Slashdot Mirror

don't listen the CATO institute, they're not very trustworthy.

First, why do you say CATO is not trustworthy? Do you trust Forbes? That article CATO has is from "Forbes", CATO just reprinted it. As this next one is anti-nukes you probably won't accept it either but there goes. Dating from 2005 " True Costs of Nuclear Power -- Half-a-Trillion Dollars Sunk" says electricity from nuclear power plants cost at "least 9.0 cents a kilowatt-hour, far more than other readily available fuels." But the most important assessment of nuclear power's profitability is Wall Street and Wall Street has never funded nuclear without subsidies.

Yucca mountain is no longer a viable storage site if that is what you were talking about. They found a fault ran underneath it that they didn't think did.

Why should they be surprised? Back in the '70s a building was damaged when Yucca Mountain was hit by an earthquake. Then several years ago another earthquake hit near Yucca.

The general impression I get from your post is that you think nuclear power is somehow really dirty.

Nuclear power is dirty, as are all sources of power we could use. even geothermal energy is dirty.

All you need for long term storage is a geological stable site that is isolated from the water table.

And where will sites like this be found?

I was not aware of mines on native lands, most of the best mines are in Canada from my understanding.

Those mines in Canada are on First Nations's land. "Greenpeace joins First Nations and citizens to oppose Sharbot Lake uranium exploration". "A Violation of Algonquin Law".

And it's not just the US and Canada that mines uranium on Native lands. Australia does it as well as other nations.

As for "government funding" it's just government loans that I've heard of no grants

From January 2007, "Analysis of Nuclear Subsidies in Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007 [pdf]". It says "Finally, Sec. 323 of the bill enables projects within different technology categories, including nuclear power, to bid for an additional federal grant of as much as $100 million - or more if approved by the Secretary of Energy."

Now those subsidies are just US ones not Chinese, French, Indian, or Russian.

Falcon

Just ask Mister Splashy Pants.

I have been a left-leaning "greenie" since I was a teenager in the 70's. The older I get the more I'm amazed at how easily people from all sides of politics can disengage their brain and drink their particular brand of ideological kool aid with gusto.

I applaud your willingness to put science before ideological dogma and find myself in total agreement with your "ultra-right-wing capitalist" post.

wind farms require subsidies

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/97/climate/eusub.html

Yes 20yrs ago it was an interesting idea based on the observation that dust from deserts fertilizes the oceans (eg: 40M tons of dust is transported by wind from N. Africa all the way to the Amazon each year, so the Atlantic ocean already recieves a nice dusting in the summer. The results from dumping iron dust have been inconclusive at best, but even if it did work as well as the promoters claim the problem would then be scale and distribution.

The simplest answer given by the overwhelming majority of scientists who have looked at the problem (including Lovelock), is to cut back emmissions from ~10Gt/yr to ~3Gt/yr as fast or faster than we built them up, in otherwords moderate our current uncontrolled experiment in geo-engineering as rapidly as possible. However to some people the idea of emmission controls amounts to social-engineering and an economic acpocalypse, thus we get the political bullshit, half-truths, think tanks, and psuedo-skeptics that have accompanied any discussion of climate over the last couple of decades.

Nuclear fusion reactor project in France: an expensive and senseless nuclear stupidity
"Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy which will never deliver any useful energy," said Jan Vande Putte of Greenpeace International. Instead, they should invest in renewable energy which is abundantly available, not in 2080 but today"

Greenpeace has always struck me as an organization that is more concerned with protesting and grandstanding than doing the dirty work of getting serious, economically viable approaches to environmentalism out there in the spotlight.

Not so! They have a detailed report on how to save the planet. Sample quote:

"renewables: no emissions,
no fuel costs, no problem."

Lol.

and you don't see a looming French nuclear waste disposal problem

maybe, if you don't paiy enough attention:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/nuclear-waste-crisis-france
http://energypriorities.com/entries/2005/03/france_nuke_was.php

additionally, they export some of the waste to other countries (Spain at least).

And burn lots more mercury-spewing coal?

As opposed to using sulfur-spewing gasoline with toxic MTBE? Tough call, but it's a lot easier to clean up a few coal smokestacks than thousands of tailpipes.

(Of course, the long-term electricity solution is a combination of distributed renewables, orbital photovoltaic, "energy amplifier" nuclear reactors based on thorium fuel, and, eventually, fusion.)

And lose all that energy to transmission and conversion inefficiencies?

Less than is lost in the hideously inefficient and dirty operation of an internal combustion engine.

Sadly, gasoline (trailed slightly by diesel) is still the best fuel for powering wheeled vehicles.

Nope. Its only advantage is the existing infrastructure. Plug-in hybrids FTW.

No, it's even worse (depending on your point of view). There won't be an "eco-fascism" phase, because with more than 50% of the world population urbanised, nobody remembers what the environment is supposed to look like.

All of the "exploitable" environment (the Amazon, most other remaining forests, the Arctic, Alaska, and anywhere else you can think of with any kind of economic value) will be razed/drilled/destroyed, which is going to result in further acceleration of habitat and species loss. Because urbanised people can't grow their own food, this is going to exponentially raise the destructive pressure on the environment outside cities to keep everyone fed, and their cars powered, etc.

This is linked to increasing pollution of all kinds (air, water, garbage, etc) and the "environment" as some of us remember it is purely history.

Our grandchildren will inherit something unrecognisable to us (there are already thousands of species and places that existed when you and I were young, that exist no more). Television and Hollywood, with the complicity of the great globalisers, has trained the world into perfect materialists (mini-Americans) who value convenience and profit above all else; for whom greed is the primary motivator; and for whom waste, pollution, injustice - if noticed at all - are merely acceptable side-effects of a selfish way of life. We have failed every human who lived to defend Nature, and every human who will follow who will never know it as we inherited it; and we have failed every other species on the planet. Even the trees.

you missed the point. polystyrene is flammable, but completely lacks the poly-vinyl-chlorine.

chlorine is an important part of many poison gasses, although 'pure' chlorine is more of an irritant combined with vinyl the chlorine gas is Quite toxic, that's the big problem, in some states it's becoming illegal to use PVC piping, because in a fire when people are trapped breathing fumes, the toxic vinyl chloride gas can kill not only trapped victims but can make onlookers and rescuer crews sick, if they survive.

I know the following link is greenpeace, but they had the most comprehensive page about why Poly vinyl chloride (PVC) is so toxic.

remember, this device is being proposed as a replacement for the compressor/gas phase of a fridge, not the outer housing.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/how-to-find-and-avoid-toxic-vi

I think it is a scandal that China ever came to host the Olympics.

I hate Government oppression as anyone but I've got to call you out here. I think the Olympic Committee was hoping that the Chinese government would clean up it's act for it's people as a direct result of planning The Games.

In some respects this is true, there has been great infrastructure and environmental improvements in China recently. In terms of infrastructure, you might like to consult this interesting article, PART 1, PART 2 comparing the difference between credit crunch enlaboured American cities and shining new developments in China.

In terms of environmetal issues, Greenpeace have applauded many of the Chinese Governemnt's efforts. Efforts include a focus on reducing emmisions and river pollution, switching to renewable energy sources such as hydro and geo-thermal, expanding public transportation and air quality improvements. In America, the government is actively trying to prevent any improvements relating to global warming.

In terms of censorship, also recall that employees at the American Environment Protection Authority have been prevented from talking to journalists. How's that for "extreme censorship"? Also, don't forget about warrentless wire tapping and the subsequent bill to protect the government and telcos from any repercussions.

Chinese doping is as organized as in the former East Germany

Remember that testing for doping is overseen by the Olympic Committee, not the Chinese government. You should also be aware that America is involved with doping too and stripped of medals.

Admittedly, the improvements aren't as good as they could have been, but if you ask the average Chinese on the street, I'm sure he's very satisfied with the changes and his governments ability to effect them. I'm not trying to imply that America is worse than China or even close, just that it has it's problems too and they are pretty much the same ones. It's time to get off your high horse and realise that he who is without guilt should cast the first stone. Not you.

A variable for "marketing splash made by issuing bad marks to a given brand" appears to be given about equal weight to "legitimately wasteful or unnecessarily toxic practices", by Greenpeace. They get far more publicity for issuing a ticket to Apple for using 3 wire-inches of the wrong type of plastic in an iPod model than they would ever get for ticketing HP's stupid behemoth wasteful packaging, which has been seen by every corporate customer of HP. (I've seen strikingly similar examples of insanely wasteful packaging from both IBM and Dell, as well as HP).

Please note that I think Greenpeace is doing the world a service by calling attention to those 3 wire-inches of environmentally unsound plastic, but they need to get a little smarter about who, why and how they critique and praise. They are not doing a very good job of translating the attention that they get from issuing a ticket to Apple, into attention on the issue of the toxic compounds in question. There are zillions of tons of this stuff used in all manner of products and manufacturing processes. These compounds get into the water that we drink and the food we eat, and there is mounting evidence that some of them cause cancer and other serious health problems. Mercury and lead are no longer even controversial, decades of research confirms that even low level exposure to lead can cause serious problems, and probably knocked a bunch of IQ points off generations of exposed people. If, say, 1/4 to 1/2 of our population were 5 or 10 IQ points smarter, how much better off would the world be today? Yet we continue to allow tons of mercury to go up the stacks of coal fired power plants, and smaller amounts to be dumped in lakes and rivers as a result of manufacturing processes. Lead paint shows up on imported children's toys because the west has been willing to circumvent its own environmental policies by exporting the manufacturing to developing nations with un-enforced or non-existent environmental safeguards.

How does this Greenpeace video and press release help educate people and motivate people about these issues? Missed call: the iPhone's hazardous chemicals. Well, it really doesn't. It just gets a bunch of headlines to the effect of "Greenpeace iPhone Smackdown". Greenpeace has figured out that they can get a lot of attention by poking at Apple now and then, but they haven't figured out how to turn that to advantage. They mention a few chemicals here, including phthalates, but they don't mention that these compounds are used in FOOD Containers, which is a much more likely source of exposure to the compound (most people do not eat their iPhones) and that it has been linked to obesity and diabetes ( Obesity In Men Linked To Common Chemical Found In Plastic And Soap )and might be a serious contributor to a global health crisis. Greenpeace could be turning these waves of press attention into a serious national discussion of phthalates, additional research on the topic, and removal of these compounds from food containers, which would be a rational application of the precautionary principle. Instead, they are squandering the opportunity for a few headlines and links to their web site.

About one quarter of the world doesn't have electricity. (1.6 B according to IEA, 2 B according to Greenpeace).

Nuclear power has something in common with oil and coal, it requires ridged centralized control. That control being supplied by greedy capitalists. Oil and nuclear power are like closed source code, renewable energy like wind, solar, wave and geothermal are like open source code. Which one do you think the greedy capitalists (have been) are going to back?

On the face of it nuclear power looks like a good solution, but reactors have proven to be leaky, are fabulous targets for terrorists and there is no workable, i.e safe and inexpensive, plan for the transportation and long term storage of nuclear waste. Factor in the cost and safety hazards of dealing with nuclear waste should reduce nuclear power to another option and not a hands down favorite.

What isn't getting much notice is the fact that this story is just really good news: it turns out that plastic bags biodegrade through bacterial action just like wood or paper. Where are the cheers?

Wood and paper don't liquify overnight due to unstoppable bacteria - we make plenty of packaging out of paper and even build quite sturdy structures out of wood. But they break down eventually. It all works out quite well for everyone - us, bacteria, and the environment. Well, as it turns out, so do plastic bags. Considering most people think plastic bags are going to last hundreds of thousands of years, they are viewed as much more evil litter than paper bags. Turns out this view is misguided. Isn't that cause for celebration?

Hopefully, it will turn out that styrofoam, PET, PE, PVC and all the hundreds of other plastics and petrochemicals biodegrade too. This is not to say that plastic litter s not a problem. It is better for farm animals and sea turtles to eat paper bags by accident than plastic ones. But still, the idea that the giant Pacific garbage vortex won't be there forever is comforting news.

I'll throw in a link to the actual study this article is based on:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/playing-dirty

Contrary to what many commenters would have you believe, Greenpeace actually took apart these consoles and had the components analysed for hazardous chemicals in a university laboratory.

because someone criticizes their toys. And mildly

Greenpeace have a point, none of you address it. If you bothered to read the Greenpeace website, or the link to the original article (the link is suspiciously missing even in the blog article referenced.)

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/game-consoles-no-consolation200508

Why won't Nintendo publish their disposal policy? Who knows. I think it reasonable they should. I'd like to see it.

The one fact - power consumption - has been done to death. The lower power consumption still doesn't avoid the fact that the wii is made of something very, very poisonous.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/greener-electronics-ranking-6-291107

"Our guide focuses on toxic chemicals and takeback policy because of the rapid growth in quantities of toxic e-waste being dumped in developing countries like China and India. While Nintendo's Wii console appears to be more energy efficient compared to the Microsoft Xbox and Sony Playstation, energy use is not yet covered in the ranking."

Very suspicious that not mentioning the power consumption because they don't include it in the ranking - yet. Wearing all that tin-foil must have leached into your brains guys.

And they had the temerity to criticize the saintly Apple. Get a grip. Most of you sound as bad as a bunch of creationist fundamentalists.

In before a bunch of nutjobs who can't see past the end of their hummer. It's no wonder the US has such a shite environmental record. Actually, the level of anti-Greenpeace vitriol on this topic has made me re-consider Greenpeace. I may well contribute to them in the future.

because someone criticizes their toys. And mildly

Greenpeace have a point, none of you address it. If you bothered to read the Greenpeace website, or the link to the original article (the link is suspiciously missing even in the blog article referenced.)

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/game-consoles-no-consolation200508

Why won't Nintendo publish their disposal policy? Who knows. I think it reasonable they should. I'd like to see it.

The one fact - power consumption - has been done to death. The lower power consumption still doesn't avoid the fact that the wii is made of something very, very poisonous.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/greener-electronics-ranking-6-291107

"Our guide focuses on toxic chemicals and takeback policy because of the rapid growth in quantities of toxic e-waste being dumped in developing countries like China and India. While Nintendo's Wii console appears to be more energy efficient compared to the Microsoft Xbox and Sony Playstation, energy use is not yet covered in the ranking."

Very suspicious that not mentioning the power consumption because they don't include it in the ranking - yet. Wearing all that tin-foil must have leached into your brains guys.

And they had the temerity to criticize the saintly Apple. Get a grip. Most of you sound as bad as a bunch of creationist fundamentalists.

In before a bunch of nutjobs who can't see past the end of their hummer. It's no wonder the US has such a shite environmental record. Actually, the level of anti-Greenpeace vitriol on this topic has made me re-consider Greenpeace. I may well contribute to them in the future.

Greenpeace differentiates between large scale hydro and small scale hydro.

Greenpeace is for wind power

Greenpeace advocates use of photovoltaics. I'm sure there's a better document somewhere, but I'm not a greenpeace member and I don't work for them, so I'm not used to their web sites.

I believe most environmentalists are against nuclear power for reasons like not knowing what to do with the nuclear waste. Some have decided that global warming is a bigger problem, others haven't.

There are also environmentalists like Amory Lovins that advocate working with companies to make them more efficient.

I know there are uninformed people on all sides of all issues. Using labels like eco-terrorist for legitimate disagreements is wrong and just polarizes the debate.

Greenpeace differentiates between large scale hydro and small scale hydro.

Greenpeace is for wind power

Greenpeace advocates use of photovoltaics. I'm sure there's a better document somewhere, but I'm not a greenpeace member and I don't work for them, so I'm not used to their web sites.

I believe most environmentalists are against nuclear power for reasons like not knowing what to do with the nuclear waste. Some have decided that global warming is a bigger problem, others haven't.

There are also environmentalists like Amory Lovins that advocate working with companies to make them more efficient.

I know there are uninformed people on all sides of all issues. Using labels like eco-terrorist for legitimate disagreements is wrong and just polarizes the debate.

For example, plastic bags are a relatively minor problem compared to other plastic debris, since they tend to sink to the seafloor.

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

Nintendo mainly scores bad because of their use of PVC and BFR if I read the rapport right, and the lack of a disposal policy.

Seems to me that the nuclear industry has been its own biggest problem through inattention to safety. The reason greenpeace has better ideas is because they've been working on the problem longer. This is because they did not buy into the stuff that the fossil fuel industry was dishing out and so know global warming was a real problem. Greenpeace has taken the time to study the alternatives. For example, this 1999 report: http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/renewables/reports/kpmg8.pdf shows exactly what is happening with solar power now as it heads below $1/watt, cheaper than coal. Once you've taken the time to study the subject, you'll come to agree with them.

Argh! Stupid mistake. The links are:

Tom Mabe
greepeace
DNC
SASE

Apologies.

Greenpeace in Washington,DC needs a Linux System Admin...a job where you can intermingle dressing up as a polar bear or locking yourself to or hanging from a building with configuring a SAN and setting up a web server. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/about/jobs/system-administrator-2 It doesn't pay as well as IBM, but they won't encourage you to dress up as a whale and ride a Segway around town. The perfect career move for the burned-out corporate IT guy or gal.

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/97/climate/eusub.html

hear hear, if you need to cool your beer to be able to stand the taste then you've got some problems.

That said, cider is the proper USA drink. Cold lager is more of a Bavarian tipple where the ingredients are specified in law by the Reinheitsgebot. No glycerine in German lager, or experimental genetically modified rice.

Here's the book; http://www.amazon.com/Secret-That-Exploded-Howard-Morland/dp/0394512979
and a background artcile by Howard on his deductions and something of the legal case http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/cardozo.html

oh yeah - even Greenpeace seem to have pretty pictures - wouldn't trust those guys to assemble one though http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/fig05.gif

peter xyz

Greenpeace was upset at Apple a while ago because of all the packaging they used for their products. Perhaps this was no simple mistake but an attack on Apple by the environmentalists. Start your conspiracy theories now! Bonus points if it involves Freemasons or inheriting money from the deposed king of Nigeria!

Since you asked... did you know that Greenpeace opposes fusion research? In their own words:

Fusion energy - if it would ever operate - would create a serious waste problem, would emit large amounts of radioactive material and could be used to produce materials for nuclear weapons. A whole new set of nuclear risks would thus be created.

FACT: Fluorescent bulbs lead to poorer health in humans because of a lack of vitamin D production. In addition to hurting humans, this also makes them wholly unacceptable for use in animal cages because many animals (particularly reptiles) really need this....

FACT: Fluorescent bulbs contain toxic chemicals that are far worse for the environment than all the belching coal smoke from power generation.

FACT: The people who are really pushing CFLs are not the environmentalists (except a few sheep). The people who are really pushing it are the power companies because after years of mismanaging the power grids and failing to upgrade them to accommodate growing energy needs, they have run themselves into a brick wall.

There are lots of organisations that accept donations and will give you a diploma or something in return. Greenpeace for exampe, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/supportus

Who are these anti-nuclear hippies, anyway? I've never met one.

followed by:
They're right here.


Mod parent up!

They're right here. Save Mr. Splashy Pants!

My problem with Greenpeace is very simple and has absolutely nothing to do with the spotted owl or throwing paint on fur coats; my problem with Greenpeace centers around the propaganda campaigns that they've waged against Nuclear Energy. According to Greenpeace's website, they "will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants."The Ignorance is Bliss Dept.

First, the original article should link to the original Greenpeace report.

Second, Greenpeace does provide suggestions, just not offered as part of the report. You can find links to their reports by starting here. This one (PDF warning!) provides suggestions for ways to reduce environmental impact in electronics. Personally, I don't see why it's Greenpeace's responsibility to dictate to a company how to make their product. Nor do I think that company wants Greenpeace to interfere in their design.

If there's misinformation in the report, that's something that should be addressed. But do we really need more policy makers interfering in the technology industries? I think we have enough of that already.

First, the original article should link to the original Greenpeace report.

Second, Greenpeace does provide suggestions, just not offered as part of the report. You can find links to their reports by starting here. This one (PDF warning!) provides suggestions for ways to reduce environmental impact in electronics. Personally, I don't see why it's Greenpeace's responsibility to dictate to a company how to make their product. Nor do I think that company wants Greenpeace to interfere in their design.

If there's misinformation in the report, that's something that should be addressed. But do we really need more policy makers interfering in the technology industries? I think we have enough of that already.

First, the original article should link to the original Greenpeace report.

Second, Greenpeace does provide suggestions, just not offered as part of the report. You can find links to their reports by starting here. This one (PDF warning!) provides suggestions for ways to reduce environmental impact in electronics. Personally, I don't see why it's Greenpeace's responsibility to dictate to a company how to make their product. Nor do I think that company wants Greenpeace to interfere in their design.

If there's misinformation in the report, that's something that should be addressed. But do we really need more policy makers interfering in the technology industries? I think we have enough of that already.

You can not excel in all fields. They already do in pollution:
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/greener-electronics-microsoft.pdf

The French? I think you mean the Americans. Unfortunately, American nuclear technology doesn't actually get used here -- the public has been told that they its bad for the environment.

Yes, the Chernobyl reactor was unsafe. The point, however, is that ALL nuclear fission reactors can release large amounts of radioactive isotopes if some sequence of 'bad stuff' happens due to operator error, equipment failure, design problems, terrorist attack, natural disasters, etc. You can say 'not likely' but that's not the same as 'impossible.' Once a release occurs, the consequences are significant. Large areas of land can be rendered uninhabitable for hundreds of years or longer.

As for nuclear waste: it seems a lot easier than coal waste. Coal waste is simply discharged into the atmosphere and can't be got back. Nuclear waste at least can easily be contained in a very, very small area instead of affecting the entire planet's atmosphere.

You are wrong on so many levels here. Technology exists and has been used to scrub coal plant air emissions but the use of it is an economic decision rather than a technical one. If the plant is not required to purchase air scrubbing equipment, why would they do so? With nuclear fission waste, the problem is that there is no technology in existence to safely contain and store the waste for the requisite thousands of years. And no, the waste is not in a 'very, very small area'. Typically, the waste is placed in the sturdiest containers that we can build and then placed in areas where it is hoped that nothing will disturb them and the waste is shielded from humans with dirt and distance. Nuclear wastes have affected the entire planet's atmosphere MANY times from such things as weapons testing, commercial nuclear power plant failure (Ukraine, Japan, US), nuclear weapons manufacturing, waste migration from waste reprocessing (liquid wastes, dust), waste migration from weapons manufacture and testing, nuclear-fuelled spacecraft reentry, and waste storage containment failure.

Ok, times have changed and nuclear power is now the best viable option. So why is greenpeace still rabidly against it?
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/footer/search?q=nuclear

This makes me so angry, because in almost all other matters, I support greenpeace. Why are they so ignorant on nuclear power??

But we shouldn't even consider building any until we have a *completed* (very) long-term storage/disposal solution for nuclear waste. Deferring it to the next generation is not OK.

In contrast, According to Greenpeace, a 1000 MW nuclear plant generates 27 tons of highly radioactive waste and less than 1000 tons of total radioactive waste. (Realistic amounts are probably lower, but I'll use Greenpeace as an upper bound). The total amount of spent nuclear fuel generated by all nuclear power in the U.S. since 1951-2003 is about 49,000 tons. At a density of about 8-10 tons per cubic meter, this represents a cube about 18 meters on a side, about the volume of two olympic-sized swimming pools.

So what do we do? Continue dumping billions of tons of pollutants, and thousands of tons of uranium and thorium into the atmosphere killing an estimated 24,000 each year? Because we aren't sure it's safer to switch to a power source which has had zero fatalities in 50+ years, and we aren't yet sure what to do with the two swimming pools of waste it's generated in that time?

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/iphone-s-hazardous-chemicals "...an independent scientific laboratory tested 18 internal and external components of the iPhone and confirmed the presence of brominated compounds in half the samples, including in the phone's antenna, in which they made up 10 percent of the total weight of the flexible circuit board. A mixture of toxic phthalates was found to make up 1.5 percent of the plastic (PVC) coating of the headphone cables..."

I don't think that the environmental impact of me flushing my toilet is quite as great as the production of an iphone. TFA refers to a Greenpeace article in which certain hazardous substances, which other cellphone manufacturers have stopped using, were found in the iPhone. My latest turd, on the other hand, is comprised entirely of recycled Twizzlers, which contain none of these hazardous substances. The 1.6 gallons of water used by the toilet ends up getting re-used to irrigate a nearby park.

There are a number of studies which find that Roundup is both persistent in the environment and toxic to humans. The EPA calls it "extremely persistent under typical application conditions" and epidemiological studies have linked it to miscarriages, premature birth, and lymphoma. A number of these studies are summarized in a Journal of Pesticide Reform article reprinted here. I'd prefer to see us grow crops less densely on more land using fewer poisons, and stop exporting so much subsidized food that we're destroying the third world's ability to feed itself through local agriculture.

I agree that next-generation nuclear electricity generation could be much cleaner than using fossil fuels. As long as we're getting all the electricity we can from renewable resources like solar and wind, there's no reason to let nuclear's past keep us from giving it a shot in the future. Greenpeace are being fuddy-duddies on this issue and should open their minds to the possibility that the right kind of nuclear power can be better than the oil power it could replace.