Greenpeace Trots Out 911 For Anti-Nuclear Power Ad

greenpeace_911.jpg

Capitalizing on Friday the 13th fears, Greenpeace, through The Viral Chart, has released an online video (here too) that, with compelling imagery, claims building more nuclear plants is an invitation to terrorists 911-style. Sarah North, head of Greenpeace's nuclear campaign, said, "Millions of people could die as a result of a terrorist attack on a nuclear plant. This is a totally unacceptable risk. This film shows that building new nuclear power stations is a catastrophic gift to terrorists."

Perhaps until we get the fission fusion thing figured out maybe nuclear power isn't the safest thing around but oil which is rife with political implications may not last forever, no one seems to car about solar and wind gets minimal play. Of course we shouldn't build ticking time bombs that could erase entire cities if something goes wrong but one would hope that even a terrorist would think twice before pulling a Hiroshima on the free world.

Apparently, the video is in reaction ot UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's position on nuclear power and how it could reduce fossil fuel-induced climate change.

by Steve Hall    Jan-13-06   Click to Comment   
Topic: Commercials, Online, Opinion, Viral   

Enjoy what you've read? Subscribe to Adrants Daily and receive the daily contents of this site each day along with free whitepapers.



Comments



Comments

I would strongly urge anyone interested in understand a nuclear power plant accident to see my techno-thriller novel, "Rad Decision", available at no cost to readers at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com. As a longtime nuclear energy worker I have provided an excellent inside look at the US version of the industry (good and bad), including how an accident would be handled. James Aach

"I'd like to see Rad Decision widely read." - Stewart Brand, founder of The Whole Earth Catalog

Posted by: jimaach on January 13, 2006 2:42 PM

i am offended. i can't believe an organization would stoop to this level to gain attention. check that. i can believe it. make a coherant and compelling argument. don't play on people's emotions and fears. that's just a cheap trick for hacks.

Posted by: bobby on January 13, 2006 3:19 PM

i am offended. i can't believe an organization would stoop to this level to gain attention. check that. i can believe it. make a coherant and compelling argument. don't play on people's emotions and fears. that's just a cheap trick for hacks.

Posted by: bobby on January 13, 2006 3:19 PM

There are three companies pursuing hydrogen-boron plasma toroid fusion, a form of aneutronic fusion , Paul Koloc, Prometheus II, Eric Lerner, Focus Fusion and Clint Seward of Electron Power Systems http://www.electronpowersystems.com/ . A resent DOD review of EPS technology reads as follows:

"MIT considers these plasmas a revolutionary breakthrough, with Delphi's
chief scientist and senior manager for advanced technology both agreeing
that EST/SPT physics are repeatable and theoretically explainable. MIT and
EPS have jointly authored numerous professional papers describing their
work. (Delphi is a $33B company, the spun off Delco Division of General
Motors)."

Vincent Page (a technology officer at GE!!) gave a presentation at the 05 6th symposium on current trends in international fusion research , which high lights the need to fully fund three different approaches to P-B11 fusion (Below Is an excerpt).
He quotes costs and time to development of P-B11 Fusion as tens of million $, and years verses the many decades and ten Billion plus $ projected for ITER and other "Big" science efforts:


"for larger plant sizes
Time to small-scale Cost to achieve net if the small-scale
Concept Description net energy production energy concept works:
Koloc Spherical Plasma: 10 years(time frame), $25 million (cost), 80%(chance of success)
Field Reversed Configuration: 8 years $75 million 60%
Plasma Focus: 6 years $18 million 80%

Desirable Fusion Reactor Qualities
Research & development is also needed in
the area of computing power.
Many fusion researchers of necessity still
use MHD theory to validate their designs.
MHD theory assumes perfect diamagnetism
and perfect conductance.
These qualities may not always exist in the
real world, particularly during continuous operation.
More computing power is needed to allow use of a more realistic validation theory
such as the Vlasov equations.
ORNL is in the process of adding some impressive computing power.
Researchers now need to develop more realistic validation methods up to the
limits of the available computing power.
Governments need to fund these efforts."


I feel in light of the recent findings of neutrons, x-rays, and gamma rays in lightening, that these threads need to be brought together in an article.

You may have seen my efforts with my "Manhattan Project article,

http://www.scienceforums.com/earth-science/3665-a-new-manhattan-project-clean-energy.html

which got published on Sci-Scoop and the Open Source Energy Network but rejected on Slashdot. The New Energy News will soon run an article on these companies efforts toward aneutronic fusion.

About a year ago, I came across EPS while researching nano-tech and efficient home design. I started a correspondence Clint Seward, Eric Learner, and Paul Kolac, sending them science news links which I felt were either supportive or contradictory to their work. I also asked them to critique each other's approaches. I have posted these emails to numerous physics and science forums. Discussion groups, science journalists, and other academics, trying to foster discussion, attention, and hopefully some concessus on the validity of these proposed technologies.
My efforts have born some fruit. Clint and Joe Dwyer at FIT have been in consultation on Clint's current charge transport theory for cloud to ground lightening.
I have had several replies from editors, producers, and journalists expressing interest. From organizations as varied as PBS, Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, New Energy News, the Guardian (U.K), and the San Francisco Chronicle. However, none of this professional interest has resulted in a story yet.

I have been responding to all of the articles that filter in via my Google alerts on "fusion power". The most recent was the "Happy News" article by Kris Metaverso.
http://www.happynews.com/news/112220...ependently.htm

This post is a plea to the science writers among you to craft a story covering aneutronic fusion, the P-B11 efforts, Eric's high temperatures and x-ray source project, Clint's lightening theories, and DOD review, and Paul's review by GE. The minimal cost and time frame for even the possibility of this leap forward seems criminal not to pursue. If you read my Manhattan article, you may have noticed that I am not a writer. I am a landscape designer and technology gadfly wondering why this technology has never been put in the public eye.
My hope is that someone, more skilled, would step up to give a shout out about these technologies. Please contact me for copies of my correspondence with the principles, interesting replies and criticisms from physics discussion forums and academic physicists who have replied to my queries.

Thanks for any help


Erich J. Knight
shengar@aol.com

Posted by: Erich J. Knight on January 14, 2006 7:39 AM

"Millions of people could die as a result of a terrorist attack on a nuclear plant:

Really? Thanks Sarah. Sorry, but I gotta rant on my soapbox for this one. Millions of people may potentially die from a much simpler winged creature � Asian bird flu anyone? Unless you're a vegan, you wouldn't care.

How sensational can one get? A fucking plane into a nuclear reactor? I'm surprised you didn't have a mushroom cloud morph into George Dubbya giving a Nazi salute.

What does the implication of viable terrorist targets have to do with the legitimate issue of global warming? Or does Greenpeace now think potential events like reactors being attacked cause global warming? Help me out 'cuz I'm trying to work with you on making that connection work.

If you want to say nuclear energy, like drilling for oil in a wildlife preserve, presents inherent dangers to the surrounding areas because of accidents -- and not terroristic acts -- fine. I can buy that.

You'd even have precedent: Alaska and the Exxon Valdez, Amoco Cadiz Chernobyl or 3-Mile Island to name a few. And judging by the number of major oil spills around the UK, threats to the UK through Nuclear plants should be low on the list.

And if you want to say we Mobil was foolish to have a night watchman at the controls of the Exxon Valdez who was no more qualified than Homer Simpson to be there -- fine. That pilot is now teaching at the Maritime academy -- go figure.

But to say we shouldn't pursue any method of energy production because of it's potential value as a military target? Foolish.

Based on that logic, we shouldn't pursue wind farms either. Terrorists might want to break off the giant propellars and use them as helicopters to fly over our cities and drop anthrax. (I think they did that once in Spy vs. Spy.)

And an 'invitation'? So based on that same logic, the developers of the WTC invited terrorists to attack the towers -- just because they were a large visible target that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Here's a clue: a mindset of hatred and intolerance causes shit like that. Whether it's a bomb on an Israeli bus, a cafe in Morocco, or a federal building in Oklahoma. Not an energy plan, ok?

It's religious zealousy that causes planes to be piloted into buildings. In our case, hatred for Western culture and an intolerance of anything not Islamist or Islamic for that matter by zealots did.

Does Greenpeace think that violence won't happen if reactors are not built? "Oh cool, they'll go home now and leave us alone because we did what they want." No, they'll find other targets using other means.

And I bet the IRA really hated the UK's plans to build reactors all those years. Hey Sarah: No one was building more reactors on 9/11 when we got hit, so there goes that theory.

If they were such an open target and I'm wrong, why didn't they fly planes into reactors on 9-11 when they surely had the chance? Several of the planes were closer to nuclear reactors than where they ended up attacking.

Beside the oil wells that were lit on fire by Saddam and the oil let out of his supertankers during Gulf War I, name one instance of an attack -- on a foreign soil -- that was directed at an energy source?

Other than me swearing at the pump when I can't get my speedpass to work right, I can't think of one. Name one wind farm. One coal mine. One water turbine? Anything, help me help you. Solar panels? Still waiting. Get back to me on that.

And please don't say 'well, it's just a matter of time' either. It was a matter of time on 9/11. They had a chance then -- they didn't do it.

Posted by: makethelogobigger [TypeKey Profile Page] on January 14, 2006 4:09 PM

The real problem with this is the whole idea that flying a 747 into a nuclear power plant would somehow cause a major nuclear leak. It's well in the range of things that nuclear plants are designed to tolerate.

The main problem with the comments is people plugging their own blogs.

Posted by: KW Williams on January 16, 2006 12:44 PM

I must say the production is great. I really like this home video feel. The storyline is dramatic as well. It's a great example of advertising.

Also, it's a great example how twisting facts one can convince you and make you do things that you would not believe in or do if you had the time to do proper research.

First of all, nuclear plants are designed to withstand the crash of a 747, so the damage on the pictured plant would not do any environmental disaster. Not any bigger than any other plant being bombed with a plane, be it a coal or wind power plant.

So, basically the storyline is flawed. Because the family after the crash will be able to go home unharmed, but the viewer would be terrified and imagine the worst chernobil or hiroshima like nuclear disasters. Hope this is good news for you.

Sencond the whole message of the ad that nuclear plants are bad for people is just plain wrong. The public is extremely confused about this question in general, because there are important scientist, businessman and scientist are on both sides.

But, the fact remains. If we want to live in modern cities and towns with electricity, water and all the modern lifestyle we enjoy today and not willing to live in a wooden house and freeze to death in the winter we have to add nuclear energy to the mix of energy sources that mass produce electricity for us.

Nuclear power is the cleanest form of energy. The byproducts are very little and well managable. You only use a few kilos of uranium a year and you can dispose of it later in a very safe and clean way.

Unlike in the case of coal or oil where the byproducts are released to the air in tonnes from every plant in the form of CO2 and other poisonous elements.

Many people don't know that the byproducts released by a coal plant has a very high radiation, because coal has a small amount of radioactive material, which we are releasing to the athmosphere directly without gilt. And we are talking about millions of tonns of coal burned. Ironically the air around a nuclear plant is cleaner than the air around a coal plant.

Other alternative energy sources are not an option at this point of our technological development. Wind produces too little energy to feed a whole city. We would have to cover the whole planet with windmills, which would make all the areas next to them inhabitable because of the high noise pollution and they would kill birds like a papershredder.

Solar energy is very low in efficiency to produce electricity. We would have to cover insanely large amounts of land to produce just a fraction of the needed energy for a city. That would mean there are no crops on that land. Also, maintenance is high. One would have to clean them constantly. Besides the production of solar cells is a messy business.

The other problem with alternative energy sources is that if there is no wind or sun there is no energy. We don't have the means to store large amounts of electricity, so the supply has to be constant, which means for every kilowatt of solar energy we would have to build a backup coal plant that would need to be kicked in when there is no enough sunlight. Like every night.

The above two and many other alternative energy sources are good for local supplementary energy production to decrease your home electricity by some percents, but you can never run a factory on solar panels for example.

All the issues that come up against nuclear technology are based on fear and lack of knowledge and this is understanable. When somebody says nuclear plant, most people think of Chernobil and Hiroshima. Very few think about those 300+ nuclear plants that are operating successfully around the globe producing a huge amount of clean and safe energy every day.

Chernobil was a first generation plant. The ones being installed today are 3rd generation plants, that are by design can't melt down. Much like you can't drown a surf board by design. The technology is very far from the technology of Chernobil in every sense.

The other argument that comes up againts nuclear energy is that it allows the production of weapon grade plutonium and that we can't guarantee that the nations using nuclear technology for civil energy production will not sell the plutonium to some shade organizations or countries. What they fail to mention however is that plutonium in the form it comes out from the nuclear reactor as a byproduct can't be used for a bomb. It need purification and only 3-4 countries produce equipment for purifying plutonium. And, here we need to blame France, who sells this technology to anyone who pays for it. International effort that is all concentrated on a futile fight against nuclear energy should rather be more educated and concentrated on stopping France selling the purification technology which makes bomb making possible. Purification is the key, not the plutonium or uranium that can be mined in many places around the globe.

What about a dirty bomb? Exploding a simple explosive with some radioactive material that will pollute large areas and kill thousands by radiation? Simple. It's nonsense. Several researches showed that people would survive and recover without a trace of the event if exposed to such a dirty bomb. The radioactive material would be spread to such small pieces that it would not radically affect bystanders. Of course the explosion itself would kill, but a dirty bomb is not any more harmful than a normal bomb. Hope this is good news to you too.

If in doubt about whether nuclear energy is good or bad, please don't base your decision on a well ochestrated ad like the one above. Do your research and check facts presented by opposers.

Nuclear energy (until we have fusion, which is still very far away unfortunatelyy) is part of the solution to global greenhouse problems. Time to get to know more about nuclear energy and use it. Or we will have an even bigger problem than we have already have by overusing fossil fuels.

Posted by: ivan raszl on January 16, 2006 3:26 PM

Lets get back on the topic of analyzing the ad, not the motives behind the entire organization. Please everyone, leave your personal opinions on world affairs at home. Lets get down to the business of "adranting".

Posted by: JOHN on January 17, 2006 12:12 PM

Bobby,

I have to agree with you--it is an offensive approach from an organization with which I usually agree. To me, it just represents that there are those on both the left and right willing to use fear to advance their agendas (and the last damn thing we need is more decision-making based on irrational fears!)

This is no different than a right-wing think tank showing images of New York blowing up in a nuclear cloud to advance the cause of further military involvement in the Middle East. In either case, it's using the worst case scenario to use fear to raise emotions. Very disappointing!

Posted by: Augie on January 17, 2006 3:49 PM

Surprisingly, for AdRants, there are no boobs in this.

Posted by: Stevie on January 17, 2006 4:19 PM

"Lets get back on the topic of analyzing the ad, not the motives behind the entire organization. Please everyone, leave your personal opinions on world affairs at home. Lets get down to the business of "adranting"."

Thanks.

Posted by: makethelogobigger [TypeKey Profile Page] on January 17, 2006 8:27 PM





Stanton Optical


Featured FREE Resource: