Google erases founder of Greenpeace because he said Global warming was bunk

[Swordsmyth]

https://twitter.com/EcoSenseNow/stat...24843189055488

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/...ent-on-patric/

Greenpeace Statement On Patrick Moore

Patrick Moore often misrepresents himself in the media as an environmental “expert” or even an “environmentalist,” while offering anti-environmental opinions on a wide range of issues and taking a distinctly anti-environmental stance. He also exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes.

Updated March 11, 2019.

Patrick Moore Does Not Represent Greenpeace

Patrick Moore has been a paid spokesman for a variety of polluting industries for more than 30 years, including the timber, mining, chemical and the aquaculture industries. Most of these industries hired Mr. Moore only after becoming the focus of a Greenpeace campaign to improve their environmental performance. Mr. Moore has now worked for polluters for far longer than he ever worked for Greenpeace. Greenpeace opposes the use of nuclear energy because it is a dangerous and expensive distraction from real solutions to climate change.

Greenpeace and the Green New Deal

In 2019, Mr. Moore has been misrepresented as a Greenpeace spokesperson on the Green New Deal resolution, sponsored by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA). In contrast to Mr. Moore’s comment, please see Greenpeace’s response to the Green New Deal.

Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace

Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cote, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. A copy of his application letter and Greenpeace’s response are available here (PDF).

Patrick Moore is a Paid Spokesperson for the Nuclear Industry

In April 2006, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the principal lobby for the nuclear industry, launched the Clean And Safe Energy Coalition and installed former Bush Administration EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and Mr. Moore as its co-chairs. The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition was part of a public relations project spearheaded by the public relations giant Hill & Knowlton as part of its estimated $8 million contract with the nuclear industry.(1)

Patrick Moore Has Provided Inaccurate Information on Nuclear Power

In 2004, Mr. Moore published an article in the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) journal entitled “Nuclear Re-think.” According to Mr. Moore, “Three Mile Island was a success story. The concrete containment structure did as it was designed to do: it prevented radiation from escaping into the environment.”(2)

Contrary to Mr. Moore’s claim, the damaged reactor spewed radiation into the environment for days. It appears that Mr. Moore didn’t even bother to check his facts. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s fact sheet on Three Mile Island (TMI) acknowledges that the meltdown resulted in “a significant release of radiation…”(3)

Even the International Atomic Energy Agency, which published Mr. Moore’s article, acknowledges that the TMI meltdown released radiation into the surrounding community. As a result, the IAEA ranks the accident as a Level 5 on a scale of 7, an Accident With Wider Consequences. (Only Chernobyl & the Soviet nuclear waste tank explosion in 1957 rank worse than the Three Mile Island meltdown.)(4)

According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 10 million curies of radiation escaped the damaged reactor core. However, nuclear engineers who reexamined the accident estimate that as much as 150 million curies of radiation may have escaped from the reactor.(5) The meltdown at Three Mile Island turned a multimillion dollar asset into a multibillion dollar liability overnight and helped seal the fate of nuclear power in the United States. To claim otherwise is nothing but public relations spin.

Unfortunately, Mr. Moore’s pro nuclear spin is not confined to the Three Mile Island meltdown. While praising the Bush Administration for rejecting the Kyoto Protocol(6), Moore promotes nuclear power as a solution to global warming because,”(i)t produces no harmful greenhouse gases…”(7)

However, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) already determined in 1999 that the Nuclear Energy Institute’s claims touting nuclear power’s supposed environmental benefits were misleading because it did not disclose the fact that the production of nuclear fuel produced greenhouse gases. The FTC concluded that NEI’s claims could not be substantiated, “(s)ince there is not yet any permanent disposal system for radioactive waste and since the process of uranium enrichment that fuels nuclear reactors emits greenhouse gases…”(8)

Patrick Moore’s Own Words

Consider Patrick Moore’s own words when considering his claims and those of the nuclear industry: “It should be remembered that there are employed in the nuclear industry some very high-powered public relations organizations. One can no more trust them to tell the truth about nuclear power than about which brand of toothpaste will result in the sexiest smile,”(9) he wrote before becoming a spokesman for polluters.

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/...ent-on-patric/

[dannno]

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/...ent-on-patric/

Fake news.

In January 1977 at the annual general meeting of the Greenpeace Foundation, Moore ran for president against Bob Hunter, eventually losing by a single vote.^[24] Soon after, Hunter stepped down and Moore assumed the presidency, inheriting an organization deeply in debt.^[24] Greenpeace organizations began to form throughout North America, including cities such as Toronto, Montreal, Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, Boston, and San Francisco. Not all of these offices accepted the authority of the founding organization in Canada.

...

In 1985, Moore was on board the Rainbow Warrior when it was bombed and sunk by the French government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patric...e_(consultant)

[Zippyjuan]

"founders and first members".

Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace

Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cote, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. A copy of his application letter and Greenpeace’s response are available here (PDF).

[Swordsmyth]

"founders and first members".

"and" is the operative word there, the founders are the first members.

[dannno]

Greenpeace opposes the use of nuclear energy because it is a dangerous and expensive distraction from real solutions to climate change.

Gen 4 nuclear plants are not dangerous, there is no chance for melt-down. Some designs use spent nuclear fuel so they actually clean up the environment, and other designs produce zero nuclear waste.

[Zippyjuan]

"and" is the operative word there, the founders are the first members.

But a first member is not necessarily a founder. They may have joined after the founding (as Greenpeace claims Moore did).

[dannno]

But a first member is not necessarily a founder. They may have joined after the founding (as Greenpeace claims Moore did).

He certainly could be considered a co-founder since he helped develop, grow and control the original Greenpeace organization before it was promulgated around the world.. He may have showed up a few months late, but he had just as much if not more impact on the original organization than anybody who was there on day 1. And you, nor the current members of Green Peace get to make that determination. None of you were on the $#@!ing boat when the French sank it.

[Swordsmyth]

But a first member is not necessarily a founder. They may have joined after the founding (as Greenpeace claims Moore did).

Then they wouldn't be part of the "first" members, they would be "early" members.

Greenpeace is lying. (as usual)

[Zippyjuan]

Then they wouldn't be part of the "first" members, they would be "early" members.

Greenpeace is lying. (as usual)

Link to a pdf of his letter requesting to join Greenpeace in 1971- a year after the group was founded.

https://www.greenpeace.org/archive-i...ication-le.pdf

[acptulsa]

Gen 4 nuclear plants are not dangerous, there is no chance for melt-down. Some designs use spent nuclear fuel so they actually clean up the environment, and other designs produce zero nuclear waste.

Uh huh. And I suppose you buy the hype that the Britannic and her sisters were unsinkable, too?

[Swordsmyth]

Link to a pdf of his letter requesting to join Greenpeace in 1971- a year after the group was founded.

https://www.greenpeace.org/archive-i...ication-le.pdf

He certainly could be considered a co-founder since he helped develop, grow and control the original Greenpeace organization before it was promulgated around the world.. He may have showed up a few months late, but he had just as much if not more impact on the original organization than anybody who was there on day 1. And you, nor the current members of Green Peace get to make that determination. None of you were on the $#@!ing boat when the French sank it.

...

[Zippyjuan]

Gen 4 nuclear plants are not dangerous, there is no chance for melt-down. Some designs use spent nuclear fuel so they actually clean up the environment, and other designs produce zero nuclear waste.

"Less waste" perhaps, but none claim to produce "no waste".

[dannno]

Uh huh. And I suppose you buy the hype that the Britannic and her sisters were unsinkable, too?

There might be a way to $#@! one up, but they are defensible against most missiles and military weapons. If the electricity shuts off and for some reason everybody had to stay away, it would stay self-contained and not melt-down. They are extremely safe.

[Zippyjuan]

He certainly could be considered a co-founder since he helped develop, grow and control the original Greenpeace organization before it was promulgated around the world.. He may have showed up a few months late, but he had just as much if not more impact on the original organization than anybody who was there on day 1. And you, nor the current members of Green Peace get to make that determination. None of you were on the $#@!ing boat when the French sank it.

Were you on the boat? Would you consider everybody on board the Rainbow Warrior the day it was sunk to be a "founder" of Greenpeace? (It was sunk in 1985- Greenpeace was founded in 1970).

And you, nor the current members of Green Peace get to make that determination.

So the organization has no say in who their founders were- but you do. Interesting.

[dannno]

"Less waste" perhaps, but none claim to produce "no waste".

..

• Nuclear waste that remains radioactive for a few centuries instead of millennia^[35]
• the ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity, that is, a Closed nuclear fuel cycle. This strengthens the argument to deem nuclear power as renewable energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

[dannno]

So the organization has no say in who their founders were- but you do. Interesting.

Are any of the founding members making the statement that he wasn't a founding member? Or are these a bunch of Gen-xers and millennials saying this $#@!?

I say they don't have a say, because they weren't there. They just don't like what he says.

[acptulsa]

There might be a way to $#@! one up, but they are defensible against most missiles and military weapons. If the electricity shuts off and for some reason everybody had to stay away, it would stay self-contained and not melt-down. They are extremely safe.

Not even the nuclear industry PR organ is making claims like that.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...-reactors.aspx

Of course it can melt down, if enough things go wrong. Because physics.

[acptulsa]

...and other designs produce zero nuclear waste.

.Nuclear waste that remains radioactive for a few centuries instead of millennia[35]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

You're making claims about the Fourth Generation, and there are still a few alternative types of reactors competing to become Gen IV.

Silly.

[Zippyjuan]

Are any of the founding members making the statement that he wasn't a founding member? Or are these a bunch of Gen-xers and millennials saying this $#@!?

I say they don't have a say, because they weren't there. They just don't like what he says.

You were there so you know. I gotcha. Ignore the letter asking to join a year after the group was already founded.

[Swordsmyth]

You were there so you know. I gotcha. Ignore the letter asking to join a year after the group was already founded.

Ignore their own website calling him a founder.

Obviously they considered their founding period to have been longer than a year.

[Zippyjuan]

Ignore their own website calling him a founder.

Obviously they considered their founding period to have been longer than a year.

The website listed people who were either a founder or an early member. He was an early member but not a founder.

"Founders and First Members"

[Swordsmyth]

The website listed people who were either a founder or an early member. He was an early member but not a founder.

"Founders and First Members"

"Founders and First Members" not "Early Members".

[dannno]

Not even the nuclear industry PR organ is making claims like that.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...-reactors.aspx

Of course it can melt down, if enough things go wrong. Because physics.

No, it can't. Because Physics.

"They designed melt-down out of it."

Gen IV nuclear power has 3 attractive options

• molten salt, molten lead, gas cooled, NO MELTDOWNS
• Loss of power to the facility, no problem, no danger
• Containment systems make them safe from bombs
• Gen II explosion danger is due to water for cooling
• Gen IV doesn’t use water, eliminates explosion danger
• Gen IV, only 1/3 of heat generated is used for power creation
  
  • Other 2/3 can be used to desalinate ocean water

Mark Schneider, Nuclear Engineering expert explains at 38:20:




Edit: sorry for putting in the wrong time stamp at first..

[Zippyjuan]

No, it can't. Because Physics.

"They designed melt-down out of it."


Edit: sorry for putting in the wrong time stamp at first..

Sodium reactors are not a new idea. It was actually experimented with as early as the 1950's. And, yes, one of them did melt down (partially). It is possible.

https://ww2.kqed.org/quest/2011/03/2...lear-meltdown/

Don’t remember hearing about the accident? Not many do. Located in Ventura County, California, The Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) was a testing site for rockets and nuclear work during the dawn of the Cold War. As such, there was an experimental attitude and secrecy associated with this site as these technologies were being developed. The events at SSFL essentially lay hidden from the public for twenty years. It wasn’t until scares from the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979 ignited UCLA and reporters to unearth the nuclear accident at SSFL that the public first learned about the immensity of this meltdown.

The Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE) was the first U.S. commercial nuclear power plant, and as such, was subject to untested “glitches” in operation. On July 13th, 1959, power within the SRE reactor rose uncontrollably, nearly tripling in less than eight seconds. Radiation monitors went off scale. After a difficult shutdown and inability to find the cause of the problems, workers restarted the damaged reactor and ran it for two more weeks before discovering that 13 of 43 fuel rods had partially melted. Workers determined that a blockage from a contaminating fluid in the coolant system caused the melting.

[Stratovarious]

Link to a pdf of his letter requesting to join Greenpeace in 1971- a year after the group was founded.

https://www.greenpeace.org/archive-i...ication-le.pdf

'71 instead of '72,

Wow but wow this is nit pickity BIG NEWS!

[acptulsa]

No, it can't. Because Physics.

"They designed melt-down out of it."


Mark Schneider, Nuclear Engineering expert explains at 38:20:




Edit: sorry for putting in the wrong time stamp at first..

What you're trying to say is, because engineering. Remind me to reach you the difference some time.

In any case, physics is more reliable.

[Zippyjuan]

Other potential issues with nuclear energy: https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclea...ld-energy.html

(article assumes we want 15 TW of power- current global power consumption- which would require 15,000 nuclear plants world-wide).

Lifetime: Every nuclear power station needs to be decommissioned after 40-60 years of operation due to neutron embrittlement - cracks that develop on the metal surfaces due to radiation. If nuclear stations need to be replaced every 50 years on average, then with 15,000 nuclear power stations, one station would need to be built and another decommissioned somewhere in the world every day. Currently, it takes 6-12 years to build a nuclear station, and up to 20 years to decommission one, making this rate of replacement unrealistic.

Uranium abundance: At the current rate of uranium consumption with conventional reactors, the world supply of viable uranium, which is the most common nuclear fuel, will last for 80 years. Scaling consumption up to 15 TW, the viable uranium supply will last for less than 5 years. (Viable uranium is the uranium that exists in a high enough ore concentration so that extracting the ore is economically justified.)

Uranium extraction from seawater: Uranium is most often mined from the Earth’s crust, but it can also be extracted from seawater, which contains large quantities of uranium (3.3 ppb, or 4.6 trillion kg). Theoretically, that amount would last for 5,700 years using conventional reactors to supply 15 TW of power. (In fast breeder reactors, which extend the use of uranium by a factor of 60, the uranium could last for 300,000 years. However, Abbott argues that these reactors’ complexity and cost makes them uncompetitive.) Moreover, as uranium is extracted, the uranium concentration of seawater decreases, so that greater and greater quantities of water are needed to be processed in order to extract the same amount of uranium. Abbott calculates that the volume of seawater that would need to be processed would become economically impractical in much less than 30 years.

Exotic metals: The nuclear containment vessel is made of a variety of exotic rare metals that control and contain the nuclear reaction: hafnium as a neutron absorber, beryllium as a neutron reflector, zirconium for cladding, and niobium to alloy steel and make it last 40-60 years against neutron embrittlement. Extracting these metals raises issues involving cost, sustainability, and environmental impact. In addition, these metals have many competing industrial uses; for example, hafnium is used in microchips and beryllium by the semiconductor industry. If a nuclear reactor is built every day, the global supply of these exotic metals needed to build nuclear containment vessels would quickly run down and create a mineral resource crisis. This is a new argument that Abbott puts on the table, which places resource limits on all future-generation nuclear reactors, whether they are fueled by thorium or uranium.

As Abbott notes, many of these same problems would plague fusion reactors in addition to fission reactors, even though commercial fusion is still likely a long way off.