5 Replies to “do we really want more nuclear power stations?1 min read

  1. This video could have been made by any firm producing ground-to-air air missiles – like “our” beloved RUAG.

    It does not question nuclear power in itself, which – in my eyes – should remain the main problematic. If you have to use such third-hand arguments, it just shows that you have lost a lot of ground already.

    Greenpeace is getting lamer – at a time when it could be most useful.

  2. “Third hand arguments????”

    Oh, and the first-hand arguments would be what then — that no insurance company will sell a policy to a nuclear power plant? That Uranium isn’t a renewable resource and there’s nowhere near enough to fuel a fraction of the world’s total energy demand? Or that the waste remains dangerous for 5,000 years and nobody has figured out what to do with it? Oh, how about the fact that it wouldn’t be economic without the massive government subsidies it gets?

    Nah. You know what really cuts it for me? Had Indian Point, just outside New York City, been one of the targets on Sept 11th, Manhattan would have had to have been evacuated in its entirety, and it would probably be uninhabitable today.

    Kudos on Greenpeace. Somebody has to say this Nuclear Emperor has no clothes.

    –Moi

  3. the facts you list are exactly the first-hand arguments i mean, and i believe klav as well. and i think that line of argumentation is what fits with “greenpeace’ core business”.
    now we all agree that this line of argumentation is not very effective.
    but i still think, that greenpeace should leave the scaremongering to other voices, political commentators. not an ecological activist group.
    i think sadly over the years greenpeace have turned into the activist group for middle of the road liberals. so with this campaign, are they now trying to toughen up their image? by feeding on people’s fears? it works, see fox news etc, fear pays the bills very well. but its morally questionable as an approach.

  4. By the way – if you really want to play on that level: lots of things are potentially very dangerous if a plane crashes into them. The difference is: nuclear plants do not need planes to be hazardous.

Leave a Reply to zup[ping]er Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.