Slashdot Mirror

There is an article in The Observer about some scenarios considered by Pentagon. One (?) of the scenarios deals with some dramatic changes in very short time scala:

            http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story /0,6903,1153513,00.html

See also greenpeace report:

            http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/world -bank-pentagon-warn-cli

Okay, so coal mining is 45 a year...

Then we've got deaths from the pollution - 563 annually in Pittsburgh alone. Sound like a lot? Compare it to 22000 annually in the US, plus many more in the rest of the world.
(if you don't like my sources, get your own

Then on top of that, we've got the deaths from simply working in the dangerous environment that is a coal plant.

As some random person wrote for their high school paper, Nuclear Power: Safer than Peanut Butter! (yes, they do back that up!).

You're looking for this: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/repo rts/windforce-12-2005. The source might have their own agenda, but the science and technology reported is sound, and they provide links to further reading. Otherwise, try EWEA (ewea.org) or AWEA (awea.org).

The idea that nuclear waste might need to be protected "for thousands of years" has driven a lot of the debate. This is unfortunate, since it doesn't turn out to be particularly true.

One of the fundamental laws of radioactivity is that elements that are highly radioactive lose their radioactivity quickly, and elements whose radioactivity lingers a long time don't emit much radiation. The danger, of course, is those things that are in the middle along both axes. But as a point of comparison, it turns out that there is essentially no radiation left from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

It is true that the concentrated fission products and neutron-activated junk from current fission reactors would still be pretty hot after 20 years, but I suspect they'd be way less dangerous to climb around in than a 20-year-old dioxin spill. I think the evidence suggests that dumping the stuff deep-ocean in 50-year barrels would be a perfectly reasonable disposal method; it would be hard to convince the general public of that, though. Kind of sad, really—in many ways, nuclear power is our safest and most environmentally friendly energy alternative.

Here you go

Yeah, they sure a bunch of losers. Not contributing a damn thing to society, just uselessly wanking about how much their dog ate and why their friends from high school don't write. Serious people only get their news and information, from trusted, reliable sources.

Seriously, what the hell is it about blogging that inspires such hatred in some people's hearts? Too many of you guys got ex-girlfriends with Livejournal accounts?

As long as your reprocessing doesn't threaten to spill into the Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean because you insist on sailing through those waters during hurricane season. http://archive.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/nuctra ns/1998jan28.html

Yes it did interfere. But compared to the historical abuse that has been done by many EU nations like France and Belgium in Africa not to mention the old Soviet Union and China's aggressiveness. And lets not forget the French sinking a Greenpeace ship http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/rw/pkbomb.html
And that happened in a country "New Zealand" that has historically been a friend of France!
No one said the US was perfect. Just the most benign super power in the history of the planet.

Sure, you can argue that there's less of a lower-class, but as far as I can tell, computers are still both produced by wage slaves, in developing countries, brought to the West for our use, and then and disposed in the same developing countries.

Officially-sanction breaches of another country's sovereignty have often been considered as acts of war. Having a domestic law that "authorizes" it only means that they can't be extradited if they manage to pull it off.

Look at the dustup between France and New Zealand http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/rw/pkbomb.html

As it emerged that the bombing was a deliberate act of sabotage, there was little doubt in Greenpeace minds who was responsible. Two days after the bombing the French Embassy in Wellington issued a statement echoing the flat denials emanating from Paris. 'In no way is France involved,' it declared. 'The French Government doesn't deal with its opponents in such ways.' But within a few days police had arrested French secret service agents Alain Mafart and Dominique Prieur as they tried to return their van to an Auckland hire company. While they were held in custody, the charter yacht Ouvea, carrying another team of agents implicated in the bombing, sailed to Norfolk Island and then disappeared a few days out to sea heading north for Tahiti. Her crew was reportedly picked up by the French nuclear submarine Rubis, which turned up in Tahiti on July 22 - the first time a French nuclear submarine had been known to enter the South Pacific.

The international outcry pressured the French Government into setting up its own inquiry. After less than three weeks the head of the inquiry, Bernard Tricot, a former Director-General of the Elysee Palace, announced, 'On the basis of the information available to me at this time, I do not believe there was any French responsibility.' The French agents caught in New Zealand were merely there to spy on Greenpeace, Tricot implied, not to bomb them.

Hostility towards the French Government grew after President Mitterrand threatened that any protesters at Moruroa that year would be arrested, and refused to meet with Greenpeace International director, David McTaggart. Rather than cool the growing international controversy, the transparently inadequate Tricot report served only to fuel the fires of indignation and further undermine the French Government's credibility, so that a second inquiry was ordered on 5 September, but it was already too late.

Following claims in the London Sunday Times that President Mitterrand had known of the bombing plan, and implicitly, therefore had authorised it, French Defence Minister Charles Hernu resigned and Admiral Pierre Lacoste, director of the DGSE, France's intelligence and covert action bureau, was sacked. Within days Prime Minister Fabius admitted French secret service agents had bombed the Rainbow Warrior under orders. It was, said New Zealand Prime Minister David Lange, nothing more than 'a sordid act of international state-backed terrorism'.

Charged with murder and arson, on 4 November Mafart and Prieur, just two of a much larger team of saboteurs, pleaded guilty in the High Court at Auckland to lesser charges of manslaughter and wilful damage and were each sentenced to ten years' jail. Their guilty plea ensured that the facts of the police investigation would never be made public. In June 1986, in a political deal presided over by the United Nations Secretary-General, Javier Perez de Cuellar, France agreed to pay compensation of NZ$13 million (US$6.5 million) to New Zealand and 'apologise', in return for which Mafart and Prieur would be detained at the French military base on Hao atoll for three years.

To cap it all, the two spies were both free by May 1988, after less than two years had elapsed, Mafart having been smuggled out

Remember, if you officially sanction kidnapping people form other countries, don't be surprised if the other countries retaliate. Of course

Talk about hyperbole! Jeez glass houses an' all that. I find it funny and sad that responses to my post automatically assume that I must be some Rush Limbaugh loving anti-environmentalism dittohead jackass because I posted from a skeptical viewpoint and attacked illogical/fuzzyheaded magical thinking. Hint, I voted for Kerry (albiet grudgingly since I am more libertarian than democrat). I am fully for the reasoned and rational conservation and management of the environment so long as it is dictated very strictly by scientific knowledge and inquiry. What irritates me is when some unscientific Mother Gaia worshipping dolt goes on about how any technological progress beyond what we already have now is bad and wrong!
As a skeptic and a liberal I think it is sad that justified attacks on irrationality and anti-science nonsense are immediately seen as being synonymous with "an attack on the left". I hope it is not the case that "the left" has become so inextricably associated with the emptyheaded irrational brand of environmentalism that this is how it is seen by all other political groups, though judging from posts here, I fear this may indeed be the case. :(

You may laugh now about the idea of open-source food, but wait until all the world's food supply is patented.

Critical thinking. Hmm...

My critical thinking considers this an invitation to take non-violent direct action against you, because you are a twit.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/block ingcoalport111

I will be occupying your house shortly, and letting the air out of the tires of your car. Don't bother calling the police, because I'll just come back. After all, this type of action has your seal of approval.

I particularly like the quote from your reference: "Nuclear fusion has all the problems of nuclear power, including producing nuclear waste" Oh no HELIUM!!!.

The press release has me seriously confused. Greenpeace claims in their response that nuclear fusion shares all the problems of fission, including producing nuclear waste. Until now, every discussion of fusion power that I have seen has suggested fusing hydrogen: just exactly how is this process going to produce the kind of elements that produce radioactivity and have half lives in the hundreds of years? I would have thought that producing wastes with atomic weights larger that helium would be absurdly difficult and far more trouble than it was worth.

Unfortunately, Greenpeace's position on this one shows ignorance.

Now, would it be good if the 4.5 billion euros were used for some other purpose, say saving starving children, or building wind generators? Quite possibly. Will the sponsors of this project give 4.5 billion euros to starving children in Africa? I'll leave that for you to answer.

People are greedy for (electric) power. Until we have a fundamental culture shift, or the population growth levels off (projection: 70 years), world power consumption WILL grow, period. I'm not even including the fact that power consumption per-capita is going to go up.

So, in answer to greenpeace, yes, I wish that humans had their priorities straight, too, and yes, this power plant will not make an immediate dent at a measley rate of 500MW (France alone consumes 500 billion kWh. Wind farms would give us a more immediate bonus. I would like to see more windfarms, too, but in the long run, I think that fusion will give us a better energy output per square kilometer used. We need to do it eventually, and I'd rather we start now. Hopefully some political genius could use the existance of fusion power to get countries to lower their stockpiles of nukes (fission-based). Well, I can dream, anyway.

the greenpeace press release on the fusion plant in question is here. i didn't see your quote in it anywhere.

Maybe you should find a press release that is more recent than one from 2003.

i would further suggest that, if you are actually intetested in following greenpeace's position on this and similar matters...

I'm not really interested in the slightest. While I share Greenpeace's commitment to saving the environment and to achieving nuclear disarmament and world peace, I think their fear of nuclear fusion power is ludicrous and unfounded. To be honest, their opposition to it has made me write off their opinion on it almost completely.

They do have a really good point about what we could achieve if we put that money to other uses right now. However, if fusion is to be achieved, serious money must be committed to it. They just don't want the technology to even exist, and I do not respect them for it.

care to source that "real quote"?

the greenpeace press release on the fusion plant in question is here. i didn't see your quote in it anywhere.

i would further suggest that, if you are actually intetested in following greenpeace's position on this and similar matters, that you monitor to report and publication section of greenpeace eu. it's here.

The US is not "flooding the world" with food anymore. As of this year, we are now a net food *importer*. What we are flooding the world with is "IP" laws and patents of dubious nature, from software and movies to GM seeds, because we just don't produce as much tangibles as we used to. Brazil in particular is poised to overtake us in raw ag production. The ag subsidies in the US are a scam, primarily go to the same big corporate farmers who are more or less sharecroppers for the banks and the big agcos. Joe family farmer gets about squat, the average age is over 60 for them, and there really isn't much money in it anymore, and the death tax-"estate" taxes- keeps breaking up the farms.

Small nation/third world ag is in trouble because they are trying to use ag products as a hard currency revenue generator, at the expense of national sustainability. And the big agco transnational (based in the US but not loyal) boys keep bribing off those various governments to get them hooked on expensive patented seeds. Some nations are resisting, most are falling for it though.

I'm in ag myself, keep up on this stuff more or less.

And the patent office does not require any proof. They accept any patent request, if not too obvious a double, and only when an infringement is made, the party accused of infringement has to proof the patent is false.
This is how a joker (aka 'lawyer') managed to get a patent on the invention "wheel".

This is how farmacautical companies try to patent ancient medicines made from the neem tree. Greenpeace blocked another attempt to steal a crop.

France does a good job? http://archive.greenpeace.org/majordomo/index-pres s-releases/1997/msg00350.html

Have a look here:-
http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/chernob/ rep02.html

This is a greenpeace site so there is a bias (see comments above ad nauseam) and I have no idea how bad the 'incidents' are.

In case you're having difficulty making the distinction any more, the Greenpeace website is over here.

These "weird fish" are brought up in enormous amounts every day by the world's deep-sea bottom trawling fleet, mostly from France, Spain and Russia. I was part of a Greenpeace expedition last fall in the North Sea, and I saw them throw away as bycatch tons of fish, with eyes popping out from the change in pressure, including some shown in the Snopes website. Scientists know next to nothing about the deep seas, but the fishing industry is right now destroying some of the last pristine environments left on Earth.

If we are to eliminate energy subsidies, let's start with petroleum. We are shooting at and killing people to get it. Hardly what you would call voluntary for them. I prefer mandatory solar over going to war to keep Exxon in the black. Once we experience the real unsubsidized price, alternatives look pretty good. Oil has always operated under a protected enviroment. With the available alternatives, it needs this protection to stay in business.

It will succeed or fail on it's own merits in a free an open market.

Only the contraband market operates freely and openly. Everything else is regulated and/or subsidized(tax breaks are a form of subsidy), oil, dairy, tobacco...

1980 to 1984: The work crew of the MIC unit was halved from 12 to six workers, the maintenance crew from six to two workers. On December 26, 1981 a plant operator was killed by a phosgene gas leak. Another phosgene leak in January 1982 severely injured 28 workers and in October the same year MIC escaped from a broken valve and four workers were exposed to the chemical. The senior officials of the Union Carbide, privy to a "business confidential" safety audit in May 1982, were well aware of 61 hazards, 30 of them major and 11 in the dangerous phosgene/MIC units. Remedial measures were then taken at Union Carbide's identical MIC plant in West Virginia, USA, but not in Bhopal.

December 2-3, 1984: Poisonous gas leak from Union Carbides pesticides factory. In three days around 8,000 people die. On the night of the disaster, water (that was being used for washing the lines) entered the tank containing MIC through leaking valves. The refrigeration unit, which should have kept the MIC close to zero degrees centigrade, had been shut off by the company officials to save on electricity bills. The entrance of water in the tank, full of MIC at ambient temperature triggered off an exothermic runaway reaction an consequently the release of the lethal gas mixture. The safety systems, which in any case were not designed for such a runaway situation, were non-functioning and under repair. Lest the neighbourhood community be "unduly alarmed", the siren in the factory had been switched off. Poison clouds from the Union Carbide factory enveloped an arc of over 20 square kilometres before the residents could run away from its deadly hold.

Bhopal timeline

A William Stavropoulos 'Wanted' poster

My Bhopal site has over 200 links if you want more info. Link is in the sig...

• Three Timelines

• Bhopal Timeline From Greenpeace, ends with 2003 actions.

• Union Carbide Actions Short timeline of the immediate aftermath.

• Bhopal: Incident Review Union Carbide Dow Chemical site.

My Bhopal site has over 200 links if you want more info. Link is in the sig...

1980 to 1984: The work crew of the MIC unit was halved from 12 to six workers, the maintenance crew from six to two workers. On December 26, 1981 a plant operator was killed by a phosgene gas leak. Another phosgene leak in January 1982 severely injured 28 workers and in October the same year MIC escaped from a broken valve and four workers were exposed to the chemical. The senior officials of the Union Carbide, privy to a "business confidential" safety audit in May 1982, were well aware of 61 hazards, 30 of them major and 11 in the dangerous phosgene/MIC units. Remedial measures were then taken at Union Carbide's identical MIC plant in West Virginia, USA, but not in Bhopal.

December 2-3, 1984: Poisonous gas leak from Union Carbides pesticides factory. In three days around 8,000 people die. On the night of the disaster, water (that was being used for washing the lines) entered the tank containing MIC through leaking valves. The refrigeration unit, which should have kept the MIC close to zero degrees centigrade, had been shut off by the company officials to save on electricity bills. The entrance of water in the tank, full of MIC at ambient temperature triggered off an exothermic runaway reaction an consequently the release of the lethal gas mixture. The safety systems, which in any case were not designed for such a runaway situation, were non-functioning and under repair. Lest the neighbourhood community be "unduly alarmed", the siren in the factory had been switched off. Poison clouds from the Union Carbide factory enveloped an arc of over 20 square kilometres before the residents could run away from its deadly hold.

Bhopal timeline

A William Stavropoulos 'Wanted' poster

My Bhopal site has over 200 links if you want more info. Link is in the sig...

• Here's a list of technical I put together on Bhopal at my site, listed in my sig. These are very deadly chemicals with effects that linger on and on and on and on...you know Union Carbide became the EverReady before Dow bought them...

  New Exportation of Risk: The Case of Bhopal

• New Bhopal Papers V. Ramana Dhara at Emory University is a nice cource of technical papers including health effects, epidemiology, toxicology and respiratory effects.

• New Chemical Accidents, CHEMICAL SAFETY & SECURITY Environmental Health Watch. A comprehensive page of articles on chemical safety, security and implications since the Bhopal tragedy.

• Toxicological Profiles for Key Pollutants in Bhopal

• The Disaster and Its aftermath: The Hiroshima of the Chemical Industry "Indeed those who died may have been the lucky ones......" Ward Morehouse.

• A child is born... Site not recommended for children.

• Growth Patterns Journal of the American Medical Association (pdf format)

• The $195 Million Discrepancy - Where's The Money Gone?

• Bhopal gas tragedy lives on, 20 years later

• Personal Exposure and Long-Term Health Effects in Survivors of the Union Carbide Disaster at Bhopal

• Lessons Learned? Chemical Plant Safety Since Bhopal

• Chemical Process Safety at a Crossroads

Friday Dec.3rd marks the 20th anniversary of the tragedy in Bhopal, India. Unfortunately, the Bhopal disaster has never ended. It remains one of the greatest humanitarian catastrophes of the century.

More than half a million people were exposed to the deadly MIC gases on the night of the accident, 120,000 so badly that they've been left with permanent and debilitating health effects. Blindness, extreme difficulty in breathing, and cancer are common after effects of exposure, and gynecological problems are also rampant. Some women are still waiting for their first period at the age of twenty, while others have as many as four or five per month. Brain damage and birth defects are also common. The after effects of gas exposure have extended to the second and third generations, and few of the victims have access to adequate medical treatment.

The people of Bhopal have endured unimaginable pain and suffering, and will continue to do so until the site is cleaned up (Union Carbide simply packed up and left the site as it was) and is now after 20 years, the chemicals are contaminating local water supplies. Students and other organizations are joining together in the struggle for Bhopal, one of the most beautiful areas of India. I have collected over 200 links to information on the Bhopal tragedy including local actions on the 20th anniversary, humor, Dow/Union Carbide statements, activist groups, news, book reviews, petitions, timelines, photos and videos, case studies and technical papers.

Please visit my site at...

20th Anniversary of Bhopal, India tragedy on December 2/3. 1984

Thanks for your time,

also aswell

Here's a previous slashdot story the Yesmen vs. Dow, Dow vs. Parody.

PS this post was rejected two days ago

Friday Dec.3rd marks the 20th anniversary of the tragedy in Bhopal, India. Unfortunately, the Bhopal disaster has never ended. It remains one of the greatest humanitarian catastrophes of the century.

More than half a million people were exposed to the deadly MIC gases on the night of the accident, 120,000 so badly that they've been left with permanent and debilitating health effects. Blindness, extreme difficulty in breathing, and cancer are common after effects of exposure, and gynecological problems are also rampant. Some women are still waiting for their first period at the age of twenty, while others have as many as four or five per month. Brain damage and birth defects are also common. The after effects of gas exposure have extended to the second and third generations, and few of the victims have access to adequate medical treatment.

The people of Bhopal have endured unimaginable pain and suffering, and will continue to do so until the site is cleaned up (Union Carbide simply packed up and left the site as it was) and is now after 20 years, the chemicals are contaminating local water supplies. Students and other organizations are joining together in the struggle for Bhopal, one of the most beautiful areas of India. I have collected over 200 links to information on the Bhopal tragedy including local actions on the 20th anniversary, humor, Dow/Union Carbide statements, activist groups, news, book reviews, petitions, timelines, photos and videos, case studies and technical papers.

Please visit my site at...

20th Anniversary of Bhopal, India tragedy on December 2/3. 1984

Thanks for your time,

also aswell

Here's a previous slashdot story the Yesmen vs. Dow, Dow vs. Parody.

PS this post was rejected two days ago

Here is the Petagon Climate Report) which was leaked through The Observer.
An interview whith one of its athors (Doug Randall) is here.
The BBC has some reactions from scientists on it.

Hmm. I need to correct myself. France has had its share of nuclear accidents, although two facilities seem to be more problem prone than the others.

Have you donated to GreenPeace lately?

Bacteriophage appears to be an alternative to antibiotics for fighting bacteria. An article (you have to pay to access it) in Discover Magazine by Peter Radetsky about bacteriophage was published in November, 1996. It was mentioned by a man named Caisey Harlingten in a Horizon documentary on the BBC, and seems to have been an important publication that set things into motion. What isn't mentioned in the transcript is that right at the end of the documentary, text appears that says the deal between the American company called Georgia Research, Inc. set up by Harlingten and the Eliava Institute fell apart.

Wired wrote a follow up article on the story. One of the disputes involved another man, Alexander Sulakvelidze, opposing the seemingly pointless aim to genetically engineering phages, which Harlingten wanted to do. This possibly has something to do with the fact that genetically engineered products are protected by patents and can be regulated by intellectual property laws, whereas natural phages are not. This is what Harlingten is up to now. He is trying to apply phage therapy to multi-drug resistant Tuberculosis . And this is what Sulakvelidze is up to now, applying phage therapy to livestock.

Evergreen State College and the Rowland Institute at Harvard have pages about bacteriophage. Phage therapy may have some side effects, however. Some types of phage carry genes that can actually make bacteria pathogenic (briefly mentioned at end of page). This has been observed in E. Coli as a response to antibiotics.

after 50 years of operation of hundreds of Nuke power plants only 1 serious accident occurred

Er...no.

Here's a British one, Here's a list of them, and oh here's a nice big page on a really fucking scary one that released more radiation than Chernobyl. Scared? You should be.

Despite this, I'm still a supporter of nuclear power, mind.

Not that it will stop them turning up in a boat that uses copious amounts of fossil fuels, whilst protesting the amount of fossil fuel that are used in the world (they fitted sails to rainbow warrior but it's main propulsion is 2 6 cylinder diesels very environmental. or releasing minks from a fur farm on grounds of animal cruelty and they end up devastating the natural wildlife for miles around.

somehow despite ther intentions greenpeace and there supporters seem better at destroying rather than saving.

I think the key phrase in your response is, "with today's technology" - and that's where your reply is a non-sequitur.

So we shouldn't bother just because we can't do it today? That's absurd. Nobody, even people who believe every word Robert Zubrin writes, thinks it can happen tomorrow. That doesn't reduce the urgency of getting it done. Estimates of the risk may vary, but the risk is real. Even the otherwise reactionary insurance industry recognizes the ecological risks (1, 2) of the near future.

You know if you click on the link I provided, you'll find out that it goes directly to a list of Greenpeace accomplishments... "But I won't bother listing all the good things Greenpeace has done over the past three years. If you really want to know, you'll look it up on their website."

Where do you get the figure $145,000,000?

I am interested mostly because like most of the other uninformed people here, you don't cite your sources. Sounds like bullshit FUD to me, back it up or look like a fool.

Also, re:
WTF do you do with the money? And it doesn't sound like you are doing anything that matters, I mean WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?

It sounds like the problem here is you and your lack of understanding.

On the one hand you seem to state that you don't think we do anything that matters and then you ask what we have done. Well hmm, if you don't know what we have done, how can you know the value of it?

All you are doing is making people, who might agree with your views but not your methods, not like you or your views.

That's pretty subjective don't you think?

I meet people on a daily basis that thank me for the work that Greenpeace does on a daily basis.

I meet people all over the planet when I donate my time to speak at conferences and they don't seem to be alienated.

I talk to lots of people on a daily basis and I have never had anyone tell me to my face that Greenpeace was worthless, bad or otherwise something that was a waste of time.

The only time that I have heard bad things, they have been from folks like you on the internet. You can't back up your facts and you just seem to be angry.

If, of the top of your head, you can not name three things GP has done then they most not have done very much.

Ah. Again we see the problem here. It's you.
You can't name something we have done and thus we are worthless?

No. I am sorry, play again.

Just because you can't name something of value doesn't mean that it lacks value, it means that you lack understanding.

You lack an education on Greenpeace, please visit our website greenpeace.org with an open mind.

I have to point out that you've shifted your argument away from calling Greenpeace activists "ecoterrorists" to calling us "spoiled rich kids". I'll take that as progress.

And I do get paid to do my job. It's a job. I don't make tons, but I do like my job and I bet there are a lot of people who would love to have it. That's part of why I work hard and long hours - because I do think I owe these people something. Also because, in my opinion, the work I'm doing is important.

But I won't bother listing all the good things Greenpeace has done over the past three years. If you really want to know, you'll look it up on their website.

Who knows? If you like what you see, maybe you'll even chip in a few dollars, or become a cyberactivist.

I have to point out that you've shifted your argument away from calling Greenpeace activists "ecoterrorists" to calling us "spoiled rich kids". I'll take that as progress.

And I do get paid to do my job. It's a job. I don't make tons, but I do like my job and I bet there are a lot of people who would love to have it. That's part of why I work hard and long hours - because I do think I owe these people something. Also because, in my opinion, the work I'm doing is important.

But I won't bother listing all the good things Greenpeace has done over the past three years. If you really want to know, you'll look it up on their website.

Who knows? If you like what you see, maybe you'll even chip in a few dollars, or become a cyberactivist.

>Where is this video that you speak of?

It was on Real TV (well, that's what I remember -- I'm not perfect). I suppose you could ask them for the file tape. They don't seem to air Real TV anymore (which is sorta sad... it wasn't a great show, but it had its moments).

FWIW, Real TV was a cross between reality tv and docudrama, since it used reality tv style clips that were actual real life moments.

I really wish I could find a comprehensive page on that show so you could find the tapes, but unfortunately, people have shortened "Reality TV" to "Real TV", poisoning google's results. Google groups returns people discussing past events on the show, though (nothing much on Greenpeace, unfortuantely)...

Oh well. Perhaps if you ask Greenpeace for a copy of their video tapes of the incident?

Of course, Greenpeace's story speaks for itself as far as how "non-violent" the oil rig protests are...

"The Norwegian government owned oil company, Statoil is, according to Norwegian news agency NTB, considering a possible damages claims against Greenpeace of between 2 and 4 million Norwegian Krona ($US 300,000 and 600,000 USD)."

That's a lot of damage in just 3 days.

I work for Greenpeace. While I am fairly new there and my role is not in campaigning, I had to respond to your completely ignorant and unfounded slander of the dedicated, brave and hardworking people I see around me every day. Your facts are completely skewed and ignorant.

Firstly you said:

"Tree spiking murders innocent workers.

A quote from Mr. Paul Watson (as a Greenpeace member, I'm certian you know of him, as he is a principal founder of your organization)"

Greenpeace does not use any such tactics as tree spiking. And in the very same article from Paul Watson that you refer to, it says "Paul Watson was ousted from Greenpeace in the 1970's for violating their principles of non-violent action". So I hardly think it's fair to use him as a pin-up boy for the current organization.

Care to make me find more examples?

Yes actually, since so far they have been uninformed and inaccurate.

>>We do not and will not tolerate ecoterrorism.

>That's why the principal founders of your organization devise murderous tactics, right?

It doesn't sound like a sane organization when it's founded by people like Paul Watson.

See my comment above. Besides, perhaps you should consider what Greenpeace actually do and not judge them by the actions of their ex-founder after he left the organization.

>Greenpeace is a very upright environmental organization.

Excellent. Tell me what happened to your boats in British Columbia on July 3, 1997. Find me a link to the info on the greenpeace website, if you're so upright.

Of course, we won't find one, because on that day the people of Victoria, BC fought back and blockaded YOUR boats.

Actually, it was not the "people" of Victoria, you make it sound like the whole population rose up in popular revolt. It was representatives of the pro-logging Industrial, Wood and Allied Workers of Canada union. In fact, the people of BC want their forests protected - in a survey conducted in February 1997 : "77% of respondents believe that logging of B.C.'s old growth forest should be stopped immediately or phased out; while only 20% believe such logging should continue." May I point out that Greenpeace is concerned with OLD GROWTH forests, not, as you assert, the entire destruction of the logging industry and "ruining people's lives". See: http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/97/forest/jobt ree.html.

Anyway back to your previous point, Greenpeace issued an international press release on the issue on 4 July 1997, http://archive.greenpeace.org/majordomo/index-pres s-releases/1997/msg00237.html, available doing a simple google search of our website. (There were possibly more communications at the time but this was back in 1997 where we had a completely different and less sophisticated web system.)

If you have further questions or think we're trying to hide things from you, people will always be happy to answer your questions and criticisms, however unfounded, in our cybercentre.


>We have many worthwhile causes.

Many? Care to name 3 that aren't runing people's lives?

I don't see how encouraging responsible use of natural resources ruins anyone's life. Our causes are: The protection of oceans and ancient forests; The phase out of fossil fuels and the promotion of renewable energy to stop climate change; The elimination of toxic chemicals ; The prevention of genetically modified organisms being released into nature; An end to the nuclear threat and nuclear contamination; Safe and sustainable trade. Despite the belief of some people on this thread, we are not out to indiscriminately shut down industries, prevent technological research or tell everyone you can't

I work for Greenpeace. While I am fairly new there and my role is not in campaigning, I had to respond to your completely ignorant and unfounded slander of the dedicated, brave and hardworking people I see around me every day. Your facts are completely skewed and ignorant.

Firstly you said:

"Tree spiking murders innocent workers.

A quote from Mr. Paul Watson (as a Greenpeace member, I'm certian you know of him, as he is a principal founder of your organization)"

Greenpeace does not use any such tactics as tree spiking. And in the very same article from Paul Watson that you refer to, it says "Paul Watson was ousted from Greenpeace in the 1970's for violating their principles of non-violent action". So I hardly think it's fair to use him as a pin-up boy for the current organization.

Care to make me find more examples?

Yes actually, since so far they have been uninformed and inaccurate.

>>We do not and will not tolerate ecoterrorism.

>That's why the principal founders of your organization devise murderous tactics, right?

It doesn't sound like a sane organization when it's founded by people like Paul Watson.

See my comment above. Besides, perhaps you should consider what Greenpeace actually do and not judge them by the actions of their ex-founder after he left the organization.

>Greenpeace is a very upright environmental organization.

Excellent. Tell me what happened to your boats in British Columbia on July 3, 1997. Find me a link to the info on the greenpeace website, if you're so upright.

Of course, we won't find one, because on that day the people of Victoria, BC fought back and blockaded YOUR boats.

Actually, it was not the "people" of Victoria, you make it sound like the whole population rose up in popular revolt. It was representatives of the pro-logging Industrial, Wood and Allied Workers of Canada union. In fact, the people of BC want their forests protected - in a survey conducted in February 1997 : "77% of respondents believe that logging of B.C.'s old growth forest should be stopped immediately or phased out; while only 20% believe such logging should continue." May I point out that Greenpeace is concerned with OLD GROWTH forests, not, as you assert, the entire destruction of the logging industry and "ruining people's lives". See: http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/97/forest/jobt ree.html.

Anyway back to your previous point, Greenpeace issued an international press release on the issue on 4 July 1997, http://archive.greenpeace.org/majordomo/index-pres s-releases/1997/msg00237.html, available doing a simple google search of our website. (There were possibly more communications at the time but this was back in 1997 where we had a completely different and less sophisticated web system.)

If you have further questions or think we're trying to hide things from you, people will always be happy to answer your questions and criticisms, however unfounded, in our cybercentre.


>We have many worthwhile causes.

Many? Care to name 3 that aren't runing people's lives?

I don't see how encouraging responsible use of natural resources ruins anyone's life. Our causes are: The protection of oceans and ancient forests; The phase out of fossil fuels and the promotion of renewable energy to stop climate change; The elimination of toxic chemicals ; The prevention of genetically modified organisms being released into nature; An end to the nuclear threat and nuclear contamination; Safe and sustainable trade. Despite the belief of some people on this thread, we are not out to indiscriminately shut down industries, prevent technological research or tell everyone you can't

I work for Greenpeace. While I am fairly new there and my role is not in campaigning, I had to respond to your completely ignorant and unfounded slander of the dedicated, brave and hardworking people I see around me every day. Your facts are completely skewed and ignorant.

Firstly you said:

"Tree spiking murders innocent workers.

A quote from Mr. Paul Watson (as a Greenpeace member, I'm certian you know of him, as he is a principal founder of your organization)"

Greenpeace does not use any such tactics as tree spiking. And in the very same article from Paul Watson that you refer to, it says "Paul Watson was ousted from Greenpeace in the 1970's for violating their principles of non-violent action". So I hardly think it's fair to use him as a pin-up boy for the current organization.

Care to make me find more examples?

Yes actually, since so far they have been uninformed and inaccurate.

>>We do not and will not tolerate ecoterrorism.

>That's why the principal founders of your organization devise murderous tactics, right?

It doesn't sound like a sane organization when it's founded by people like Paul Watson.

See my comment above. Besides, perhaps you should consider what Greenpeace actually do and not judge them by the actions of their ex-founder after he left the organization.

>Greenpeace is a very upright environmental organization.

Excellent. Tell me what happened to your boats in British Columbia on July 3, 1997. Find me a link to the info on the greenpeace website, if you're so upright.

Of course, we won't find one, because on that day the people of Victoria, BC fought back and blockaded YOUR boats.

Actually, it was not the "people" of Victoria, you make it sound like the whole population rose up in popular revolt. It was representatives of the pro-logging Industrial, Wood and Allied Workers of Canada union. In fact, the people of BC want their forests protected - in a survey conducted in February 1997 : "77% of respondents believe that logging of B.C.'s old growth forest should be stopped immediately or phased out; while only 20% believe such logging should continue." May I point out that Greenpeace is concerned with OLD GROWTH forests, not, as you assert, the entire destruction of the logging industry and "ruining people's lives". See: http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/97/forest/jobt ree.html.

Anyway back to your previous point, Greenpeace issued an international press release on the issue on 4 July 1997, http://archive.greenpeace.org/majordomo/index-pres s-releases/1997/msg00237.html, available doing a simple google search of our website. (There were possibly more communications at the time but this was back in 1997 where we had a completely different and less sophisticated web system.)

If you have further questions or think we're trying to hide things from you, people will always be happy to answer your questions and criticisms, however unfounded, in our cybercentre.


>We have many worthwhile causes.

Many? Care to name 3 that aren't runing people's lives?

I don't see how encouraging responsible use of natural resources ruins anyone's life. Our causes are: The protection of oceans and ancient forests; The phase out of fossil fuels and the promotion of renewable energy to stop climate change; The elimination of toxic chemicals ; The prevention of genetically modified organisms being released into nature; An end to the nuclear threat and nuclear contamination; Safe and sustainable trade. Despite the belief of some people on this thread, we are not out to indiscriminately shut down industries, prevent technological research or tell everyone you can't

Sorry to say I don't think your facts are straight. Could be some hot heads only claiming they were Greenpeace. Could be they didn't even say they were with Greenpeace, and your friend just assumed it. Heck, could even be that the whole thing is made up. But if it did happen, then I hope the pepper sprayers were charged. And yeah, logging is all good and fine - so long as it's done right. Too often it's not. Globally the forests are disapearing, and it looks like Greenpeace USA (the real Greenpeace USA) thinks there is some room for improvement in Oregon. I like wiping with something plush and comfy as much as the next man, but there's no reason not to look for the recycled paper symbol when you're shopping.

I was on board the Greenpeace ship in question at the time. They rammed us, not the other way around (actually more of a sideswipe). Luckily, we had a video camera rolling. The videotape clearly showed the much larger whaling factory ship at fault. Lloyds (the periodical of note on this subject) listed them as at fault. Fact is that some people throw the word "terrorist" around like they would "Nazi". If you want you can read my account of the incident, written and posted from the ship at the time. You might also be amused to read about our response.

I was on board the Greenpeace ship in question at the time. They rammed us, not the other way around (actually more of a sideswipe). Luckily, we had a video camera rolling. The videotape clearly showed the much larger whaling factory ship at fault. Lloyds (the periodical of note on this subject) listed them as at fault. Fact is that some people throw the word "terrorist" around like they would "Nazi". If you want you can read my account of the incident, written and posted from the ship at the time. You might also be amused to read about our response.

That's true, if you don't install a Nuclear Power Plant to assist in the extraction...

Of course, this begs the question -- why not just develop clean nuclear power in the first place, instead of fixating on developing more economical extraction processes? Vitrification of nuclear waste for long term storage is probably superior to suffocation, freezing or frying to death after destroying our environment. Unless you're ecologically minded, evidently...

Could it be that the public has bought into the anti-nuclear fear campaign, and would rather strangle to death on carbon dioxide, monoxide etc., than breath clean air and drink clean water?