Skip to main content

A Tarantula As Big As a House

Well, we just don’t know. (click on pictures or here to see full size versions):



These are ads created in Romania for Greenpeace and, although these are in English, they may be intended for Eastern Europe.

Mutations? Really? This went out of style after Universal Pictures grew tired of growing tarantulas and praying mantises to the size of houses in the 1950s.

Greenpeace can make all the arguments against nuclear energy they want, but dishonestly leads to a loss of credibility. We can’t imagine Greenpeace USA using these ads, but if this is their response to the vastly increased interest in nuclear energy in Europe, this is a battle they’re fated to lose.



Jason Ribeiro said…
If you haven't seen this greenpeace commercial already, it has the same theme.

In terms of negative ad campaigning this is a despicable low blow. It comes from the nightmares of Greenpeace's leaders.
donb said…
The unfortunate part is that other energy sources (such as coal, geothermal and even natural gas) release more radiation into the environment than nuclear -- but there is no warm/fuzzy way to demonstrate this that I can come up with.

Perhaps was is needed is a series of commercials, explaining the limitations of each renewable proposed by Greenpeace, each type in turn.

Let's begin with wind. The local weather forcaster in Texas is on TV talking about high temperatures. The guy watching TV comments about how hot it is in the room, and asks his wife to switch on the air conditioner. As she does, the picture cuts away to some wind turbines spinning down as the voice of the forcaster also mentions the calm winds. Just as the air conditioner comes on, the power goes off and everything shuts down.

The commercial ends as a narrator states that while wind can be used to generate supplimental power, nuclear can provide clean, safe power even on hot afternoons when the wind doesn't blow.
Jason Ribeiro said…
I like your thinking donb. The nuclear industry does have a social intellectual problem to wrangle with in getting its message out. Your example shows how capacity factor can be explained without mentioning the phrase 'capacity factor' which would lose most people.

I also like the idea of doing a few low budget for the web only mini-infomercials. With a few people taking a few moments to explain and talk about nuclear topics with 3-10 minutes, you could do a lot that you couldn't with a normal tv spot. Maybe a few news clips might run them on broadcast TV as well if they attract attention.
Finrod said…
"I also like the idea of doing a few low budget for the web only mini-infomercials. With a few people taking a few moments to explain and talk about nuclear topics with 3-10 minutes, you could do a lot that you couldn't with a normal tv spot."

Hmm. I have a Geiger counter and a deep voice. Unfortunately I as yet have nothing to measure with the Geiger counter, and if I've ever been described as photogenic, it was by a good-natured liar in poor lighting.
AlienToaster said…
My goodness. I live and attend school in Chicago, so there are frequently Greenpeacers on the street corners wanting to stop me. On the occasion that I do stop, I let them know that I can't support Greenpeace because of their official stance against nuclear. One guy told me that personally, he supports nuclear. Another girl tried say that Greenpeace is not anti-nuclear at all! I just walked away at that joke.

I don't know what to say about this. They're preying on decades-passed, unfounded fears about nuclear power and inventing issues. I think the only caveats left in the US are the start-up capital and waste storage.
Robert Synnott said…
Remember their ad with the plane hitting Sizewell B? In terms of silliness, this is nothing out of the ordinary for Greenpeace.
Joffan said…
Greenpeace's contribution to the first European Nuclear Energy Forum meeting was also cartoonish (including inflatable Homer Simpson) and belligerently dogmatic in nature. You can find it in the "presentations" zip file on that site.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.


The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…