From: jh@dcs.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of Commercial Nuclear Power -- The Economic Failure
Keywords: energy environment press
Date: 12 Jan 93 13:05:29 GMT
Reply-To: jh@dcs.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <1993Jan9.204222.22764@pmafire.inel.gov> russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown) writes:
>In article <Greenpeace.7Jan1993.1645@naughty-peahen> Greenpeace via Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
>>[Greenpeace Press Release from Greenbase -- Redistribute Freely]
>> 
>>GREENPEACE REPORT EXPOSES TRUE COSTS OF COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER: 
>>HALF-A-TRILLION DOLLARS SUNK, $97 BILLION OUT OF PUBLIC COFFERS   
>> 
>>WASHINGTON, December 15, 1992 (GP) Greenpeace, in conjunction
>>with Komanoff Energy Associates (KEA), today released the first
>>definitive study of the accumulated costs of nuclear power in
>>the United States from 1950 through 1990.
>> 
>>Two years in production, 
>                           Sounds like a promo for a new movie.
>
>>the ground-breaking FISCAL FISSION:
>>THE ECONOMIC FAILURE OF NUCLEAR POWER writes the bottom line

Loadsa stuff deleted !

>
>Is the entire organizaton run by PR types?
>Is there any scientific competence or ethical standard?
>Do they care?
>
>Humbug!

Russ, you ask all these questions when they could easily be answered by getting
a hold of a copy of this book. Too many times I have seen people on this 
newsgroup attack a publication without giving any signs of having read it.
In fact, many people seem to just attack anything that is printed by Greenpeace
or other environmental groups without giving any indication of having looked at
any of their literature. That these people can then proceed to denounce it as
bad science/propoganda/etc.. , without having looked at the evidence in those
books, shows that they are not prepared to listen to the arguments put forward
to see whether they might just be right!.

So I ask; Russ have you read ANY of Greenpeace's publications?(apart from the
press releases) Do you have any idea of what the scientific evidence is that 
Greenpeace put forward to back their arguments up? I have seen two of their 
publications so far, both of which backed every claim up with references to
scientific reports, other books, articles in the press, government documents,
company records etc... The first of these books detailed all the nuclear 
accidents, and their effects, and the secrecy of the nuclear authorities in 
many cases. The sources provided were rarely ones that I would doubt. The
second provides a comprehensive exposition of the science behind global warming
, followed by various policy recommendations and looking at what has been done
and what can be done, how much it will cost and the benefits. In doing so, each
section provides extensive references from a wide variety of sources. I wonder
if you are aware of just how much evidence Greenpeace has?



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.    *