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

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap
1 comment
Read more

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

By
Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu
Post a Comment
Read more

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin
Post a Comment
Read more