I came across this little Greenpeace piece of propaganda today.
Now, I generally do not like Greenpeace. I think that they have some admirable goals. I think their methods leave a lot to be desired.
Now I come across this piece. Apparently Greenpeace did not do their homework before making this. Had they does just a little research they would have found this study.
Nuclear containment domes have been tested against airplane hits. I know. My Dad ran the tests. He ran an F-4 Phantom into a wall at ~480 miles an hour to see what would happen. The answer, the plane is toast and the wall is dented a couple inches. Yes, dented. A 20 foot thick wall dented less than four inches. This test was run back around 1984 IIRC. I was about 14 when my Dad gave me a set of pictures of the test*. After the test they ran numbers for a big jet, a 747 IIRC, and found that it wouldn’t do shit to a containment dome. When I spoke to my Dad about this he said something along the lines of “Well, the plane would be totally gone. The dome would need to be repainted.”
Greanpeace really needs to learn what the fuck they are talking about before putting out this kind of crap.
Slee
*My Dad came home from work one day when I was about 14 and dropped a set of 8x10s of the test on my desk and said ‘That is what I did last week’.
I don’t know much about Greenpeace. This little commercial really made me think, “what a bunch of fucktards.” Go to hell Greenpeace. Might as well say, “terrorists like to use airplanes, so let’s get rid of all airplanes and make everybody drive everywhere.” Terrorism is a threat regardless of where you get your power from, get your head out of your ass, Greenpeace. Nuclear power IS the answer. Do you prefer fossil fuel plants that belch millions of pounds of contaminants to be dispersed whither they be by the wind? Do you wish to have entire landscapes dominated by 110-foot windmill turbines? Take that dick out of your mouth and go do something useful Greenpeace.
From my experience, I am voting that they mostly just are people who would rather go out and Make Sure Everyone Knows that they’re Doing the Good Work–as otherwise they would have to fix their own problems.
GreenPeace is and also has been a band of idiots.
Nobody in their good mind would give them money.
If you need a good charity try the World Nature Fund or the ASPCA or something.
One day, talking about ways we Chem Eng students could make the world a better place (yes, that kind of stuff came up during our classes, we didn’t have an “ethics” course but there was supposed to be an ethics undercurrent to everything), one of my classmates related that he’d been dying to turn 18 so he could join Greenpeace. So, he turns 18, signs up, goes to his first meeting.
“oh, hi new guy”, yadda yadda… “and what is it you’re studying?”
“Chemical Engineering”
Good thing he’d gone with two friends, they had to leave in a sudden hurry.
I know the guy, I know he didn’t invent it. He may have exagerated the intensity of the glares they got but I doubt it.
That’s the day I decided the people from Greenpeace are idiots; maybe not all, but as a group yes. Here they had a golden chance to get better information on (bio)chemical processes, someone who could be leveraged as a communicator with “the enemy”… and of course the only communication they could think of was drinks left on tables and sleeves being rolled up. Way to go.
Am I the only one thinking it’s just an analogy suggesting that the creation of more nuclear plants, during a time of unprecedented terrorism, isn’t what we need? Maybe not?
Just a note. Back in Grad School, one of my advisors wa also a consultant on terrorism and nuclear issues. In the wake of Three Mile Island (back in 1979) he was saying that one of their grave concerns was that some terrorist group might comander a large aircraft and fly it into a nuclear reactor. (Yes, in 1979 – certainly people were considering this scenario WELL in advance of 2001) At that time and with their data then, it was still a concern.
I also have to point out that not every nuclear power reactor has a containment dome similar to what may have been tested. IIRC, Chernobyl didn’t have a strong structure at all, which was part of the problem.
Before the merits of this argument come down to whether a nuclear containment dome can withstand a direct hit (and thereby support or undermine Greenpeace’s credibility), let’s remember that the thickness of the dome is to contain radiation. There are many other components to a nuclear reactor that are not within the dome that could threaten the stability of the reactor, should they become compromised. TMI’s problems resulted from a failing water pump.
I am not completely opposed to nuclear power. However, I have no confidence in government oversight, being of the opinion that they are far more likely to be in the pockets of business interests rather than having the safety of the public in mind. Nor am I enthused over low bidders responsible for the safety of the construction. Disposal of spent fuel is also a hot issue, so to speak. Nuclear power may be an alternative, but as long as it is considered to be the only alternative, this will always be a contentious subject.
Not really, no. There are any number of us better positioned to conduct a defense of Greenpeace, and I am content that it is so. There are fair criticisms to be leveled, and unfair calumny to be shat upon. I am pleased that Greenpeace has, at least, disabused many of us of the notion that whales are ocean going mountains of dog food.
