quote:Before President Bush touched down in Pennsylvania to promote his nuclear energy policy, the environmental group Greenpeace was mobilizing.
"This volatile and dangerous source of energy" is no answer to the country's energy needs, shouted a Greenpeace fact sheet decrying the "threat" posed by the Limerick reactors Bush visited.
But a factoid or two later, the Greenpeace authors were stumped while searching for the ideal menacing metaphor.
We present it here exactly as it was written, capital letters and all: "In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]."
While nuclear fission isn't the ideal long term solution, I think increased reliance on it in the short term is the best course of action currently available to us. Solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, hydroelectric, etc renewable power sources are not going to fill 100% of our needs any time soon, and even they have a non-negligible impact on the environment when deployed on the large scale we need.
They aren't offering up any realistic alternatives to what they're opposing, which is childish. Its simply not a choice between nuclear power on the one hand or love and rainbow power on the other. Right now its a choice between nuclear or fossil fuels, and nuclear is the clear choice.
Posts: 2018 | From: Santa Barbara, California | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
What a bunch of mulroons (to quote Bugs Bunny which in this case seems quite appropriate)! One question, is anyone really surprised that Greenpeace would resort to fear-mongering without actually proposing any kind of solution to the world-ending problems they seem to love to identify?
Mnot - we here at Greenpeace don't have a sense of humor that we're aware of - r2
-------------------- Infinite goodness is creating a being you know, in advance, is going to complain. Captain Billy Cutshaw Posts: 582 | From: Germany | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |