View Single Post
Unread 13 Jan 2006, 20:39   #27
meglamaniac
Born Sinful
 
meglamaniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Loughborough, UK
Posts: 4,059
meglamaniac has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.meglamaniac has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.meglamaniac has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.meglamaniac has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.meglamaniac has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.meglamaniac has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.meglamaniac has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.meglamaniac has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.meglamaniac has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.meglamaniac has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.meglamaniac has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
The work I'm doing has significant applications in solar cells and may help us to manufacture them cheaply enough to be a useful energy source.

What will YOU do to help save the planet?
Good for you.
However, someone of your intellect should refrain from trying to troll. The question is meaningless in relation to the subject. I think we all agree that war is also a problem that should be fixed. What will YOU do to help save those lives lost to it?

Lack of involvement does not preclude the ability to criticise, especially when such sensationalist PR is used in an attempt to restart an argument which is already lost. By all means talk about the credible risks (waste disposal, radiation leaks, meltdown) but not terrorism. The chance of a terrorist attack against a nuclear installation looks infinitesimal in comparison to the previously stated risks.

I don't object to anti-nuclear campaigns, although I don't agree with them*.
I object to crude attempts to scare the public based on shock value alone, with no due consideration of the real problems surrounding the issue.

From Greenpeace's own PDF on the issue:

Quote:
The terrorist attacks of 9/11 alerted the world to the potential of nuclear terrorism - making it "far more likely", according to the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), that terrorists could target nuclear facilities, nuclear material and radioactive sources worldwide.
It did? Maybe I missed the bit where the twin towers were hit with a nuclear device then. If anything, 9/11 served to show us that inflicting maximum casualties was not a prime consideration. Not only could the attack have been timed for later in the working day, it could not have been easier to target a reactor had that been the aim. Flight #11 flew directly over the Indian Point reactor before slamming into the north tower minutes later.

Greenpeace do great things sometimes, but on this occasion they've lost any credibility by resorting to such juvenile tactics.


* To clarify my own position:
- Weapons are bad mmkay
- Power is ok, for use as a stopgap on the way to better things. I do not want to see a permenant reliance on fission.
__________________
Worth dying for. Worth killing for. Worth going to hell for. Amen.
meglamaniac is offline   Reply With Quote