Greenpeace co-founder supports nuclear energy

Happy to say plusaf, that not all scientists are on your side, or Mr. Moore's. Safety improvements, please! How many reactors do you think we need to create enough radioactive isotopes for our medical needs? Less than we have now, that's for sure.

Without subsidies, nuclear power is a flop: unnecessary, unsafe, unwanted and not cost effective.

With subsidies, nuclear power is a nightmare to be passed on to our children's, children's, children's (add infinite amount of children's here) children.

The sun provides more than enough nuclear energy for us all. We can harness it directly, utilize the wind and water currents that it creates and grow things with it.

Some scientists will tell you that you should grow genetically modified plants, using petroleum based fertilizers and spray with plenty of pesticides. Other scientists will tell you this is a terrible, unsustainable practice, with potentially dire consequences.

Which do you BELIEVE?

We're all trying to reduce our CARBON FOOTPRINTS as quickly as we can, let's no create a bigger NUCLEAR FOOTPRINT in the process.

Here is another top secret event that America has going on. What are they thinking. We are all doomed to hell.

You heard me.

The Kitanemuk are not the only indigenous group who were trampled over by Occidental's oil operations. The 5000-member strong U'wa of northeastern Colombia, threatened mass suicide if Oxy proceeded with plans to begin drilling oil on their ancestral homeland. The U'wa, who retained their language and traditions, understood the introduction of oil would devastate their culture. They also understood that oil facilities would put them in the midst of Colombia's fierce civil war. "To the U'wa, oil equals violence," explains Danny Kennedy, director of the Berkeley, California-based Project Underground, which has helped wage an international campaign of support for the U'wa. Oil installations are a favorite target of leftist guerillas at war with the Colombian government. After guerillas bomb the installations, the army occupies the area. "Then comes the paramilitary, who are basically soldiers with hoods on at night. Then comes the terror campaign" says Kennedy. The U'wa, who have little contact with either the government or the guerillas, would end up becoming targets. The U'wa have attracted international sympathy, but their efforts to enlist the support of Occidental's most famous shareholder -- Al Gore -- have come to naught. Gore publicly met the outcry over the U'wa with silence. As Vice President, he refused a request by a Democratic member of Congress that he meet with an U'wa representative who had traveled to Washington to see him. Meanwhile, Occidental pressed for the massive military aide package for Colombia the administration recently pushed through Congress. Occidental Vice President Lawrence Mirage testified before Congress in favor of the military aide package during the February deliberations, throwing in that those opposed to Occidental's drilling were a bunch of "extremists." but, as you say Jan, "I care about exposing liars and phonies who put human health and this planet at risk for a paycheck". you can't just demonize everyone whom you disagree with and then put the same kind of people on a pedestal. are there people in the Nuclear industry who are crooked assholes? absolutely. but there are other people who do care about mankind, and who do believe that we can utilize our intelligence and technology to solve the problems and challanges presented by nuclear energy. I believe we should use nuclear power, along with many other types of alternative energy. at least there some folks out there trying to get us off oil, trying to come up with new ideas. and there are the same old politicians. lying to us, stealing from us, sitting back, getting rich. it's up to us to choose who we want in power.

janforgore - I mean no offense, but for the love of all things holy, does everything need to be reduced to conspiracy theory? I am in no way defending Mr. Moore or his actions/beliefs, and you seem to know a lot about him. surely, more than me. but I find it a bit hypocritical that you rant about Mr. Moore's rotten, secret, evilness, and then turn around and treat Al Gore like the King of Perfectland. I know I'll take heat from this, and I yes, I know I'm on current.com, but Mr. Gore is just the same as any other politician. In 1997, Gore championed the privatization of California's National Oil Reserve, and the subsequent drilling by Occidental (the oil company that Al Gore owns around $1 million in stock) that resulted in awful and serious environmental damage, and destruction to a sacred Indian burial ground and a windfall for his family trust's Occidental stocks. In Feb of '01, the last of 100 burial grounds, holy places and other archaeological sites of the Kitanemuk Indians of central Calif. was obliterated by the oil drilling of Occidental Petroleum Company. Oxy's plans "destroyed forever the evidence that we once existed on this land," according to Dee Dominguez, a Kitanemuk whose great grandfather was a signatory to the 1851 treaty that surrendered the Elk Hills. Environmentalists also said a rare species of fox, lizard and the kangaroo rat were damaged by Oxy's drilling. A lawsuit was filed under the Endangered Species Act. But none of that has given pause to Occidental or the politician who helped engineer the sale of the drilling rights to the federally-owned Elk Hills, Al Gore. within weeks of the purchase, Gore's stocks rose 10%. Nowhere is Al Gore's environmental hypocrisy more glaring than when it comes to his relationship with Occidental. While on the one hand talking tough about his "big oil" opponents and waxing poetic about indigenous peoples in his 1992 book "Earth in the Balance," the Elk Hills sale and other deals show that money has always been more important to Al Gore than ideals.

I got to thinking about how we have reached such a level in science that we can use the same energy as is made by our sun, i.e. nuclear fission, and then I thought, "Well, what if we could make nuclear fusion, contain it, and then harness its energy. It would be like our own miniature sun and could probably power the entire earth with a volume of -- from the little I know about plasma and the suns energy -- about 0.5 L." But then I realized that solar panels are doing just that: They are harnessing the energy of nuclear fusion. As solar panels are improving in efficiency, as the potential of solar and wind power is slowly being uncovered, and as the harm of nuclear fission is coming to light, I believe that solar and wind power are the only sources we should be using. (BTW, I know that the sun uses fusion and not fission; I was just paraphrasing what Lovelock said.)

Also, does anyone know if there would be any consequences of simply tossing our nuclear waste into space so that it can travel millions of light years away? My only guess is that if we threw away too much of the earth's mass it might upset some natural balance. Then again, we send a lot of weight out into space as it is.

Of course futuregen, as it should be! Nuclear is definitely not a sustainable long-term solution. But since nuclear currently powers a great deal of our energy we need to come up with alternative sources to replace them. From what I understand, wind and solar alone won't be a viable replacement for sometime to come (especially since we're not doing a whole lot to get it started). And as Al Gore says, clean coal is an oxymoron.

Rock on JanforGore!

Solid research and crystal clear delivery...

yep, nuclear kills....

I agree with Patrick Moore. Greenpreace is a political group. All the efforts to stop nuclear energy has really harmed the planet.

Let me say this when I posted my woefully misinformed comment, getting it on TV was not on my mind. That never enters into it when I post. I just post my opinions and don't feel I have to make a profound comment on every subject. I guess I just have a one liner mind.

Never argued that the information was not important nor that it wasn't valid . . . but thank you for the perfect example of of what I meant by "railing".

Yep, "Nuclear kills" says it all.

"Rail on?" That "railing on" as you call it (which happens to include much good information about this very important topic) proves that at least there is a multitude of information out here to refute the BS spewed by corporate lackeys like Patrick Moore with people passionate enough about it to take the time to come here to convey it to others because they care. That is actually what this staiton is all about is it not? Not just spewing one liners now to get on TV. You want it short and sweet though? OK:

Nuclear kills.

okey dokey?

I'll admit dude has some points, but at the same time he's being extremely optimistic concerning the benign nature of nuke energy and the industry he is proposing. He is correct in saying that nuclear technology has progressed greatly over the last few years, but if he truly thinks these very same technologies will not be weaponized in a country that spends more money on weapons than anything else, I would say he's being a bit blind to the realities of the place we call home. Solar energy has made leaps and bounds (though I concur about who is making money of that industry) as well as wind energy. I think we could stand giving it a look, but by no means should we abandon the progress that has been made in other areas.

TouchArt "Shame on current.com for posting the hopeful, but woefully misinformed comment on television and omitting any of the comments against nuclear energy."

Care to elaborate?

Why would he just change his mind one day? Maybe, THEY kidnapped him and replaced him with a robot!

TouchArt: "Shame on current.com for posting the hopeful, but woefully misinformed comment on television and omitting any of the comments against nuclear energy."

Your points are well taken and absolutely something to take into serious consideration, however, the comment Current chose is not "woefully misinformed" but open minded and accepting of the fact that at this point in time we cannot just eliminate nuclear sites for lack of a replacement.

Besides, how in the he** do you expect them to quote comments against nuclear energy on this post when they rail on for several paragraphs?

I agree, Touch Art. Hopefully, people will at least read the information here to know that Patrick Moore is simply one of many paid propagandists looking to keep the status quo to keep truly alternate energies from seeing the light of day on our markets and in our homes. I will NEVER subscribe to nuclear energy and like coal will fight it with my voice, my pen, and my soul. Those who only play the I'll sit on the fence game because they don't want to offend anyone's sensibilities are playing a dangerous game with our planet and our children. There is NO WAY I will allow my child growing up in a toxic nuclear world, and I will stand up to ANY politician who touts it as "green" just to keep their campaign contributions rolling in.

Oh, and shame on Newsweek for not mentioning his paychecks in their interivew and giving him a platform for his paid propaganda without a fair mention of why he does this now. I wrote in another post that fell that the nuclear industry is waging a misinformation campaign the likes of EXXON and the tobacco companies (and Patrick Moore is also associated with the Heartland Institute which has waged a personal vendetta campaign against Al Gore) but I suppose that detail isn't important. So, our future is to then be toxic nuclear, fossil fuels, and oil with "corn" ethanol as nuclear companies now buy up other companies to put the green label on themselves as they continue to sell the same crap to us? It then makes the work of Mr. Gore and others all the more important. We truly need innovation and investment in sustainable energy sources to counter this onslaught of misinformaiton and greed, And we also need people to educate themselves on just why certain people are now coming our against greenhouse gas emission cuts when the evidence is overwhelming that it must be done to avert catastrophe. Gold bars are never a choice when Earth is on the line.

yes, Jan, thanks for that.

I care about exposing liars and phonies who put human health and this planet at risk for a paycheck.

Five years later, in 1981 he said of Greenpeace's priorities: "The nuclear issue is going to be the major one in the next 10 years, right from the issue of nuclear testing, to the issue of waste dumping to the issue of uranium mining -- all down the line it's going to be necessary for people to become more aware and educated."[7]

[edit]U-turn
Moore testified in 2006 about his changing views: "A lot has changed in the 35 years since then, and my views have changed along with these new circumstances ... As a co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition along with Gov. Christie Todd Whitman, I make it known often that I strongly believe the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because now—more than ever before—nuclear energy is the electricity source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: potentially harmful climate change."[8]

snip

In May 2007, Moore told the San Francisco Bay Guardian, "In every interview I do the reporter already knows that I'm cochair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition and that I work for the nuclear industry." [5]

But the Guardian called his disclosure practices into question, noting that "Moore did not identify himself as such during a lengthy interview with us until we asked. The disclosure was also missing during the long biographical presentation given to the folks in Fresno on Feb. 22, which did include pictures of his [Greenpeace] Rainbow Warrior days. Again, on May 24, Moore didn't mention his plutonium paycheck during a radio debate on KZYX. Neither did the moderator, and it was only when [Dan] Hirsch [of the anti-nuclear group Committee to Bridge the Gap], his debating partner, got a moment to speak that it was revealed. 'Let's be clear here, Patrick,' Hirsch said. 'You're being paid by the industry.'" [6]

snip

[edit]Uranium boosting
In January 2008, the Arizona-based mining company Bancroft Uranium Inc. announced that it had retained Moore's PR firm, with the firm "act[ing] as a liaison to the public and media regarding all inquiries concerning the Monmouth Uranium Project near Bancroft, Ontario." [25]

At the same time, Moore joined Bancroft's Advisory Board. In a press release, Bancroft president Les Hammond said Moore's advisory role "will allow the Company access to his wealth of valuable experience regarding the Nuclear Industry and developing a strategy for the future of the Monmouth Uranium Deposit and other uranium projects within Bancroft's portfolio."

Moore is also listed as an honorary member of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy-USA and the Honorary Chair of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy-Canada. [1] [2]

snip

While extolling the purported benefits of nuclear power as a solution to global warming, Moore has also ridiculed efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2005 Moore had attended the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Montreal. "Expanding nuclear energy is one way that we can actually [reduce] reliance on fossil fuels in a big way," said Moore, who also praised the United States for refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, calling the treaty "a colossal waste of time and money."[5]

[edit]Previous anti-nuclear sentiment
That contrasts sharply with Moore's earlier stance on nuclear power. For the 1976 issue of the Greenpeace Report, Moore wrote the following, according to one of Moore's contemporaries at Greenpeace, Captain Paul Watson: [4]

Nuclear powerplants are, next to nuclear warheads themselves, the most dangerous devices that man has ever created. Their construction and proliferation is the most irresponsible, in fact the most criminal, act ever to have taken place on the planet. ...
It should be remembered that there are employed in the nuclear industry some very high-powered public relations organizations. One can no more trust them to tell the truth about nuclear power than about which brand of toothpaste will result in this apparently insoluble problem.
Moore described nuclear power plants as "slow atomic bombs" and warned that radioactive waste was an "insoluble problem".

In the report, Moore also took issue with the nuclear industry's spin doctors: "It should be remembered that there are employed in the nuclear industry some very high-powered public relations organizations. One can no more trust them to tell the truth about nuclear power than about which brand of toothpaste will result in this apparently insoluble problem".

The report ended with the statement; “The time to stop this crime against ourselves and countless future generations is now.”[6]

interesting to read all u guys' responses, thanks for caring

I have to disagree with you there thedismembermentplan, if we changed most of the power plants to nuclear the demand for Uranium would be so great that soon Uranium reserves would run out.

nuclear energy is amazing! we need to tackle the tough challenges it presents such as water consumption and waste, but if we could invest some good hard R+D into it, nuclear energy could be a great alternative energy source. we should take a nod from France, where nuclear energy provides more than 70% of all energy, and use this powerful technology to our advantage. I believe in diversifying the portfolio with solar and wind energies, but nuclear power can and should be our cornerstone.

hah,
that would be funny if you had a snickers bar ready for every time a greenpeace advocate approached you.

(chomp, chomp) mm hmm, tell me more... (chomp, chomp, toss)

haha stephen..at least you entertain them...i get the "hey wanna be my friend"

its manhattan..hell no i don't wanna be your friend!!!

they make me want to litter :-( everywhere :(

no kidding keeshii. Any of those people trying to get your signature on the sidewalk are just plain annoying. walking to work the other day, one girl sees me walking in her direction and says "helloooo" when i'm like 20 feet away from her. So i wait until i'm two feet away from her and then say "hello."

She says "want to help support universal health care?"

and I said "do you want money?"

"yes, but it'll only take a second."

"it'll take more than a second to get my money."

and then I added,

"I voted for Barack, and I'll vote for him in the general election. If that isn't enough to get universal health care then we're all fucked anyway."

those people in greenpeace drive me damn near out of my mind when they grab my arm when I'm trying to get to class to inform me of the woes in the environment grrrr

tatuaje: Right on.

KUDOS TO YOU tatuaje!

Thanks for that tip futuregen...the guy's a freakin' plant.

See how insidious these people are...they even got the people who hang out at current (more progressive than your average cyberspot) parroting their lines....

He's a corporate infiltrator....you can never let your guard down because they specialize in spoon feeding the masses toxic information while making it taste so good...

see that link, Jan? looks like Nader is the candidate for you.

I think that everyone is also missing another big problem with nuclear power; it is, like fossil fuels non-renewable. Say, for example if we started to replace many of the oil/gas/coal power stations with Nuclear power stations, Uranium/Plutonium supplies will start to run low and eventually just like oil is at the moment , it will start to run out. There is also a problem that nuclear energy is not economically or energetically feasible transportation fuel. Will also have the problem that it takes years and a hell of a lot of money to build and get a Nuclear power plant on line (I have read it costs $3-5 billion per plant) and putting that into a context of trying to replace many of the fossil fuel power plants, this can be very expensive to do. Also the waste problem as everyone else seems to have mentioned, and if an accident happens like Chernobyl. So in my opinion, if we try to swap to Nuclear energy, we will only be creating a dependence in nuclear fuel ores in the future, which looks similar to our situation now with oil/fossil fuels now.

So a lot of Greens don't like nuclear power, because it is dangerous, and the byproduct is deadly for a trillion years (or something like that).

I know why Moore is for this. He is hoping that nuclear power will rise to replace fossil fuels, thus eliminating a lot of, for lack of a better term, nasty stuff.

Then once we are all on nuclear power, we will have a lot of radioactive waste and the constant fear of fallout, and since those things are a threat to US, not to our great great grandchildren, people will be more motivated to do something about it. See by pushing nuclear power he is trying to scare us into "real" green energy.

Either I am more paranoid then I thought, or absolutely brilliant.

thanks futuregen, but i'm not going to read 290 pages of .pdf on the internet, much less print them out. The trees are already thanking me.

but I'll agree that we certainly aren't doing everything on the wind and solar front that we should be. what does Obama say about wind and solar? Will his administration start putting our money into these items, or will he "let the market take care of it," as some have suggested?

"Vierotchka likes treating the SYMPTOMS, but the CAUSE of corporate oppression." -- Pure, unadulterated excreta bovines - it takes a very twisted mind to come to such a warped conclusion based on delusions, Berry.

I am not afraid of nuclear technology. I know that the past 20 years have seen a lot of good failsafe technology developed for use in Nuclear Reactors.

My problem is that nuclear power pollutes. Heat is Pollution. Nuclear plants take the massive amount of energy that is locked in nuclear bonds, and lets them out into the earth. Conservation of Energy kids...

Solar, Wind, and Wave power all actually take energy that is already there and use it. Net result: These technologies, have no net pollution other than from manufacturing.

We need a War On Waste, and spend ridiculous amounts of money decentralizing and cleaning up our national power generation system.

Thanks, futuregen. It seems that no matter how much you write about this or the global water crisis it is ignored. The two most major catastrophes we have facing us in this age, and people on the whole don't see the urgency of them and only use them as a poltical wedge. Al Gore stated he had fallen out of love with politics... I definitely see why.

The article you reference which I did is one of the most comprehensive informational articles on nuclear power and the repurcussions of its use and yet as you stated it fell away. But no matter, because people won't stand up to this government regarding it, especially with presidential candidates who support it who they will support in the end above this planet.

I then grow weary of the constant drumbeat regarding nuclear and people stating "let's wait to see what they come up with." Nuclear energy will NEVER be safe, and I would never believe a company or a 'politician' involved in it who told us it was. The nuclear industry is now using the climate crisis to reinvigorate an industry whose time has past and climate skeptics like Patrick Moore I am sure will gleefully dance to that tune. They see dollar signs in their eyes is all, and nothing they say will convince me that nuclear energy is anything but a fast track to oblivion.

Of course, that is not up for discussion either, because if you mention that in corrolation to the current Democratic presidential candidates who then actually agree with him as well as Bush and Cheney and dare to criticize the policy on this of one in particular, you are a pariah.

Solar energy is the answer, and there are great strides being made in photovoltaics.... but they will be cast aside for nuclear's dangers to human health and it's pollution and toxifying of our waterways because it makes lobbyists and campaign contributors large amounts of money that they use to grease the palms of political candidates that keep the status quo machinery well oiled, while solar, wind, and other forms of alternate energies will be constantly given second class status.

Al Gore's appearance on Capitol Hill last year proved that point well, as most of the questions centered on nuclear as they unfairly brow beat the man to accept it. Don't wonder now why the candidates who are still in this are. They aren't John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich or MIke Gravel who spoke out against nuclear.

Though some of us will continue to speak out, protest, write letters, and put this planet above all when it comes to these issues, those with the gold will continue to make the rules unless we make greater strides in sustainable investments and call upon businesses to look towards the future instead of the past, which is what nuclear is-the past. A nuclear world is no kind of world to be making for our children, and this isn't a "different POV" this is suicide.

We the human species are slowly killing ourselves by our own hand and giving people like Patrick Moore who couldn't give a fart in space about any of us the tools to do it with. Solar and other alternate energies could be brought to market faster than it takes to build one of their toxic monstrosities. But we will continue to believe the lies again. Why? .

good point diode. I dont see why we dont have wind turbines along every coast and solar thermal stations in the southwest. That should FIRST before anything.

i dont see why we aren't creating solar fields all along the equator. or, using tidal coastlines for power. there are a lot of ways we can do this unfortunately only the rich can. and that'll be the day when opec says ok to something other than fossil fuels

it's a hard issue. but the Greenpeace cofounder seems to make some good points.

ideally, we'd all live on wind and solar, but if that's not possible, and the ice caps will be gone soon if we dont come up with an alternative to carbon emissions, then we're between a rock and a hard place arent we.

Since you wanted to hear from JanforGore, here is something she posted a few days ago. It's interesting how this story got buried but the pro-nuke killing machine story made it to the front page. I hope JanforGore is taking a well deserved rest. "....The impacts of the nuclear waste cycle are better described as inter-civilizational. Nuclear fuel wastes remain hazardous for hundreds of thousands to as much as a million years....The fact is that no political or economic system can assure the security or integrity of waste for a period of time even remotely approaching the time period during which waste poses extreme health, environmental, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation risks....Keep in mind that RECORDED HUMAN HISTORY has lasted for only 5,000 years. China, THE WORLD'S OLDEST, CONTINUOUS CIVILIZATION is 10,000 years old. Thirty thousand years ago NEANDERTHALS still populated the European continent. in that time period, the continental glaciers of the Wisconsin age have advanced and retreated, covering and uncovering and GRINDING TO DUST many of the locations of currently operating nuclear power plants and their waste piles......Put simply, the nuclear industry....has transfered and deferred the most expensive part of the cost of the nuclear fuel cycle to future generations and CIVILIZATIONS UNKNOWN."......Karl S.Coplan

He sold his soul to the highest bidder.

His arguments are dated and out of touch at best if he really believes them.

I believe, however, that he really just sold out and uses these lame "reasons" to try and justify it to people that can't see through its disguise.

I never thought about the fact that nuclear power has become synonymous with nuclear war, or explosion or blast.
He has a point that worst harm has come from people using smaller weapons like machetes and guns, but the idea that such a weapon could possibly obliterate a continent is scary on a crazy scale. He makes a really great point though. I'd like to see where this goes.

Vierotchka likes treating the SYMPTOMS, but the CAUSE of corporate oppression.

gee, wonder why?

...is it sheer willful ignorance?
or ...something more?

you decide.

Don't let the facts get in your way, Vierotchka
its important that we separate these issues into such fragmented self-interested groups that nothing is actually accomplished for populist reform.

"that's not their *job*... "

yeah... that's it. we're so much more effective divided than when we're UNITED.

~~~
Spread Love...

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian com
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
"do no harm"

BlueBerry_PickN, it still has nothing to do with the School of the Americas which was centered on supporting friendly dictatorships in South America, **duh** yourself! Oh, and your self-promotion at the bottom of all your posts is pretty annoying.

i was expecting Jan for Gore to do this one. Does that mean he's more orange than Green. Get it nuclear orange. I thought it was funny.

Vierotchka catlitter? dear god, you scare me.

I just showed you an article on how the US Gov't privatized the monitoring & privacy invasions of GreenPeace MEMBERS... but GreenPeace shouldn't be concerned about the PRIVACY or HUMAN RIGHTS of its OWN FREAKING MEMBERSHIP??

good on ya.

**duh** can you say... "you don't get that the US & US media is ensuring that nobody actually talks about how Freedom of Speech... the Beating Heart of Democracy... is under complete attack by corporate $$$ interests? "

along with privacy.

**DUH** the point is that GREENPEACE wants to be able to protest... but if nobody fights for PRIVACY or the RIGHT TO Freedom of Speech...

then they'll just catch a rubber bullet @ the next protest, right? gee, that will inspire a lot more public demonstrations for the Right Thing...

being narrow-minded twit is its own reward, apparently.

There is no WE in corruption
THERE IS NO POPULIST REFORM if there is no forum to share populist ideas without oppression.

The Thieves of Virtue: without the Will to PRIVACY there is no populist reform or genuine representative government.

~~~
Spread Love...

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian com
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
"do no harm"

Homo sapiens is the most important species to homo sapiens, Cosmo, it is only natural that it will seek to do all it can to preserve itself. That's the nature of all life forms.

I have read where they are coming up with better technology to use up more of the fuel cells, and are making progress in safety etc. I'm trying to keep an open mind. I'm still afraid of it and there is still waste. Plus the damage from an accident is permanent.

BlueBerry_PickN - why should Greenpeace (an organization whose purpose is the protection of the environment and with protecting animal species from human predation) be more concerned about the School of the Americas, Congress-funded torture & insurrection school than about the barbaric slaughter of thousands of newborn seals? What is so suspect about that? Would you also say that if masseurs were more concerned about stiff muscles than about the quality of cat litter you would find it rather suspect? I honestly don't see the logic there. Greenpeace is an organization concerned with the protection of the environment, not with the protection of human rights.

You can get a free 25 or so minutes video of a James Lovelock interview at

http://firstscience.tv/sc/view/an-interview-with-james-lovelock-65.html

You need to register (it is free), and then you can get that free video. You will receive by email the url from which to dowload that video, as well as the license number so that you can watch the video. In this video, James Lovelock explains why wind, solar, etc., energy cannot furnish but a fraction of the energy we need, and that nuclear energy leaves a very small footprint in the environment. A must see.

*shriek* nuclear. what can I say?

I've been having some serious concerns about the Canadian Green Party (selling blog 'marketing' & going after the **demonstrably effective NDP** support base) & GreenPeace has been acting bizarre (I'm a human rights & animal rights activist, but have you noticed they're more wound up about protesting impoverished East Coasters surviving the Fisheries Collapse with Canadian seal harvesting, than the School of the Americas, Congress-funded torture & insurrection school?) I find it all rather suspect.

===
EXCLUSIVE:
Cops and Former Secret Service Agents Ran Black Ops on Green Groups

Meet the private security firm that spied on Greenpeace and other environmental outfits for its corporate clients. A tale of intrigue, infiltration, and dumpster-diving.

11.Apr.08: A Mother Jones exclusive
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/04/firm-spied-on-environmental-grou...
Mother Jones has exposed that a security firm run by ex Secret Service agents spied on Greenpeace, Fenton Communications, the Center for Food Safety, and others.

James Ridgeway, the Mother Jones senior correspondent who obtained the never-before-published internal company documents now available on the Mother Jones website, revealed in today's story that a private security company organized and managed by former Secret Service officers spied on Greenpeace and other environmental organizations from the late 1990s through at least 2000, pilfering documents from trash bins, attempting to plant undercover operatives within groups, casing offices, collecting phone records of activists, and penetrating confidential meetings. The smoking gun documents show that Beckett Brown International (BBI), collected confidential records—donor lists, detailed financial statements, the Social Security numbers of staff members, strategy memos—from these groups and produced intelligence reports for public relations firms and major corporations
involved in environmental controversies.

BBI also conducted background checks for the Carlyle Group, the Washington-based investment firm; provided "protective services" for the National Rifle Association; handled "crisis management" for the Gallo wine company; engaged in "information collection" for Wal-Mart. It conducted background checks for Patricia Duff, a Democratic Party fundraiser then involved in an acrimonious child custody battle with billionaire Ronald Perelman. And for Mary Kay, BBI mounted "surveillance" and vetted Gayle Gaston, a top executive at the cosmetics company (and mother of actress Robin Wright Penn), retaining an expert to conduct a psychological assessment of her.

Also listed as clients in BBI records: Halliburton and Blackwater.
===

~~~
Spread Love...

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian com
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
"do no harm"

We'd do well to keep an open mind until all of the facts are in and it may be the lesser of two evils in reducing carbon, but as MM points out, we KNOW sun and wind don't have any negative affects as power sources. Maybe in the long run when wind and solar catch up with the pace we can revisit it's use.

Nuclear power today is a very different animal than the designs that resulted in TMI or Chernobyl. It deserves a new look.

As long as the worldwide population continues to grow, the need for power will grow along with it. Current solar and wind technology cannot even keep pace with the growth requirements for power let alone replace existing infrastructure.

I pray that we can prove him wrong with solar and wind energy.