From: jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Greenpeace: They're not just for propaganda anymore...
Date: 17 Dec 92 14:20:38 GMT
Reply-To: jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Organization: Dept of AI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1992Dec16.055121.1779@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>,
constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
# Why even seek out their literature when their press releases claim:
(Their literature will give the basis on which they make these claims,see
below).
# 1. One speck/nanogram/whatever of Plutonium will kill you...

It could cause cancer... maybe they put the point too strongly, but the point
does hold.Perhaps it should be rephrased as one speck of plutonium COULD kill
you. Thing is I haven't personally seen the exact claim made(ie in terms of
the amount they are talking about in grams, milligrams or whatever). What I
do know is that plutonium is a highly radioactive element, so the possibility
of a small amount causing cancer is plausible.However I'll need to dig out 
some research on this.

# 2. The possibility of a nuclear plant "exploding" somehow... 

Nuclear plants have been rife with accidents many of which have lead to
shutdowns, and there have been explosions in nuclear plants in the past,
so obviously it's possible, though maybe it should say that explosions can
occur in nuclear plants as opposed to nuclear plants exploding.
 
# 3. The total lack of knowledge in basic nuclear processes...

Who's total lack of knowledge? When and where was this claim made? 
(I just want a bit of clarifiction here, cause Greenpeace seem to know the
basic processes of nuclear fission in their book on the nuclear age,indeed
that section of the book could have come from my high school physics text).
 
# 4. Radwaste burial will kill millions...

Haven't seen this one personally, but if radwaste burial can lead to
radiation leaking into the atmosphere for thousands of years then it is 
possible that it would cause millions of cancers(if it were done on a large
scale). 
 
# 5. That renewable energy technology can replace nuclear power plants...

It can; I'll post the details later in an essay on renewable energy.
 
# 6. Greenpeace is a "non-violent" organization...

I have seen some of the discussions on this newsgroup about this, I'm not
entirely convinced either way, though I do believe that they don't aim to go
out and attack people(property maybe).

# Need I give them money for books when they already spew out this crap?

You don't need to give them money, why not try a library. Besides for all 
you know, the research they've done and the books they publish might just 
give some hard evidence to back up the claims they make in their press
releases. Also remember that press releases are designed to attract maximum
publicity, so there will be a tendency to put the case in it's strongest
terms and may well be designed to shock people. I doubt that they would make
claims that couldn't be substantiated, but they should probably give sources
for people to research when they make these claims, since many people 
for example, won't have seen the evidence that supports the claims about 
renewable energy, or their claims about nuclear power.

James
-- 
*  James Hammerton               *  If Pascal is equivalent to the     *
*  Email: jamesh@uk.ac.ed.aisb   *  mini-metro,then ML is the concept  *
*                                *  car where steering is done         *
*                                *  recursively using the gearstick.   *