Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

Worst. Advert. Ever.

I mean Jesus christ, have they got so desperate for publicity that this is the sort of scaremongering they have to resort to? I can think of another organisation which uses such tactics to scare the public into supporting it's plans: Labour. Hello ID card bill, the most pointless and invasive system ever proposed. And all in the name of fighting terrorism :rolleyes:

Come on guys.
Stop trying to sensationalise a 50 year old argument by wrapping it up in terrorism faggotary. We all know nuclear has risks, but just for once you may have to concede it's the best option at the moment.
It's not like other energy sources aren't being persued. The first one which comes to mind is ITER, which on the scale of international co-operation towards clean energy is pretty ****ing huge*.

Stop your hippy bitching, grow up, and go home.





*even if it does have a truely shit website

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

That is truly, unadulterated shite!

Who's running greenpeace now anyway? They've become worse than those Mothers Against XXXXXX groups.

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

Mothers Against Canada!

ps. that made me want to laugh more than anything else, especially when the dramaic message came up at the end.

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

That is just silly.

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

errr

nuclear powerplants are designed to be able to absorb the shock of a planecrash. (i know for a fact they are here, so i'm assuming they are everywhere, especially powerplants to be build in the future).
but then again the twin towers were designed for it aswell. :/

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

Yes greenpeace lets all go back to living in caves with no electricity, gas, clothes, industry, not eating anything that comes from an animal(no offence to veggies), ...
The world would be alot better place. With all of humanity running around naked trying to find a cave that isn't allready populated by an endangered species. Those are more important than humans anyway right?
RIGHT?

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

If the camera work wasn't so shite I would have thought that was an excellent viral.

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

They are here too (it says so in the Sellafield visitor's centre) - though i read the French have/had surface-to-air missile placements at their sites since 11th September, 2001.

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

Surely Nuclear Rods for powerstations are not likely to be enriched enough to produce the same effect as a bomb? If anything we'd have a critical meltdown like Chernobyl, and clearly Chernobyl's power station was not quite as protected against the odds as ours. True it may effect a number of people in and around the area but I would suspect its effect would have little impact of fear generation for the uk seeing as we keep our stations a fair way away from the most clustered communities.

Dear oh Dear :/

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

Well.. What can I say... cept for that I wont be renewing my Greenpeace membership..

Did the dog get hurt? I sure hope he survived.

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

:(

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

Chernobyl melted down caus the night operators (unexperienced ones) ran a shedualed test that went completly wrong. If the test had been run by the daytime operators it's likely that the disaster would have never happened. To this day Chernobyl is the only nuclear plant that melted down (correct me if i'm wrong) so i think nuclear power is one of the safest ways to produce energy. Certainly alot safer then certain activists say.

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

I'M RICH BIAAAAAATCH

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

I hate hippies! I mean, the way they always talk about "protectin' the earth" and then drive around in cars that get poor gas mileage and wear those stupid bracelets - I hate 'em! I wanna kick 'em in the nuts!



AY, CUT THE CRAP GODDAMN HIPPIES

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

cartman vs hippies
One of the best south park epi's ever

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

The process of making energy via nuclear power is more dangerous, relative to other processes. There's also the trouble of the waste it produces, which other solutions don't have.

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

The work I'm doing has significant applications in solar cells and may help us to manufacture them cheaply enough to be a useful energy source.

What will YOU do to help save the planet?

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

Pay your wages lololololol.


Seriously though I'm trying to drink all the alcohol in the world so scientists can't get drunk and waste time away from valuable research to make the world a better place.

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

You sir, are a national hero.

May I join your noble quest?

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

They already are?

And I'm his manager.

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

We haven't suceeded just yet so I guess there's room for one more.

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

I think I speak for everyone when I say, everyone in english universities offer their services.

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

Your valuable assistance is much appreciated gentlemen. The more the ****ing merrier.

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

Only GD could take a thread about Greenpeace showing a plane crashing into a nuclear reactor, and turn it into one about drinking.

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

That and an AA meeting.

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

Count me in. Tonight I'm playing Snakes & Ladders, with a shot of Sambuca as reward for going down a snake :D

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

Good for you.
However, someone of your intellect should refrain from trying to troll. The question is meaningless in relation to the subject. I think we all agree that war is also a problem that should be fixed. What will YOU do to help save those lives lost to it?

Lack of involvement does not preclude the ability to criticise, especially when such sensationalist PR is used in an attempt to restart an argument which is already lost. By all means talk about the credible risks (waste disposal, radiation leaks, meltdown) but not terrorism. The chance of a terrorist attack against a nuclear installation looks infinitesimal in comparison to the previously stated risks.

I don't object to anti-nuclear campaigns, although I don't agree with them*.
I object to crude attempts to scare the public based on shock value alone, with no due consideration of the real problems surrounding the issue.

From Greenpeace's own PDF on the issue:

It did? Maybe I missed the bit where the twin towers were hit with a nuclear device then. If anything, 9/11 served to show us that inflicting maximum casualties was not a prime consideration. Not only could the attack have been timed for later in the working day, it could not have been easier to target a reactor had that been the aim. Flight #11 flew directly over the Indian Point reactor before slamming into the north tower minutes later.

Greenpeace do great things sometimes, but on this occasion they've lost any credibility by resorting to such juvenile tactics.


* To clarify my own position:
- Weapons are bad mmkay
- Power is ok, for use as a stopgap on the way to better things. I do not want to see a permenant reliance on fission.

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

What happens when you combine the two? (Football Agents / PR Company Directors). ?

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

I think youre right, since I dont have enough data on Three Mile Island to say it melted down as such, merely that there was a "Severe Incident".

Anyone else confirm more details?

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

LollyRoffleTomatoCopter!

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

<3 ing the BBC captions yet again

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

At the end the message should have been:

LIGHTNING BOLT! LIGHTNING BOLT! LIGHTNING BOLT!

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

Oh God you're all fannies. Noone giggled manically while watching that? Noone thought it was the next Two Ronnies?

A ****ing PLANE man. A PLANE hit a ****ing REACTOR and we can only infer that it blew the shit out of a CHILD.

What the **** is not to like? Jesus.

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

The world needs 56 more pabs. Not 57 though, that'd be too much.

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

not enough clowns ?

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

Sensationalism is all people will react to. Its a shame, but we're a shit race, so what can you do

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

here is a plan:
- elect the hippies into your government
- stop using nuclear poer
- use wind energy instead (to do that spend lots of money on subsidies)
- then import nuclear power from countries in eastern europe to subsidies your overly expensive wind- and solar power

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

I laughed so hard at that I almost fell out of my chair.

Hooray for terrorism.

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

Ther TFR's (Temporary Flight Restrictions) here in America require us to avoid circling powerplants, oil fields, dams, bridges, football games or other densly populated places, and special events. Oh, and Crawford Texas too. (And we are relentlessly reminded everytime we call a flight briefer.)

The Area above Crawford Texas is whited out on VFR Sectional Charts, and we are required to go an extremely long way out of our way to avoid this area. It's quite irritating really, adds an hour to almost all flights that occur in the area. We also have to be familiar with intercept proceedures, for when they threaten to shoot us down.

It's a sad day when the government can tell you where and where not to fly, in an otherwise unrestricted industry such as aviation.

It's Nazi Germany all over again, folks.

Hooray for white supremecists with toothbrush facial hair.

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

Not even close. In fact, it wouldn't matter anyway as the only thing that's really vulnerable is the low-level waste storage.

That's not really true - none of the top people had any experience in the nuclear sector (indeed, the chief engineer had come from conventional, rather than nuclear, power plants), and the "scheduled test" was something that had been shipped around every power plant in Russia until these guys agreed to it.

The basic idea was to see how well the power station would function without outside power, relying on the backup diesel engines.

They physically locked out most of the emergency controls for the reaction.

The reactor, and the building it was in, was also hideously designed.

The accident was made worse by the ability of the people in charge to deny that there actually was anything wrong.

You could go on and on about Chernobyl - it's such a comedy of errors that says much more about the state of the USSR than nuclear power.

The Three Mile Island incident was a meltdown, just not as severe as Chernobyl. Not as complete, either.

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

first of all, the aim of smashing a plane into a nuclear plant is not to make it explode like a bomb (as you say, you can't get the critical mass because it isn't enriched enough) but to just blow up the plant itself and disseminate radioactive waste into the atmosphere. In many ways this is far more destructive in the long term than a nuclear bomb is (apart from the really massive ones like the tsar bomba).

Secondly, only the russian designed power stations and some older plants were capable of meltdown because of their design. modern power stations simply cannot have a meltdown because of the way the feedback mechanisms work and the general design.

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

I don;t know what the big deal is anyway.

There's an onshore wind, so those people having fun on the beach could continue to have their fun, safe in the knowledge that any radiation would be carried away from them, inshore and kill the rest of the population, so that the beachlovers could move in after the radiation affects have died down and take over the world.

Seems to me Greenpeace have made an advert showing what a great place to be the beach is in times of terrorist attacks on nuclear power stations.

Maybe they were sponsored by Blackpool or Brighton tourist agencies to make it? OMG CONSPIRACY ALERT!!

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

i honestly couldn't believe that advert, and being American I feel sickened by it. Honestly, how many times has a plane been used in a terrorist attack?
They need their heads looking at or something -- Not cool imo

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

Yeah, like who would be stupid enough to use a plane? Like, c'mon, lets be realistic here, pfffffffffffffffffffffft.

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

Right now? Noone. Today there was a plane between Berlin and Amsterdam that lost radio contact. We send two aircrafts to intercept, just in case, and so did the Dutch. (I heard that on the radio news, didnt see anything online) What do you want to attack with a plane under conditions like that? No, if there is another terrorist attack, they'll come up with something more creative.

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

The only problem i see with nuclear power is where to put the waste.

Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?
 

Just out of interest, is there a greenpeace campaign against skyscrapers?
They have a relatively greater history of causing death by having planes flown into them.