Skip to main content

Something Wrong With Greenpeace’s Comment Section At Their Anti-Nuclear Blog?

Nuclear Fissionary noted that no-one can submit comments anymore at the Nuclear Reaction blog:

I have left numerous comments on their pseudo-scientific website. I’ve also used the Nuclear Fissionary Page on Facebook to direct our readers to the Greenpeace site to make sure their antinuclear rants don’t go unanswered.

Well, it would appear that Greenpeace no longer has the stomach for debate.

While visiting the site the other day I noticed that my comments were gone. Every blogger knows that deleting comments is unethical, so I thought that GP had just decided to silence me. But then I noticed that there were no other comments either. What’s more, there was no box where readers could add to the ‘dialogue’ of the nuclear debate. The comments were just gone.

Unless there’s a technical issue with the blog, I would say this action pretty much speaks for itself.

Update 3/31/10 - Apparently they suffered a spam attack and the comments are now back on. Hmm...

Comments

Anonymous said…
"Every blogger knows that deleting comments is unethical"

That's not true at all. It's perfectly acceptable to delete posts that are obscene, libelous, threatening, etc.

I assume you meant to say that deleting comments simply because the blogger doesn't agree with them is unethical? If that's the point, I agree.

Let's wait to find out why comments are no longer allowed before jumping the gun. And I applaud NEI for (usually) posting comments from both supporters and opponents of nuclear power.
Anonymous said…
Well, while comments at the Greenpeace blog may or may not be disabled permanently, I think some of the other evidence on the page is a real tribute to the way the international nuclear industry is out-organizing Greenpeace and other anti-nukes online. I took a look at their blogroll and it only has seven links. One of those is another Greenpeace blog and still another is just a link to a snarky Google search.

If they have disabled comments, it's because pro-nuclear energy activists aren't going to let them get off the mat.
No comment ;) said…
Greenpeace does allow comments on its other blogs. So I posted some comments to those blogs, pointing to the fact that Greenpeace does not allow comments on nuclear-energy related topics. I'll bet that they'll censor these comments too...
Sterling Archer said…
Every blogger knows that deleting comments is unethical

Don't agree -- a blog is the owner's sandbox, they're in charge. Deleting comments might be counterproductive, but it's hardly unethical.
Finrod said…
Email from Greenpeace:

Dear Craig,

Nuclear Reaction’s comments have been turned off over the last few days. We had to take this step after the site suffered a large spam attack. We apologise for not announcing this at the time but we’ve been a little busy clearing out the junk comments and waiting for the attack to fade away.
Comments are now back on so feel free to have your say.

In the meantime, Nuclear Reaction will be getting a redesign in the next week or so and we’ll be using a new commenting system.

Kind regards,

Karen Gallagher
Public Outreach and Information
Greenpeace International
Ottho Heldringstraat 5
1066 AZ Amsterdam
The Netherlands
+31 (0) 20 718 2000

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …