Skip to main content

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

By

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...

Labels:

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.
March 30, 2010 at 11:26 AM
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.
March 30, 2010 at 6:23 PM
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...
March 31, 2010 at 3:05 AM
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.
March 31, 2010 at 7:16 AM
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
March 31, 2010 at 9:43 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more