We occasionally take a look at Greenpeace's Nuclear Reaction blog (subtitle: "Blogging the Meltdown of the Nuclear Industry") so we can see if some interesting new meme is springing up we may want to note.
A couple of stories caught our eyes:
Business Wire: Areva: Revenue and Data for the First Nine Months of 2008
The group cleared revenue of 9.1 billion euros over the first nine months of 2008, up 12.9% compared with the same period in 2007.
and
The Deal: Northrop Grumman in $360M nuclear deal with French MNC
Defense and technology company Northrop Grumman Corp. said its shipbuilding division is creating a joint venture with France's Areva SA to build a manufacturing and engineering facility in Newport News, Va., to supply the American nuclear energy sector.
Nothing says meltdown of the nuclear industry more than profitability and an expanding infrastructure. We cannot say the blog is being unfair with its readership, though, so points for honesty.
Comments
Greenpeace has their head firmly embedded in the sand when they say that nuclear will be too expensive. These new construction technologies will bring costs down greatly over this coming decade.
It kind of brings up a new twist on the old philosophical question about the tree in the forest:
If a paid Greenpeace propagandist tells a lie and no one is around to read it, do they still get a donation?
"Comments are moderated. Thanks for waiting.)"
None of the comments I made ever showed up. I guess "moderated" is a polite term for "not tolerated unless they tell us how smart we are."
Now, NEI's blog is moderated as well, but my comments usually appear after a short wait.
Because it doesn't meet US libel standards. You have to prove that 1) the party being sued knew they were lying, and 2) intended to do damage to the party or parties being libeled.
Don't like the message? Kill the messenger. That's not how it's supposed to work in a constitutional democracy. If you don't like what someone says, counter with your own exercise of free speech, rather than litigating to take away their rights.
If Greenpeace tells a lie, then why not sue them?
Sue them? That would give these little attention whores exactly what they want! No, it's better to expose their lies for what they are and ridicule them for their blatant innumeracy.
I'm all for free speech, especially in this case, when the facts are so obviously stacked against them.
Sure, there are folks who will believe the stuff that they post on their blog, but then again, there are folks who believe that UFOs are flown by little green men and there are folks who believe that Elvis is still alive. All of these groups deserve to be consigned to the dustbin of popular culture, forever to be considered as laughing stocks.
Judging by the number of comments, it appears that few people -- except those who would point out the errors in the articles and whom are immediately censored -- are willing to even respond to the ludicrous postings that dominate this "blog." Thus, we have yet another example of how Greenpeace and its sister organizations represent a "lunatic fringe" that is far out of touch with the majority of the public on issues such as this one.
Just a note to clarify that Nuclear Notes only excludes comments that include personal attacks or bad language (by which we mean swearing).
We never moderate for content. But we do want a civilized conversation.
I'd be surprised if Greenpeace were any different.
It is not uncommon for anti-nuclear organizations to take a heavy hand with moderation on the Internet. For example, Paul Gunter's group, Beyond Nuclear, used to heavily moderate for content when they had a blog (beyondnuclear.blogspot.com, which is now defunct). I know, since I tried posting civil comments on that blog that were never published.
For several years, Mr. Gunter has commented on this blog rather frequently, so it's clear that the comment policy here is quite liberal. It's just a shame that his organization does not offer the same opportunity to voice opposing viewpoints. Then again, looking at the history of the anti-nuclear movement, it appears that their past success has been largely the result of the failure of those who are truly knowledgeable about the science and technology to speak up.
In a open, rational discussion of the issues, Greenpeace and Beyond Nuclear lose the debate. Their only chance is to keep their audience ignorant. That's the first rule of propaganda, and that's a key strategy for success when canvassing for donations.
And yet you allow posters to call those who work for Greenpeace "whores," which is both offensive and potentially libelous?
Civility, please.
If you think my use of one word is "offensive and potentially libelous," then you should check out the latest posting on the Greenpeace blog, which shamelessly describes hard-working, highly educated professionals in the nuclear industry as incompetent, dishonest, and unconcerned for their own health. This was not a random comment on their site, this was a regular blog entry!
None of these words are generally considered offensive language. And you know full well that the definition of "whore" you cite is not the primary one, which relates to exchange of sexual services for money.
And since when is "Greenpeace does it too, so it's OK" the standard for this blog?
Agreed. But your comment is best addressed to those who insist on using foul language.