Greenpeace: Climate Change Denial

7/31/2019 Greenpeace: Climate Change Denial

1/15

Climate Change Denial: The anti-science rhetoric of Greenpeace

By THATGINGERSCOUSER

Added: Monday, 06 June 2011 at 8:39 AM

This damning indictment of the International Atomic Energy Agency published on the

Greenpeace site last Saturday, in my opinion, plays right into the hands of climate change

deniers: it uses exactly the same sort of rhetoric as I see levelled against the IPCC: the same half-

truths, innuendo and misleading cherry-picked 'data'.

Why should we not be using nuclear power? Because it is perceived to be dangerous. But how

dangerous? As unhealthy as making men dig in South American coal mines? As dangerous as a

Qatari gas tanker filled to the brim with ultra-flammable fuel sailing through Somali pirate

waters? As bad for the environment as deep-sea oil drilling? As bad for the economy as relying

on the tyrannical regimes of the Middle East for our electricity? According to all the available

data, no. According to Greenpeace, yes.

Again after Fukushima (as after Chernobyl) there was much pulling of hair and gnashing of teeth

from the environmental brigade, and (as after Chernobyl) their apocalyptic fantasies failed to

come true. More coal miners died in the Pike River mine disaster in New Zealand last year than

died tackling the partial meltdown in Fukushima.

Lets put this into context: this plant was hit by one of the five biggest earthquakes in recorded

history. It was then hit by a 14 metre wall of water: an unprecedented attack in the history of

nuclear power.

And what is the reported death toll from the clean-up operation? One. Yup. One person shuffled

off this mortal coil and that was from a heart attack. There is a leakage of radioactive isotopes

around the immediate area, but can we please put this into context? 25,000 people died on thatawful day in March, and so far not a single person has been killed by radiation poisoning. The

Fukushima exclusion zone (at its height) was 20km around the plant. Compare that to the 80-

square-mile (210 km) kill zone surrounding the blown Deepwater Horizon oil well in the Gulf

of Mexico. So far two people have been hospitalised by radiation poisoning in Fukushima. 500

people have been hospitalised in Europe from eating CUCUMBERS.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/no-confidence-in-the-international-atomic-ene/blog/35120?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GreenpeaceNews+%28Greenpeace+News%29http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/no-confidence-in-the-international-atomic-ene/blog/35120?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GreenpeaceNews+%28Greenpeace+News%29http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/no-confidence-in-the-international-atomic-ene/blog/35120?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GreenpeaceNews+%28Greenpeace+News%29http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/238http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/no-confidence-in-the-international-atomic-ene/blog/35120?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GreenpeaceNews+%28Greenpeace+News%29


2/15

I cant stress this enough: just because nuclear power is complicated, it doesnt mean it is

inherently more dangerous than coal, oil, gas or even yes CUCUMBERS. Fossil fuel even

when NOTHING GOES WRONG is substantially worse for the miners, transporters, the

global economy, local environment and, of course, the whole bloody planet.

Nuclear power could save us, save the whole goddamn world, but is Greenpeace pushing for

investment, research, safety procedures, more plants? No. Theyre pushing to have no plants

whatsoever. Why? Because they say that scientists aint to be trusted.

Isnt that EXACTLY what batshit crazies like Tony Abbot, Sarah Palin and THE ENTIRE

FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY are saying? Dont trust the hard science, dont peruse the facts, just

come up with your own judgement based on how you feel?

I am alone in thinking this? Am I missing the point?

Link to my original blog post on this matter

TAGGED :EARTH SCIENCES , POLITICS

Comment 1 by Alan4discussion

There has certainly been a rather fanatical anti-nuclear lobby for many years, which is why the

UK and other countries are becoming desperate for power generating capacity, and lack ideas on

how to deliver this to meet carbon reduction targets.

The criticism of poor world regulation of the nuclear industries is also valid, which many of the

priorities political & focussed on weapons technologies couched in secrecy. Investment in

nuclear and green generating systems has been obstructed for years by badly informed press

hysteria. France is one of the few countries which seems to have made early plans both for a start

on tidal power generation and on reliance on nuclear systems.

Sunday, 12 June 2011 at 5:49 AM | #637548
http://theodysseyexpedition.com/day-884-a-greenpeace-of-my-mind/http://theodysseyexpedition.com/day-884-a-greenpeace-of-my-mind/http://richarddawkins.net/archive/discussions/latest?tag_ids%5b%5d=12http://richarddawkins.net/archive/discussions/latest?tag_ids%5b%5d=12http://richarddawkins.net/archive/discussions/latest?tag_ids%5b%5d=12http://richarddawkins.net/archive/discussions/latest?tag_ids%5b%5d=25http://richarddawkins.net/archive/discussions/latest?tag_ids%5b%5d=25http://richarddawkins.net/archive/discussions/latest?tag_ids%5b%5d=25http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_637548http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_637548http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/147783http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/147783http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/147783http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Stationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Stationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Stationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Stationhttp://richarddawkins.net/profiles/147783http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Stationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Stationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Stationhttp://richarddawkins.net/profiles/147783http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_637548http://richarddawkins.net/archive/discussions/latest?tag_ids%5b%5d=25http://richarddawkins.net/archive/discussions/latest?tag_ids%5b%5d=12http://theodysseyexpedition.com/day-884-a-greenpeace-of-my-mind/


3/15

Comment 2 by PaulinSydney

I must confess, firstly, that I did not read the Greenpeace report you have linked to - I was going

to, but I've had my weekly recommended limit of shrill environmentalism and, frankly, life's too

short. So, from that point of admitted ignorance, a few comments. You are probably correct that

nuclear energy will be necessary if we are going to seriously tackle the problems of greenhouse

gas emissions, but that still does not make me an enthusiastic supporter of the nuclear option.

It seems to me you are ignoring the fact that radiation poisoning does not kill in weeks or

months, and that the effects of a disaster like the Fukishima meltdown are likely to last for many,

many years. So while at the moment, more people died in the Pike River mine disaster, thepotential death toll from Fukishima is much higher, at least if we use Chernobyl as a comparison,

where, according to Nature , 4000 people have died as a result of radiation exposure. While this

hardly constitutes an apocalypse, it is still a significant number of deaths. I will also note that

Greenpeace claims a much higher death toll from Chernobyl, and it is always possible that

they're right. So it seems to be just a little Pollyanna-ish to claim that Fukishima will have no

impact on the long term health and life-expectancy of the citizens of the region, possibly in a

much wider radius than the 20km exclusion zone.

And we still haven't worked out what to do with all the radioactive waste.

Sunday, 12 June 2011 at 6:39 AM | #637562


in my opinion, plays right into the hands of climate change deniers: it uses exactly the same sortof rhetoric as I see levelled against the IPCC

In arguments I have had in the past with climate change deniers, their rather pathetic view of the

environment is that climate change is a pet "theory" of hippies, tree-huggers and yokels. The
http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_637562http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_637562http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/105418http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/105418http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/105418http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_637696http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_637696http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/147783http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/147783http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/147783http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/147783http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/105418http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/147783http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_637696http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/105418http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_637562


4/15

concept of environmental sciences (as with the sort of media they use for information) entirely

escapes them.

There are a few science educated deniers from the coal and oil industries, from engineering, or

narrow area specialisms, where their biological and Earth science education has been neglected,but for the most part climate change deniers are as ignorant as evolution deniers.

Greenpeace has fought some worthy battles where governments have caved in to commercial

recklessness, but the does not mean they have the scientific expertise needed for decisions on all

subjects.

I think we need nuclear power generation, but both Windscale and Chernobyl disasters were the

result of poor design and reckless management of experiments.

(Chernobyl) is considered the worst nuclear power plant accident in history, and is one of only

two classified as a level 7 event on the International Nuclear Event Scale (the other being the

Fukushima I nuclear accident).

The obvious question on the Fukushima site is why nuclear plants were built in places vulnerable

to earthquakes and tsunami, without the capability to cope with these.

The questions about back-up and shut-down systems apply everywhere, but the tsunami and

earthquake issues are only relevant to particular geographical locations.

These disasters reflect design, political and management failures, rather than inherent problems

with this type of power generation.

Sunday, 12 June 2011 at 2:20 PM | #637696

Comment 4 by Arnott Bird

Hmmmm....I think you may be missing the main point of the article. Namely, is it really a good

idea to have an organisation (the IAEA) in charge of the safety assessment of the nuclear

industry while also being charged with 'accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_firehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_firehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_firehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disasterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disasterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disasterhttp://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_637702http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_637702http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/158490http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/158490http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/158490http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/158490http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/158490http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_637702http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disasterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire


5/15

Does seem like a bit of a conflict of interest.

The IAEA reported that the Japanese governments reaction to the disaster was good. "The

Japanese Governments longer term response to protect the public,including evacuation, has

been impressive and extremely well organized."; this despite that it was only becauseGreenpeace had revealed that huge levels of radiation in the area that a village outside the

original evacuation zone. School children in the area were being subjected to 20 times the ICRP's

recommended radiation limit.

All of this is in the report linked to in the OP. I just don't see any 'anti science rhetoric' here.

What I do see are some pretty reasonable questions being asked about possible conflict of

interest and what appears to be misleading and/or lax safety and health information.

Sunday, 12 June 2011 at 2:59 PM | #637702

Comment 5 by danconquer

While broadly agreeing with your urging of caution against hysterical anti-nuclear, I think you

would have done better not to attempt to make equally unscientific death-toll comparisons in

your opening post. The insidious nature of radiation poisoning - unlike the food poisoning, andmine explosions which you make comparisons with - is that it takes years, sometimes decades,

for the cancers it provokes to become apparent. It's really far too early to be proudly proclaiming

the apparent lack of fatalities from a meltdown that occured only a few months ago.

Unfortunately radiation works it's magic at a rate far too slowly to satisfy the human urge for a

neat, timely, easily-digested narrative.

There are numerous credible studies that suggest the total causal death toll from Chernobyl could

be 5,000 or 20,000 or even 40,000. We just don't know for certain. But the real possibility of forty thousand premature and painful deaths is something that warrants teeth-gnashing and hair-

pulling.
http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_637925http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_637925http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/159823http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/159823http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/159823http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/159823http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/159823http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_637925


6/15

Of course this all needs to be put into context of the deaths, misery and danger associated with

fossil fuels... But then Greenpeace are also consistent in their opposition to those as well, so their

position is not inconsistent, as the opening post appears to be implying.

Monday, 13 June 2011 at 7:07 AM | #637925

Comment 6 by ollipehkonen

The Greenpeace (and other likeminded organizations') position of opposing a whole range of

electricity producing technologies while not offering anything that could replace them is a way to

go back to the stone age. What they accomplish when succesful is what just happened in

Germany. German politicians (Merkel et. al.) with jelly for back bones saw the populist

opportunity and made a decision that when carried through will mean the end of Europe's hopes

to reach any greenhouse gas reduction plans. That is because abandoning fission power will in

practice mean substituting with fossil fuels. The activists that want the world to abandon nuclear

power don't live in the real world in terms of understanding the options at hand.

I'll share an anecdote about these environmentalists. To me it seems that many of them like to

appear as if they cared about humans. However, there was the parliamentary election in Finland

about 3 weeks after the Japanise tsunami. The green party abandoned their original capaign and

with the help of numerous environmentalist organizations formed a new campaign based on the

"no nuclear" ideology. However, not a single person in any of those groups made a public

remark about how it was a good time to help the people of Japan. In their media appearances

they all just saw the death of tens of thousands of Japanise people as a political opportunity.

They didn't care about the disaster striken nation of Japan, just about how they could use the

disaster to further their cause. the same happened globally and this meant that a huge amount of

attention was diverted from those who actually needed help.

On another note, an employee of our national radiation regulator body told me in a conversation

that Japan had been warned by the IAEA about the inadequate natural disaster safeguards that

they had in place. It's just terrible design if you don't have anti-tsunami safeguards in the world's

most active seismic area. Not a sign of how dangerous nuclear power is.


7/15

Monday, 13 June 2011 at 10:53 AM | #638024

Comment 7 by Seashore

I support Greenpeace. Any group that works to help and preserve the earth and its environment

has my love and support!

We have a choice: live within the confines of our environment both in it, and of it, or go our own

way which in the end is no way. We are not separate from the earth but rather a part of it and

nuclear power has not yet been tamed enough for safe use. Not because it cannot be but because

greed bars it from being used in a common sense way. Until we learn to do what is best for all

rather than what is most profitable, we will continue to see nuclear power badly managed and a

danger to man.

Monday, 13 June 2011 at 1:06 PM | #638092


Comment 6 by ollipehkonen

You make a good point about campaigns which oppose various options without offering

constructive alternatives.


We are not separate from the earth but rather a part of it and nuclear power has not yet been

tamed enough for safe use

Nuclear power is being used safely in many places, but the point about politicians cheaping out

and dodging responsibility for supervising & funding properly managed systems is well made.

The failure to plan and the past lack of investment means that we have no option but to use

nuclear power for a significant part of our electricity supply if carbon emissions are to be


8/15

managed, despite some provision from alternatives as discussed here: -

http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/632627-harness-the-sea-national-geographic-june-2011-

tidal-wave-power-generation

Monday, 13 June 2011 at 4:15 PM | #638168

Comment 9 by ccw95005

I mostly agree with the original poster, but it certainly is too early to know how many deaths

from radiation we will see in the coming years.

In the US, our big nuclear accident was at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania. I remember a jokesome years later, popular among the opposition political party, that more people died at

Chappaquiddick Island than at Three Mile Island. (Chappaquiddick was where Sen. Ted

Kennedy drove his car off the bridge and his companion, Mary Jo Kopechne, died. Huge

scandal.) Actually, at Three Mile Island there were no immediate deaths, and it's estimated that

the dose of radiation might have caused one or two cancer deaths later on.

I'd be wary of accepting any huge estimate of anti-nuclear activists as to the number of radiation-

related deaths from Chernobyl or the Japan earthquake. Gross overestimates are par for thecourse. But there were and will be some, of course.

But we have to weigh risks and benefits. The number of automobile fatalities dwarfs the number

of nuclear power plant deaths, but we don't outlaw cars. I understand that modern nuclear power

plants have failsafe shutdown mechanisms that would have prevented the kind of meltdowns that

occurred in Japan. And as severe a natural catastrophe as that is very unlikely to happen again in

our lifetimes or our grandchildren's lifetimes. So the danger from power plant meltdowns of any

plants built from now on is exceeding small. The issue of nuclear waste storage is troubling butagain the dangers are probably overstated.

The reasons I think that we should go ahead with nuclear power plant construction is that it is

very clean in terms of CO2 emissions, and it's a way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. If

you're worried about global warming, nuclear power is our best way to slow it down.
http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/632627-harness-the-sea-national-geographic-june-2011-tidal-wave-power-generationhttp://richarddawkins.net/discussions/632627-harness-the-sea-national-geographic-june-2011-tidal-wave-power-generationhttp://richarddawkins.net/discussions/632627-harness-the-sea-national-geographic-june-2011-tidal-wave-power-generationhttp://richarddawkins.net/discussions/632627-harness-the-sea-national-geographic-june-2011-tidal-wave-power-generationhttp://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638192http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638192http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/162629http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/162629http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/162629http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/162629http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/162629http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638192http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/632627-harness-the-sea-national-geographic-june-2011-tidal-wave-power-generationhttp://richarddawkins.net/discussions/632627-harness-the-sea-national-geographic-june-2011-tidal-wave-power-generation


9/15

Unfortunately, what happened in Japan is likely going to grind the construction of new nuclear

power plants to a halt.

Monday, 13 June 2011 at 5:22 PM | #638192


The number of automobile fatalities dwarfs the number of nuclear power plant deaths, but we

don't outlaw cars.

Right, and that's because when someone gets killed on one side of town no one gets killed on the

other side.

Monday, 13 June 2011 at 5:36 PM | #638195

Comment 11 by Tyler Durden

Comment 10 by Seashore :

The number of automobile fatalities dwarfs the number of nuclear power plant deaths, but wedon't outlaw cars.


other side.

Until next week. Or the week after. Or the week after that...

Monday, 13 June 2011 at 6:01 PM | #638200


Comment 11 by Tyler Durden :
http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638195http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638195http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638200http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638200http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/10658http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/10658http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/10658http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638195http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638195http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638203http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638203http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638200http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638200http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/10658http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/10658http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/10658http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/10658http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/10658http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638200http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638203http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638195http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/10658http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638200http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638195


10/15


The number of automobile fatalities dwarfs the number of nuclear power plant deaths, but we

don't outlaw cars.


other side.

Until next week. Or the week after. Or the week after that...

My point was that one accident on this side of town does not itself cause others to die on the

other.

Monday, 13 June 2011 at 6:05 PM | #638203

Comment 13 by Tyler Durden



other.

You're commiting the fallacy of Composition and Division in order to excuse the actual reality

of automobile fatalities (taken as a whole).

Monday, 13 June 2011 at 6:18 PM | #638207


Comment 13 by Tyler Durden :



other.
http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638195http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638195http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638207http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638207http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/10658http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/10658http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/10658http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638203http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638203http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_compositionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_compositionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_compositionhttp://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638219http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638219http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638207http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638207http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/10658http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/10658http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/10658http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638203http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638203http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/10658http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638203http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/10658http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638207http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638219http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_compositionhttp://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638203http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/10658http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638207http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/175204http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial/comments?page=1#comment_638195


11/15

You're commiting the fallacy of Composition and Division in order to excuse the actual reality

of automobile fatalities (taken as a whole).

Hey, I'm sorry, please excuse my ignorance. :) But "fallacy of Composition and Division" does

not make a car accident on one side of town kill people on the other...but if that's what youbelieve fine...no problem here. ;)

Monday, 13 June 2011 at 6:40 PM | #638219

Comment 15 by Arnott Bird

Seashore makes a good point, with regards to consequence. The point made regarding the non-banning of cars is actually a pretty weak argument for nuclear power, because car accidents (and

fatalities) still occur at a regular rate despite the fact that the dangers of car driving are well

known, and technological advances have mitigated against some of the consequences and causes.

Human error still occurs, people take risks.

I'd be wary of accepting any huge estimate of anti-nuclear activists as to the number of radiation-

related deaths from Chernobyl or the Japan earthquake. Gross overestimates are par for the

course. But there were and will be some, of course.

I take it that you have read the reports that these are based upon and can coherently argue against

the figures reached. If not then all that you are doing is projecting your own belief about the

safety of nuclear power upon the question.

But, again, the original article did not contain 'anti-scientific rhetoric', and none of the points it

actually raised have been discussed here. It didn't demand the dismantling of the nuclear

industry, it questioned the conflict of interest inherent in the IAEA's mandate and the purported

good management of the disaster by the Japanese government.

All the rhetoric and hyperbole seems to have been introduced within this discussion.

Monday, 13 June 2011 at 11:31 PM | #638276


12/15

Comment 16 by educationsaves

If we start on the basis that we have a few common goals 1) use the sources that have the lowest

negative impact on the environment 2) use the source of power that causes the fewest deaths. 3)

that we require a reliable and abundant source of energy.

Confirming that we have similar goals we can simply look at the statistics to make a reasoned

rational selection from the available choices:

Hydro-electric is an obvious first choice when available and environmentally acceptable.

Solar and wind are great ideas but take huge amounts of real estate and fail on a dark windlessnight.They should be used when possible but at the current level of development are not

practicable as a primary source. The power at for example a hospital must stay on. How do you

back up these sources? Fossil fuel , so a reasonable analysis of these technologies must include

the environmental damage and loss of human life from their back up systems.

That leaves us with Nuclear if we truly want to cause the least amount of human suffering.

Fossil fuel is not a viable choice, limited supply, massive environmental damage and in Ontario

Canada coal alone causes more than 600 deaths every year.

Trouble is when it comes to nuclear power some people are not using reason to make their

choice. I would be interested if someone has the data as to what environmental damage was done

in Japan when the earthquake and tidal wave roared through the oil refineries I assume they

have?

Tuesday, 14 June 2011 at 7:27 PM | #638665




13/15

Hydro-electric is an obvious first choice when available and environmentally acceptable.

Actually hydroelectric dams have very considerable environmental impacts as do tidal barrages,

but not in terms of adverse carbon emissions. Tidal turbines look much more environmentally

friendly.

Comment 9 by ccw95005

I mostly agree with the original poster, but it certainly is too early to know how many deaths

from radiation we will see in the coming years.

Without in anyway diminishing the need for safeguards in dealing with nuclear power, there are

deaths from natural background and Solar radiation. The Chernobyl site, while still quite

radioactive in terms of human prescribed safety limits, does have some people (ignoringwarnings) and a great deal of wildlife, successfully living in the polluted zone. Indeed some

wildlife (despite small levels of radiation mortalities), is doing better, as a result of protection

from excluding humans.

Wednesday, 15 June 2011 at 2:57 AM | #638751


Re Comment by Alan4discussion: When I was commenting on hydro electric I was mainly

thinking of sites like Niagara Falls (I can see it from my house) not dams. That is why I tempered

it with"where environmentally acceptable. Tidal turbines may be more friendly but they are

known to disrupt coast lines and fisheries. Again all for it where it can be made environmentally

acceptable.

I agree that we do not know the eventual deaths from radiation leaks at plants but we do knowthe current numbers, 0 at 3 mile island, 0 at the Japanese meltdown, Chernobyl 43. Lets go with

the total of 43 and double it to 86 then pretend it is off by a magnitude of 1000 for a total of

43,000 deaths and that is over 30 some odd years. I'll just quote the fossil fuel numbers "Global

death toll from the pollution from fossil fuel burning-based electricity generation. It is estimated


14/15

that 0.3 million people die annually world-wide from societally-imposed, fossil fuel-based

electricity generation pollutants (carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,

particulates, volatile organics and heavy metals, notably mercury) and 170,000 people die

annually world-wide from coal burning-based electricity generation" - info found at Yarra Valley

Climate Action Group

So that is a greatly exaggerated 43,000 for nuclear to 9,000,000 for for fossil fuel over 30 years.

Its not even close . Put it this way 7or 8 million are dead because we didn't build more nuclear

plants. Can you imagine the uproar if nuclear was killing 300,000 people a year?

Wednesday, 15 June 2011 at 9:58 AM | #638916

Comment 19 by Martin_C

Surely the knee-jerk reaction to nuclear power as bad is simply because when people hear the

word 'nuclear' the first things that pop into their mind are the words 'bomb' and 'radiation' and a

picture of a mushroom cloud. It doesn't matter to most people about how safe it actually is, the

word nuclear is emotively negative because of it's association with war. For example, I'm sure

when people hear the term 'nuclear submarine' they think of a vessel armed with nuclear

weapons, not a vessel powered by nuclear energy. If it was called 'fission energy' or something

other than 'nuclear' I bet we would have 80% less resistance to it. Anyone agree?

Thursday, 16 June 2011 at 12:14 AM | #639116



I don't think there is any doubt about the historic health hazards to miners or from air pollution.

Much of the problem is media sensationalism and disinformation. The political fixation on short

term profits and dodging public responsibility & investment is also a problem, although


15/15

splashing /$billions on military adventures at a time of financial difficulty, does not to merit a

second thought!

http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-

climate-change-denial
http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denialhttp://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denialhttp://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denialhttp://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denialhttp://richarddawkins.net/discussions/634789-is-greenpeace-s-anti-science-rhetoric-fueling-climate-change-denial

Documents

Greenpeace: Climate Change Denial