Rat's Ass / Denial / Great Divides
See just this Post & Comments / 1 Comments so far / Post a Comment / Home
Next, Back, Thread Ahead: Ontario Energy Minister Donna Cansfield, Thread Back: A River Runs Through It.
I'm junk but I'm still holding up this little wild bouquet. (Leonard Cohen)
Today we see Greenpeace going after the IAEA on Chernobyl. Their report includes opinions by some people who should know; and the official IAEA death toll of 56 (or 112 or 116 or whatever) is ludicrous; nonetheless Greenpeace is challenged as 'unscientific' and that is enough to discredit them. But so what? Is it any wonder? Greenpeace and the United nations stand on opposite shores of an ideological Great Divide. The result is a no-brainer - smoke and heat but no light.
Here, read them for yourself:
Chernobyl’s Legacy by the UN Chernobyl Forum.
The Chernobyl Catastrophe by Greenpeace.
The UN report looks to me like diplomatic bafflegab; lay no blame, accentuate the positive, offend no one, deny what you cannot prove categorically. A-and everyone knows that Greenpeace are the same ilk as protested the Newfoundland seal 'hunt' last week - the likes of Paul McCartney's idiot mannequin wife. QED.
Nuclear energy? The dangers have been known from the outset. There has never been any even vaguely credible plan for what to do with the waste - which is incredibly poisonous and long-lived. The electricity generated is almost entirely squandered - witness the Earthlights picture elsewhere in this blog. QED.
Follow the money and you find big governments and big corporations - you have to be big to build these things. Why build them? To get rich. The rich are happier than the poor. Is there anyone who does not know this?
Take the only tree that's left and stuff it up the hole in your culture. (Leonard Cohen)
Edvard Munch images from: WebMuseum, Paris.
Tags: Chernobyl, Greenpeace, IAEA, Nuclear Energy.
I'm junk but I'm still holding up this little wild bouquet. (Leonard Cohen)Today we see Greenpeace going after the IAEA on Chernobyl. Their report includes opinions by some people who should know; and the official IAEA death toll of 56 (or 112 or 116 or whatever) is ludicrous; nonetheless Greenpeace is challenged as 'unscientific' and that is enough to discredit them. But so what? Is it any wonder? Greenpeace and the United nations stand on opposite shores of an ideological Great Divide. The result is a no-brainer - smoke and heat but no light.
Here, read them for yourself:Chernobyl’s Legacy by the UN Chernobyl Forum.
The Chernobyl Catastrophe by Greenpeace.
The UN report looks to me like diplomatic bafflegab; lay no blame, accentuate the positive, offend no one, deny what you cannot prove categorically. A-and everyone knows that Greenpeace are the same ilk as protested the Newfoundland seal 'hunt' last week - the likes of Paul McCartney's idiot mannequin wife. QED.
Nuclear energy? The dangers have been known from the outset. There has never been any even vaguely credible plan for what to do with the waste - which is incredibly poisonous and long-lived. The electricity generated is almost entirely squandered - witness the Earthlights picture elsewhere in this blog. QED.Follow the money and you find big governments and big corporations - you have to be big to build these things. Why build them? To get rich. The rich are happier than the poor. Is there anyone who does not know this?
Take the only tree that's left and stuff it up the hole in your culture. (Leonard Cohen)
Edvard Munch images from: WebMuseum, Paris.
Tags: Chernobyl, Greenpeace, IAEA, Nuclear Energy.
......you can lead don quixote's horse to water....but you can't make him think.