Greenpeace is being [FILL IN SYNONYM FOR ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST HERE]

Greenpeace's fill-in-the-blank public relations meltdown

Before President Bush touched down in Pennsylvania Wednesday to promote his nuclear energy policy, the environmental group Greenpeace was mobilizing.

"This volatile and dangerous source of energy" is no answer to the country's energy needs, shouted a Greenpeace fact sheet decrying the "threat" posed by the Limerick reactors Bush visited.

But a factoid or two later, the Greenpeace authors were stumped while searching for the ideal menacing metaphor.

We present it here exactly as it was written, capital letters and all: "In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]."

Had Greenpeace been hacked by a nuke-loving Bush fan? Or was this proof of Greenpeace fear-mongering?

The aghast Greenpeace spokesman who issued the memo, Steve Smith, said a colleague was making a joke by inserting the language in a draft that was then mistakenly released.

"Given the seriousness of the issue at hand, I don't even think it's funny," Smith said.

The final version did not mention Armageddon. It just warned of plane crashes and reactor meltdowns.

-Jeff Shields

Click to expand...

Ha!

I could only imagine what White House press release forms look like...

ROFL, that's funny. Nice find.

Is that real or fake? If that is fake then it should be in the H&J forum.

But if not: Excellent find!

Greenpeace is just a bunch of treehuggin' liberal nutjobs . Let them protest while we build Nuclear Power Plants that are more safer than Coal Fired Power Plants. In comparison, Coal Power releaces more radioactive materials than Nuke Plants.

C'mon, give Greenpeace a little bit of slack, I am against nuclear power also.

tomsnowman123 said:

C'mon, give Greenpeace a little bit of slack, I am against nuclear power also.

Click to expand...

Which is safer?
A Coal Fired Power Plant Belching out CO2, Sulfur compouns, Nitrous compounds, as well as radioactive materials that are locked within a hopper full of coal?

Or

Nuclear Power that does not releace radioactive materials as well as kept under the watchfull eyes of the Nuclear Reglatory Commission?

tomsnowman123 said:

C'mon, give Greenpeace a little bit of slack, I am against nuclear power also.

Click to expand...

I think that we should (And I am DEAD serious) use radioactive monkeys as America's sole resouce of power. We feed them bananas and help them reproduce after finding a way to radiofy the monkeys without letting them get sterile, and we have a safe, replenishable resource. And the only waste there would be is monkey... never mind, but it is an interesting idea.

CivGeneral said:

Which is safer?
A Coal Fired Power Plant Belching out CO2, Sulfur compouns, Nitrous compounds, as well as radioactive materials that are locked within a hopper full of coal?

Or

Nuclear Power that does not releace radioactive materials as well as kept under the watchfull eyes of the Nuclear Reglatory Commission?

Click to expand...

I never said coal power was safer. I just said I was opposed to nuclear power.

CivGeneral said:

Which is safer?
A Coal Fired Power Plant Belching out CO2, Sulfur compouns, Nitrous compounds, as well as radioactive materials that are locked within a hopper full of coal?

Or

Nuclear Power that does not releace radioactive materials as well as kept under the watchfull eyes of the Nuclear Reglatory Commission?

Click to expand...

Nice straw man argument.

Alpine Trooper said:

Nice straw man argument.

Click to expand...

Actualy, its not a strawman argument. I feel that Nuclear Power is safer and cleaner than Fossil Fuel Power Plants.

CivGeneral said:

Actualy, its not a strawman argument. I feel that Nuclear Power is safer and cleaner than Fossil Fuel Power Plants.

Click to expand...

Well said.

Nuclear is the lesser of two evils.

CivGeneral said:

Actualy, its not a strawman argument. I feel that Nuclear Power is safer and cleaner than Fossil Fuel Power Plants.

Click to expand...

There's no doubt nuclear energy is both safer and cleaner than fossil fuel power. But we have the means today to implement better green technologies and for some reason there is this great reluctance of any western government to take a major step towards creating more of these types of power sources.

Alpine Trooper said:

But we have the means today to implement better green technologies and for some reason there is this great reluctance of any western government to take a major step towards creating more of these types of power sources.

Click to expand...

Hooray! The truth is heard. Props to Alpine Trooper.

Alpine Trooper said:

There's no doubt nuclear energy is both safer and cleaner than fossil fuel power. But we have the means today to implement better green technologies and for some reason there is this great reluctance of any western government to take a major step towards creating more of these types of power sources.

Click to expand...

I feel that other sources are too expensive, or do not produce enough energy to be viable resources.

tomsnowman123 said:

I never said coal power was safer. I just said I was opposed to nuclear power.

Click to expand...

But I need it to power my TV!

---

There is no "one way" to do it. You do the best mix of things for short and long term needs. For me, that means, more nuclear while doing a lot of research and implementation of greener energy sources.

Alpine Trooper said:

There's no doubt nuclear energy is both safer and cleaner than fossil fuel power. But we have the means today to implement better green technologies and for some reason there is this great reluctance of any western government to take a major step towards creating more of these types of power sources.

Click to expand...

Solar and Wind power are good green techologies, but they are not reliable source of power.

Solar Power is totaly dependent on weather conditions. Solar Power Plants are restricted to areas where they recive the most sun shine and/or have less frequent cloud cover. If you plop a Solar Power Plant say in the Northeast of the US, the plant would produce less output during the winter time, plus the region is also frequented by clouds as well as rain and other precipitation.

Wind power too is totaly dependent on weather conditions and would have to be placed in regions where it recives the most wind. Plus another disadvantage is that you need a lot of them to provide power to a small city.


Map of available wind power over the United States. Colorcodes indicate wind power density class.

Also, wind power is also hazardous to birds where they can get caught in the blades and killed.

Hydro Electric is a good and reliable green technology. With constant water flow from a damed up body of water can provide power. For the fish, well there is an option to install a Fish canal specificly for them, especialy for the salmon. But then you have people crying about the enviornmental impacts of a damed up river as well as people crying out about destroyed or ruined flooded property.

I feel that, with Nuclear safety checks, Nuclear Power is both safe and reliable when it comes to producing electricity.

CivGeneral said:

Solar Power is totaly dependent on weather conditions. Solar Power Plants are restricted to areas where they recive the most sun shine and/or have less frequent cloud cover. If you plop a Solar Power Plant say in the Northeast of the US, the plant would produce less output during the winter time, plus the region is also frequented by clouds as well as rain and other precipitation.

Click to expand...

You put the solar panels on a gigantic boat that follows the sun.

.Shane. said:

You put the solar panels on a gigantic boat that follows the sun.

Click to expand...

Too expensive.

A better way is to have sattites gather solar power from space and beam that energy down to recivers down on Earth. Though the draw back would be that there would need to be a way to convert DC current into AC current.

CivGeneral said:

Too expensive.

Click to expand...

Not at all. Simply have the boat towed by trained dolphins. You also can put turbines on the sides so that as you drag the boat, the turbines spin and make additional power which you use to power a soy farm, you feed the soy to the dolphins.

CivGeneral said:

A better way is to have sattites gather solar power from space and beam that energy down to recivers down on Earth. Though the draw back would be that there would need to be a way to convert DC current into AC current.

Click to expand...

Not to mention the wasted light upon entry into Earth's atmosphere. There is a huge amount of wasted energy already, and redirecting it wouls waste more.