it reinforces the feeling of a bunch of people who would saw your kids legs if it would allow them to line their own pockets, just like with the Iraq war (who cares about the Iraqi children? Not Cheney nor Rumsfeld it seems), the BP and countless other oil spills, the incredible pollution in Niger, in China, etc, etc. That's for the background.

None of the six reactors would go "full meltdown" - an event incidentally not even remotely as horrible as you seem to believe it to be. Furthermore, now that we have had visuals on the spent fuel pools we also know that there wasn't a risk of any of them drying out, catching fire or in any other way exploding in a nasty way.

Again what you don't seem to understand is that nobody gives a shit about what the situation ends up to be, same thing with TMI. What people want to know, need to know is very simple: a precise description of a realistic worst case. If there was an incident on your plane and you land safely you don't want the company to tell you "What are you worrying about, you're safely on the ground now aren't you? Move along." You need to know what happened and how close to dying you went.

I've tried several times now to get a clear picture of a reasonable worst-case scenario for Fukushima from several seemingly knowledgeable persons here and elsewhere, and haven't been able to get any answer yet. And in fact nobody seems to have the answer, so ev

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/ken/hell.html

http://allafrica.com/stories/201012300325.html

You're making the assumption that people like greenpeace won't find anything wrong with HVDC. Let's face it : these people think that 1W radiation at 20cm distance can cook your brain.

Greenpeace has already decided they'll hate fusion when it comes out.

Let's not kid ourselves here : HVDC will be hated by the green nutcases, the only question is what stupid excuse they'll have for hating it.

A good point, except that incidence of cancer or birth deformities did not sky-rocket. On any time scale. Your information has come from environmentalists who exaggerate the figures by a factor of ten

You're full of it. Here are some quotes from the World Health Organization (not an environmentalist organization in any way). You can read the original document here.

A large increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer has occurred among people who were young children and adolescents at the time of the accident and lived in the most contaminated areas of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. This was due to the high levels of radioactive iodine released from the Chernobyl reactor in the early days after the accident.

In Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine nearly 5 000 cases of thyroid cancer have now been diagnosed to date among children who were aged up to 18 years at the time of the accident.

It is expected that the increased incidence of thyroid cancer from Chernobyl will continue for many years, although the long-term magnitude of the risk is difficult to quantify.

The Expert Group concluded that there may be up to 4 000 additional cancer deaths among the three highest exposed groups over their lifetime (240 000 liquidators; 116 000 evacuees and the 270 000 residents of the SCZs).

Predictions, generally based on the LNT model, suggest that up to 5000 additional cancer deaths may occur in this population [ Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine] from radiation exposure

The numbers in this report are contested by a Greenpeace study (available here). Greenpeace estimates the number of cancers attributable to the Chernobyl accident to 270000, out of which 93000 fatal.

Even discarding the Greenpeace numbers, your assertion that more than 9000 people die every year on the road outside your window proves you're too ignorant or too deranged to qualify for any normal discussion.

My church discloses the money they take in and where every penny gets spent. It is a large reason of why I attend that particular church. I value transparency.

Many non-profits are transparent with their funds. Since you asked:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/reports/

http://www.amnesty.org/en/who-we-are/accountability/financial-reports

Wikileaks as an organization is not being prosecuted. Assange (who I criticized, not Wikileaks) is being prosecuted for a reason, in Sweden of all places. Sweden is pretty damned famous for being neutral in diplomatic affairs. Sweden is the same country that refuses to extradite Polanski to the US. So please continue your crazy conspiracy notion that the rape charges are due to agents of foreign governments.

Someone has suggested killing Assange as a means to protect national interests. I didn't defend that notion, in fact I argued against it.

The difference between Amnesty International is that they are fairly transparent, and well respected. And Amnesty International (who does also criticize governments and try to expose corruption) has blasted Assange and Wikileaks. Did you know that?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/amnesty-international-hum_n_677048.html

I called Assange a hypocrite because he claims his life's work is about transparency, yet he operates under the guise of total secrecy. Do you want to argue that doesn't make him a hypocrite?

And you're telling me to get a fucking clue? Take two seconds and read up on the shit you want to pretend you know something about.

Right after I posted that question I did a little hunting. I guess Greenpeace (at least) is still very much opposed to nuclear.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/

I guess there really are some politically active groups out there that still don't like it. I really can appreciate that people want even cleaner/safer types of energy production. But from the little I know it sounds like a mature, clean, genuinely workable solution that we already have in hand. It's too bad we seem have a bogeyman complex about it. :(

Ok, maybe that's how you are, but understand, if that truly is how you feel, you are a minority. Most people who claim to be anti-Monsanto just make that claim in an attempt to give themselves an air of legitimacy. Monsanto is not the only GMO producer out there. There's other big companies like BASF & Bayer in Germany, Syngenta in Switzerland, Dow & Dupont also in the US. There's some smaller companies like Aqua Bounty, the guys releasing the GMO salmon (which is naturally being opposed, although there is no logical argument against it), and others like Florigene in Australia, Metahelix in India, Evogene in Israel, Pannar in South Africa. There are GMOs produced by nonprofits and universities and governments, like the HoneySweet plum by the USDA, Rainbow papaya by the University of Hawaii and Cornell, Bt eggplant by Cornell, Bt rice in Iran (don't know who did it there but it should be telling that even the scientist in a country such as Iran know the value here), Biocassava & Golden Rice by other organizations, and plenty of others done by various universities all over the globe.

If you're against Monsanto, ok, fine, but understand, the vast majority of the people who claim to be anti-Monsanto are only anti-Monsanto because they are truly anti-GMO, and also oppose all those I listed too. That is anti-science. Heck, those irrational self righteous willfully ignorant brain dead technophobic science hating luddite assholes at Greenpeace still want you to think that GloFish are dangerous. So, what I'm saying is, it's fine if you just don't like Monsanto, it really is, but that is truly rare. What the vast majority of that movement is about anti-science, of that you can be certain. When they're opposing all GMOs, every last one of them (like the guys who destroyed the GMO grapes in my last post), and have to resort to lying to make a point (even Monsanto's GMOs are safe and effective, contrary to all the fearmongering), there's a big problem.

Their position on nuclear power is similar. Instead of focusing on the biggest problems---coal, diesel, gasoline---they focus on something that will get them the most attention---nuclear power.

http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/news-and-events/media/releases/climate-change/apec-coal-protest

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=181495

http://www.steelguru.com/raw_material_news/Four_Greenpeace_activists_arrested_after_coal_mine_protest/121282.html

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/really_who_needs_a_climate_dep.html#more

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/10/28-2

Their position on nuclear power is similar. Instead of focusing on the biggest problems---coal, diesel, gasoline---they focus on something that will get them the most attention---nuclear power.

http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/news-and-events/media/releases/climate-change/apec-coal-protest

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=181495

http://www.steelguru.com/raw_material_news/Four_Greenpeace_activists_arrested_after_coal_mine_protest/121282.html

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/really_who_needs_a_climate_dep.html#more

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/10/28-2

the coal industry would be dead and buried as a relic of history like whale oil if it weren't for Greenpeace.

Let's ask Greenpeace what they think about the coal industry...

  http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/greenpeace-halts-coal-plant-ba/
  http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/coal/

Looks like they do not like it too...

the coal industry would be dead and buried as a relic of history like whale oil if it weren't for Greenpeace.

Let's ask Greenpeace what they think about the coal industry...

  http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/greenpeace-halts-coal-plant-ba/
  http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/coal/

Looks like they do not like it too...

Some more info with location here-ish: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/oceans/pollution/trash-vortex/

"'Anti-fusion environmentalist organizations' I wonder who that is exactly? Care to name one?"

Well here ya go Einstein: http://www.stop-iter.org/
here's another: http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/nuclear-free/reactors/index.shtml
and oh look, another: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/ITERprojectFrance/

Pro tip: before launching into a wildly hyperbolic rants, maybe do a 2 second search first.

I find that virtually all anti-nuclear organizations (who, to a person, will consider themselves to be environmentalists) will, upon being asked of their opinion, gush forth an endless stream of FUD bullshit about fusion research so ridiculously stupid it would make a cat laugh. Notice how I qualified the word "environmentalist" in the story with the term "anti-nuclear" and never said anywhere that ALL environmentalists are thus inclined. I made this qualification because I CONSIDER MYSELF and environmentalist. By all means though, don't let any of this keep you from your fatuous ramblings about "pigheaded morons" though.

If you then show these people that (a) Zero people died because of Three Mile Island, (b) 46 firefighters died in the Cherynobyl accident, and (c) nobody died in Japan you will be branded a liar and some kind of anti-environmental kook

Well, here's what the World Health Organization says. Some significant quotes, for people who don't want to bother reading:
 
 
A large increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer has occurred among people who were young children and adolescents at the time of the accident and lived in the most contaminated areas of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. This was due to the high levels of radioactive iodine released from the Chernobyl reactor in the early days after the accident.

In Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine nearly 5 000 cases of thyroid cancer have now been diagnosed to date among children who were aged up to 18 years at the time of the accident.

  It is expected that the increased incidence of thyroid cancer from Chernobyl will continue for many years, although the long-term magnitude of the risk is difficult to quantify.

The Expert Group concluded that there may be up to 4 000 additional cancer deaths among the three highest exposed groups over their lifetime (240 000 liquidators; 116 000 evacuees and the 270 000 residents of the SCZs).

Predictions, generally based on the LNT model, suggest that up to 5000 additional cancer deaths may occur in this population [ Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine] from radiation exposure

The numbers in this report are contested by a Greenpeace study (available here). Greenpeace estimates the number of cancers attributable to the Chernobyl accident to 270000, out of which 93000 fatal.

Even ignoring the Greenpeace numbers, if you'll say only 46 people died at Chernobyl, but omit the fact that thousands more have contracted cancer as a direct consequence of the Chernobyl accident and 4000 more are expected to die of it, then you're indeed a liar and a kind of anti-environmentalist kook.

Yes, but the wacko environmentalists do prevent us from getting nuclear, wind, and hydroelectric.

So, we either "stay the course" with oil or we learn how to use an ox and plow.

Personally, I'd rather have a nuclear station in my backyard.

Yes, but the wacko environmentalists do prevent us from getting nuclear, wind, and hydroelectric.

So, we either "stay the course" with oil or we learn how to use an ox and plow.

Personally, I'd rather have a nuclear station in my backyard.

That section of their website is currently down.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/forests/tissueguide

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/secret-airlift-of-nuclear-mate
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/tuwaitha.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/168/37640.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2856647.stm
http://www.mediamonitors.net/gowans36.html

That should get you started. Learn to use a search engine AC.

"I assume you mean fluoridation [wikipedia.org]. Chlorination is what you do to pools, not drinking water."

No I meant that greenpeace wanted a world wide ban on chlorination a process that is used almost everywhere to sanitise drinking water. One of the founders quit over the issue and has been publicly pissing on them ever since.

That does not work out that well since the new high burn-up reactors have a problem with iodine-129 http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/new-nuclear-reactor-s-waste-is and the electricity from new nuclear plants costs over $0.14/kWh http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly So, new nuclear does not look so good.

But that makes no difference since we will never use those. Meanwhile the new EPRs make matter worse. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/new-nuclear-reactor-s-waste-is

Also worth noting is that Chernobyl was quite exceptional in that the accident occurred during a test where staff had intentionally overridden several safety protocols.

Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be so exceptional, even with Western reactors. The Dutch have just admitted recently to accidentally turning off critical systems in the dark in 2001 (English article). Yes, that was a research reactor, not a power reactor, but "it's exceptional" seems to be a very bad thing to rely on for safety.

I did find a claim where EDF promised to build 4 nuclear plants in the UK without any taxpayer money (which sounded like it's unusual)

It's unusual in the UK, who's first generation plants (Magnox) were designed to provide plutonium for the armed forces and who's second generation plants (AGR) were over-engineered to near uselessness and who only got one fourth generation plant (Sizewell B PWR) built due to NIMBY.

and another article where they said they'd never build nuclear plants in the UK unless they'd be subsidized.

Actually EDF didn't ask for subsidies, what they said was:

Mr de Rivaz [EDF UK CEO] suggested that the best way to support the nuclear industry would be to make sure penalties paid by rival fossil fuel power generators under the European Union's emissions trading scheme were kept high enough to make nuclear investment attractive.

[...]

EDF is also concerned that the additional incentives for renewables will lead to so much wind capacity being built that nuclear power stations will have to be shut down at times of high wind power output, jeopardising the economics of new reactors.

They're worried that the carbon credits are being priced too low (as others are, including Greanpeace) and that wind is getting too high a subsidy.

Source http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1369ae48-4972-11de-9e19-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss&nclick_check=1, interestingly mis-interpreted by the Greanpeace article at http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclear-reaction/2009/06/edf_and_nuclear_subsidies_how.html

you are an idiot lol-

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/how-the-companies-line-up

dumb apple zealot living in his own world thats completely different to the reality the rest of us live in

"apple exonerated themselves so it must be true", lol okay then

"apple quality issues exist but not really because some consumer reports say they dont" lmao, double speak much?

just keep on lying to yourself and paying more for your shitty inferior quality products retard

in a modern nuclear plant (pebble-bed designs), when it "goes down" all it does is stop generating power, nothing more

The Soviets masters also used to tout their reactors as "sure to the point of enabling us to build them on the Red Square". When Cherno blasted stuff away they were nowhere to be found, and poor suckers (civilians and liquidators) enjoyed the ride.

Even the modern EPR was also touted as absolutely sure, then experts mandated by the first customer (the Finns) discovered that the classic "sump clogging" problem may cause a major accident, as explained in "Nucleonics Week" (Volume 45, Number 11 - March 11, 2004). It was at least partially fixed, but for one discovered bug how many remain hidden?

As for your pebble thingie don't neglect criticism (page 41). Published by anti-nukers, yep, but please read the authors' pedigrees (page 4).

For informed people anyone claiming that a complex technical thingie (for example a nuclear powerplant or a piece of software) is "fully debugged and sure" is either a naive enthusiast or a liar.

How did this get modded insightful? I'm not a big fan of GreenPeace, but this is simply not true. GreenPeace lists small scale Hydroelectric power as one of the "solutions to the energy problem" http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/solutions/hydroelectric . They're against "large scale hydro electric" which can "destroy ecosystems". A pretty reasonable statement assuming you agree with their stated goal of living sustainably within our environment.

There are groups and individuals that propose anti-consumerist policy primarily, but that is not the case for GreenPeace.

I think you may have missed the sarcasm in my orginal statement.

If you aren't a shareholder it doesn't involve you...

Nothing could be further from the truth. Decisions are made, both for and against particular corporate policies, strategies and business practices, that affect tens of thousands every day. Love Canal, eWaste shipped overseas to China and India, and inferior construction on nuclear reactors in the US come to mind, there are multitudinous others.

... the shareholders don't seem to think it's good for them: the stock is down on the rumor.

All of which means that smart money is afraid of another TW/AOL debacle. Which if it goes forward would still affect all of the subscribers, who are (I would wager) non-shareholders/investors.

Which amply reinforces my points above.

The short version, the users will get hosed.

Yup it's true: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/harp-seal-hunt

I see, so because Greenpeace used the kind of tactics needed to get heard in the modern world just like any other organisation they're not worth listening too? Why wouldn't they be after publicity? Publicity helps further their cause.

It seems dishonest to suggest Greenpeace had no beef with Apple, they did have a beef with Apple: http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/. In fact, Apple still ranks quite badly according to them: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/how-the-companies-line-up hardly a company they "have no beef with" then.

Greenpeaces biggest mistake was probably not realising how bad the worst zealots in the Apple community can be, these are people who would rather spread propaganda and defend Apple than realise that Greenpeace has a point, and that they could still have their iPods and iMacs but have them greener too. Unfortunately this would mean accepting that Apple and it's products aren't the most perfect entities in the universe, something that is beyond the most rabid of Apple fans.

But here's a question, if Greenpeace had singled out Microsoft instead, would we still be seeing these blistering attacks here against Greenpeace? I'm guessing the answer is almost certainly not.

Yes, Greenpeace has some nuts, but so does any large organisation. It's not like other political movements from the British Labour party to the US Democrats and Republicans don't also have more than their fair share of nuts and extremists - I mean, George Bush got into power and Sarah Palin was a VP candidate, it takes some pretty extreme views to think that either of them were a good idea and amongst the talk of Greenpeace dishonesty how many other large organisations aren't also guilty of the exact same thing to make their point from Microsoft to Apple to the Democrats to the Republicans.

That doesn't stop them having a point, just as despite the fact Bush and Palin are probably two of the biggest laughing stocks in politics in the last 50 years, McCain was mostly pretty reasonable and had some good points and good ideas. Most the work they do is done in a relatively mature manner - their work against whaling is fairly tame compared to Sea Sheperd which rams Japanese ships with their boat called the Steve Irwin whilst flying the jolly roger and throwing acid on the deck of the Japanese ships. Greenpeace on the other hand just gets in the way whilst being sprayed with water cannons by the Japanese whalers.

My point is this, I'm not defending fringe nutcases, but I'm pointing out they exist everywhere, and we shouldn't let them detract from more moderate, sensible people and the good work that they do. Suggesting Greenpeace shouldn't exist anymore is really stupid because at the end of the day they do still do a lot of good work. After all, Apple did change their policy in the end:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/tasty-apple-news-020507

Realise that even if Greenpeace went, the fringe nutcases amongst the Greens would still exist regardless, just as with any organisation or political movement. You'd still have them lobbying against nuclear power without understanding it's actually probably our best option for green energy and bad policy being made as a result of that.

The biggest worry if anything should be the fact many people are more interested in shouting down Greenpeace than accepting that there is a lot more we could do to produce more green electronic products. Finally, for those decrying Greenpeace's lack of scientific method, see here, most the points raised in the comments are covered:

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/makingwaves/archives/2007/12/nintendo_ranking_creates_a_sti.html

I see, so because Greenpeace used the kind of tactics needed to get heard in the modern world just like any other organisation they're not worth listening too? Why wouldn't they be after publicity? Publicity helps further their cause.

It seems dishonest to suggest Greenpeace had no beef with Apple, they did have a beef with Apple: http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/. In fact, Apple still ranks quite badly according to them: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/how-the-companies-line-up hardly a company they "have no beef with" then.

Greenpeaces biggest mistake was probably not realising how bad the worst zealots in the Apple community can be, these are people who would rather spread propaganda and defend Apple than realise that Greenpeace has a point, and that they could still have their iPods and iMacs but have them greener too. Unfortunately this would mean accepting that Apple and it's products aren't the most perfect entities in the universe, something that is beyond the most rabid of Apple fans.

But here's a question, if Greenpeace had singled out Microsoft instead, would we still be seeing these blistering attacks here against Greenpeace? I'm guessing the answer is almost certainly not.

Yes, Greenpeace has some nuts, but so does any large organisation. It's not like other political movements from the British Labour party to the US Democrats and Republicans don't also have more than their fair share of nuts and extremists - I mean, George Bush got into power and Sarah Palin was a VP candidate, it takes some pretty extreme views to think that either of them were a good idea and amongst the talk of Greenpeace dishonesty how many other large organisations aren't also guilty of the exact same thing to make their point from Microsoft to Apple to the Democrats to the Republicans.

That doesn't stop them having a point, just as despite the fact Bush and Palin are probably two of the biggest laughing stocks in politics in the last 50 years, McCain was mostly pretty reasonable and had some good points and good ideas. Most the work they do is done in a relatively mature manner - their work against whaling is fairly tame compared to Sea Sheperd which rams Japanese ships with their boat called the Steve Irwin whilst flying the jolly roger and throwing acid on the deck of the Japanese ships. Greenpeace on the other hand just gets in the way whilst being sprayed with water cannons by the Japanese whalers.

My point is this, I'm not defending fringe nutcases, but I'm pointing out they exist everywhere, and we shouldn't let them detract from more moderate, sensible people and the good work that they do. Suggesting Greenpeace shouldn't exist anymore is really stupid because at the end of the day they do still do a lot of good work. After all, Apple did change their policy in the end:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/tasty-apple-news-020507

Realise that even if Greenpeace went, the fringe nutcases amongst the Greens would still exist regardless, just as with any organisation or political movement. You'd still have them lobbying against nuclear power without understanding it's actually probably our best option for green energy and bad policy being made as a result of that.

The biggest worry if anything should be the fact many people are more interested in shouting down Greenpeace than accepting that there is a lot more we could do to produce more green electronic products. Finally, for those decrying Greenpeace's lack of scientific method, see here, most the points raised in the comments are covered:

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/makingwaves/archives/2007/12/nintendo_ranking_creates_a_sti.html

I see, so because Greenpeace used the kind of tactics needed to get heard in the modern world just like any other organisation they're not worth listening too? Why wouldn't they be after publicity? Publicity helps further their cause.

It seems dishonest to suggest Greenpeace had no beef with Apple, they did have a beef with Apple: http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/. In fact, Apple still ranks quite badly according to them: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/how-the-companies-line-up hardly a company they "have no beef with" then.

Greenpeaces biggest mistake was probably not realising how bad the worst zealots in the Apple community can be, these are people who would rather spread propaganda and defend Apple than realise that Greenpeace has a point, and that they could still have their iPods and iMacs but have them greener too. Unfortunately this would mean accepting that Apple and it's products aren't the most perfect entities in the universe, something that is beyond the most rabid of Apple fans.

But here's a question, if Greenpeace had singled out Microsoft instead, would we still be seeing these blistering attacks here against Greenpeace? I'm guessing the answer is almost certainly not.

Yes, Greenpeace has some nuts, but so does any large organisation. It's not like other political movements from the British Labour party to the US Democrats and Republicans don't also have more than their fair share of nuts and extremists - I mean, George Bush got into power and Sarah Palin was a VP candidate, it takes some pretty extreme views to think that either of them were a good idea and amongst the talk of Greenpeace dishonesty how many other large organisations aren't also guilty of the exact same thing to make their point from Microsoft to Apple to the Democrats to the Republicans.

That doesn't stop them having a point, just as despite the fact Bush and Palin are probably two of the biggest laughing stocks in politics in the last 50 years, McCain was mostly pretty reasonable and had some good points and good ideas. Most the work they do is done in a relatively mature manner - their work against whaling is fairly tame compared to Sea Sheperd which rams Japanese ships with their boat called the Steve Irwin whilst flying the jolly roger and throwing acid on the deck of the Japanese ships. Greenpeace on the other hand just gets in the way whilst being sprayed with water cannons by the Japanese whalers.

My point is this, I'm not defending fringe nutcases, but I'm pointing out they exist everywhere, and we shouldn't let them detract from more moderate, sensible people and the good work that they do. Suggesting Greenpeace shouldn't exist anymore is really stupid because at the end of the day they do still do a lot of good work. After all, Apple did change their policy in the end:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/tasty-apple-news-020507

Realise that even if Greenpeace went, the fringe nutcases amongst the Greens would still exist regardless, just as with any organisation or political movement. You'd still have them lobbying against nuclear power without understanding it's actually probably our best option for green energy and bad policy being made as a result of that.

The biggest worry if anything should be the fact many people are more interested in shouting down Greenpeace than accepting that there is a lot more we could do to produce more green electronic products. Finally, for those decrying Greenpeace's lack of scientific method, see here, most the points raised in the comments are covered:

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/makingwaves/archives/2007/12/nintendo_ranking_creates_a_sti.html

I see, so because Greenpeace used the kind of tactics needed to get heard in the modern world just like any other organisation they're not worth listening too? Why wouldn't they be after publicity? Publicity helps further their cause.

It seems dishonest to suggest Greenpeace had no beef with Apple, they did have a beef with Apple: http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/. In fact, Apple still ranks quite badly according to them: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/how-the-companies-line-up hardly a company they "have no beef with" then.

Greenpeaces biggest mistake was probably not realising how bad the worst zealots in the Apple community can be, these are people who would rather spread propaganda and defend Apple than realise that Greenpeace has a point, and that they could still have their iPods and iMacs but have them greener too. Unfortunately this would mean accepting that Apple and it's products aren't the most perfect entities in the universe, something that is beyond the most rabid of Apple fans.

But here's a question, if Greenpeace had singled out Microsoft instead, would we still be seeing these blistering attacks here against Greenpeace? I'm guessing the answer is almost certainly not.

Yes, Greenpeace has some nuts, but so does any large organisation. It's not like other political movements from the British Labour party to the US Democrats and Republicans don't also have more than their fair share of nuts and extremists - I mean, George Bush got into power and Sarah Palin was a VP candidate, it takes some pretty extreme views to think that either of them were a good idea and amongst the talk of Greenpeace dishonesty how many other large organisations aren't also guilty of the exact same thing to make their point from Microsoft to Apple to the Democrats to the Republicans.

That doesn't stop them having a point, just as despite the fact Bush and Palin are probably two of the biggest laughing stocks in politics in the last 50 years, McCain was mostly pretty reasonable and had some good points and good ideas. Most the work they do is done in a relatively mature manner - their work against whaling is fairly tame compared to Sea Sheperd which rams Japanese ships with their boat called the Steve Irwin whilst flying the jolly roger and throwing acid on the deck of the Japanese ships. Greenpeace on the other hand just gets in the way whilst being sprayed with water cannons by the Japanese whalers.

My point is this, I'm not defending fringe nutcases, but I'm pointing out they exist everywhere, and we shouldn't let them detract from more moderate, sensible people and the good work that they do. Suggesting Greenpeace shouldn't exist anymore is really stupid because at the end of the day they do still do a lot of good work. After all, Apple did change their policy in the end:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/tasty-apple-news-020507

Realise that even if Greenpeace went, the fringe nutcases amongst the Greens would still exist regardless, just as with any organisation or political movement. You'd still have them lobbying against nuclear power without understanding it's actually probably our best option for green energy and bad policy being made as a result of that.

The biggest worry if anything should be the fact many people are more interested in shouting down Greenpeace than accepting that there is a lot more we could do to produce more green electronic products. Finally, for those decrying Greenpeace's lack of scientific method, see here, most the points raised in the comments are covered:

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/makingwaves/archives/2007/12/nintendo_ranking_creates_a_sti.html

For one shameful example is this gizmodo article which ranks highly on google. It's Fox News-like way they use the headline of an admission. The arcile is long, and Greenpeace sounds quite reasonable in it. At they very end of the article the gizmodo author bolds a bit of Greenpeace's words as the basis for the "admission" in the title. But it it no such thing. It's a pathetic stretching of context worthy of Fox news. (But perhaps you are a fan of Fox news?)

At any rate, Greenpeace took the time to rebut the criticisms on several official lengthy pages.

The gizmodo article makes reference to another article where an "bromine industry group" dismisses googles claims. This is like the tobacco industry dismissing claims of tabacco's harmful elements. It's like oil companies denying global warming. (But perhaps you deny that too?)

Do you have any other references for this claim? You might want to look into them a little deeper.

For one shameful example is this gizmodo article which ranks highly on google. It's Fox News-like way they use the headline of an admission. The arcile is long, and Greenpeace sounds quite reasonable in it. At they very end of the article the gizmodo author bolds a bit of Greenpeace's words as the basis for the "admission" in the title. But it it no such thing. It's a pathetic stretching of context worthy of Fox news. (But perhaps you are a fan of Fox news?)

At any rate, Greenpeace took the time to rebut the criticisms on several official lengthy pages.

The gizmodo article makes reference to another article where an "bromine industry group" dismisses googles claims. This is like the tobacco industry dismissing claims of tabacco's harmful elements. It's like oil companies denying global warming. (But perhaps you deny that too?)

Do you have any other references for this claim? You might want to look into them a little deeper.

For one shameful example is this gizmodo article which ranks highly on google. It's Fox News-like way they use the headline of an admission. The arcile is long, and Greenpeace sounds quite reasonable in it. At they very end of the article the gizmodo author bolds a bit of Greenpeace's words as the basis for the "admission" in the title. But it it no such thing. It's a pathetic stretching of context worthy of Fox news. (But perhaps you are a fan of Fox news?)

At any rate, Greenpeace took the time to rebut the criticisms on several official lengthy pages.

The gizmodo article makes reference to another article where an "bromine industry group" dismisses googles claims. This is like the tobacco industry dismissing claims of tabacco's harmful elements. It's like oil companies denying global warming. (But perhaps you deny that too?)

Do you have any other references for this claim? You might want to look into them a little deeper.

For one shameful example is this gizmodo article which ranks highly on google. It's Fox News-like way they use the headline of an admission. The arcile is long, and Greenpeace sounds quite reasonable in it. At they very end of the article the gizmodo author bolds a bit of Greenpeace's words as the basis for the "admission" in the title. But it it no such thing. It's a pathetic stretching of context worthy of Fox news. (But perhaps you are a fan of Fox news?)

At any rate, Greenpeace took the time to rebut the criticisms on several official lengthy pages.

The gizmodo article makes reference to another article where an "bromine industry group" dismisses googles claims. This is like the tobacco industry dismissing claims of tabacco's harmful elements. It's like oil companies denying global warming. (But perhaps you deny that too?)

Do you have any other references for this claim? You might want to look into them a little deeper.

ATM - bank(and all employees) knows about it.
WMD - http://archive.greenpeace.org/wmd/
emergency shelters - mountains of MD.

You need to come up with better examples.

Problem is that the bill is 1200 pages long and it was finally published LAST NIGHT . No one knows exactly what is in there. This was written by staffers in closed sessions with no recordings. No one knows who added what. Who honestly thinks that any of the congressmen/women who are debating on this and voting on this at this very minute know what they're getting? They're buying a pig in a poke. And it is probably worse than anyone thinks for our economy, while doing nothing to help the environment. Hell GREENPEACE OPOSSES IT! This is a nasty kickback giving smoke filled backroom produced bill. The only known fact is that Al Gore's company and Nancy Pelosi's companies will make a mint on this legislation.

Cheap, proven, clean, unsubsidied, nuclear energy thank you.

Nuclear power is neither clear nor unsubsidized. The world's largest producer of nuclear power is France, and it dictates nuclear power plant be built and pays for them. SO does China, India, and Russia. The European Pressurized Reactor being built in Finland is "beset by long-running construction problems, schedule and cost overruns, and all-round hilarious ineptitude and controversy." And "is already running three years behind schedule due to a multitude of factors including quality control issues." It is also being built by Areva which is owned and subsidized by the government of France.

There's some uranium in the ground (which is actually poisoning our wells and room air in eastern part of Finland).

And you don't think mining more won't be worse? Fact is is without subsidies nuclear power would not be profitable.

Falcon

Monsanto has applied for a patent on pigs here and here

They are also seeking to enforce these patents on independant farms across the globe.

Don't just take my word for it - a small investment of your time will yield sufficient information to scare the hell out of anyone who can really see where this is going..

The RIAA was just the start - and all they wanted was our money - Monsanto wants nothing less that to dominate the worlds food supply. And our silence will allow them to succeed.

France and Japan actually rely heavily on nuclear energy for their electricity need; and France does already process spent fuel rods.

Its transportation to Japan is a controversial topic -- indeed, a main stumbling block would be on environmental (in case of an accident) and security (in case of a hijacking/terrorist act) grounds.

Oh really? Who told you that?

Well, how about Greenpeace?

As other posters have already mentioned, this is OLD news.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/monsanto-pig-patent-111