Co-Founder of Greenpeace advocates for nuclear power

[DjTj]

Going Nuclear

A Green Makes the Case

By Patrick Moore

Sunday, April 16, 2006; Page B01

In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html?nav=hcmodule

[Destino]

Is that the one that sold out and became a big player for lumber companies and anyone else willing to pay him? I remember one of the co-founders from greenpeace went on to be a big time sell out as soon as the lucrative offers rolled in.

Anyway back on topic - A lot of enviromentalists are for nuclear power. It's spent fuel has a potential risk but burning coal and the like dumps tons of poison into the air. That's real risk now versus a maybe scenerio. The problem is that no one wants a nuclear plant built near their home.

[brewdogmike]

Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.

Maybe he should have put together an informed opinion before he formed his views in the first place.

Maybe he ought to take a step back and do that before he goes off on "catastrophic climate change."

[gbear]

Brew,

In all fairness, technology has come a long way in 30 years, and what we know has changed in the last 30 years as well. Not everything that is a bad idea now with current technological issues will still be a bad idea 30 years from now.

[brewdogmike]

Brew,

In all fairness, technology has come a long way in 30 years, and what we know has changed in the last 30 years as well. Not everything that is a bad idea now with current technological issues will still be a bad idea 30 years from now.

For sure, technology has come a long way in 30 years. But I think it's valid to say that there were plenty of reasons even then to discredit their "chicken little" type predictions of enviromental disaster.

Just a thought. Maybe this guy shouldn't be so quick to sound the alarm and go into crisis mode again.

[SkinInsite]

This is why people should never admit they are wrong.

Once they do everything else they said is in doubt.

[Destino]

For sure, technology has come a long way in 30 years. But I think it's valid to say that there were plenty of reasons even then to discredit their "chicken little" type predictions of enviromental disaster.

Just a thought. Maybe this guy shouldn't be so quick to sound the alarm and go into crisis mode again.

Caution concerning nuclear power wasn't "chicken little" at all. Three Mile Island happened in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986. There was solid proof that things could and had gone wrong.

[brewdogmike]

Caution concerning nuclear power wasn't "chicken little" at all. Three Mile Island happened in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986. There was solid proof that things could and had gone wrong.

In the article, this is what the Greenpeace guy himself says about that:

What nobody noticed at the time, though, was that Three Mile Island was in fact a success story: The concrete containment structure did just what it was designed to do -- prevent radiation from escaping into the environment. And although the reactor itself was crippled, there was no injury or death among nuclear workers or nearby residents. Three Mile Island was the only serious accident in the history of nuclear energy generation in the United States, but it was enough to scare us away from further developing the technology: There hasn't been a nuclear plant ordered up since then.

And this:

Although Three Mile Island was a success story, the accident at Chernobyl, 20 years ago this month, was not. But Chernobyl was an accident waiting to happen. This early model of Soviet reactor had no containment vessel, was an inherently bad design and its operators literally blew it up. The multi-agency U.N. Chernobyl Forum reported last year that 56 deaths could be directly attributed to the accident, most of those from radiation or burns suffered while fighting the fire. Tragic as those deaths were, they pale in comparison to the more than 5,000 coal-mining deaths that occur worldwide every year. No one has died of a radiation-related accident in the history of the U.S. civilian nuclear reactor program. (And although hundreds of uranium mine workers did die from radiation exposure underground in the early years of that industry, that problem was long ago corrected.)

He also wrote this, and it's hard to believe this comes from the co-founder of Greenpeace:

Over the past 20 years, one of the simplest tools -- the machete -- has been used to kill more than a million people in Africa, far more than were killed in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings combined. What are car bombs made of? Diesel oil, fertilizer and cars. If we banned everything that can be used to kill people, we would never have harnessed fire.

[Xameil]

Wait a second....I'm on the same side as Greenpeace?!? maybe I need to re-look at my stance on Nuclear Power then. :laugh:

If we are going to look more at nuclear power, more regulations need to be put in place so companies aren't just looking at the bottom line, and cutting corners on things.

[Destino]

In the article, this is what the Greenpeace guy himself says about that:

And this:

He also wrote this, and it's hard to believe this comes from the co-founder of Greenpeace:

Why this guy is known as "the greenpeace guy" shouldn't we use his more recent title to describe him? That would be "Timber Industry front man". He seems to promote this false description of himself to lend some credibility to his opinion. After all would anyone really give a damn what a logging company promoter has to say about the enviroment?

Personally I don't trust this guy at all. The group he helped found is insane, Greenpeace is as radical as they come and I think they've been linked to ELF, which is an ecoterrorist group. Also his sudden turn around in the 80's from activist to industry front man make it impossible to know just what this guy stands for - if anything at all.

In the quotes you provided he mentions that three mile island scared "us away from further developing the technology" - but that isn't totally true. Nuclear tech has advanced, greatly in fact. Which is why it's gained so many supporters these days, myself included.

[Captain Chaos47]

The problem is that no one wants a nuclear plant built near their home.

Well do you want a fossil plant built near your home either? Didn't think so.

[Destino]

Well do you want a fossil plant built near your home either? Didn't think so.

I completely agree.

[DjTj]

Is that the one that sold out and became a big player for lumber companies and anyone else willing to pay him? I remember one of the co-founders from greenpeace went on to be a big time sell out as soon as the lucrative offers rolled in.

Yeah, it is that guy. Whether he "sold out" or not depends on who you're talking to, but I think his point is a good one: There's a very good environmentalist justification for nuclear power.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

This is why people should never admit they are wrong.

Once they do everything else they said is in doubt.

Is that why Bush won't do it?