Re: [cdn-nucl-l] greenpeace terror

[Rod Adams <atomicrod@aol.com>]

As pointed out in the original letter, the EFFECT of the actions  
taken by Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and other anti-nuclear groups is  
to maintain and even increase fossil fuel consumption.

I maintain that there are at least a few people in decision making  
positions within the organizations who UNDERSTAND the effects of  
their actions.

I also maintain that there are at least a few large contributors to  
the organizations that also understand and REWARD those effects with  
continued financial support and back channel direction.

In clear English - I believe that Greenpeace, Sierra Club and other  
groups are paid to be actively opposed to nuclear power developments  
by people who make money because the rest of us are dependent on  
fossil fuel for our energy needs.

Ask not what people say - watch what they do and observe the effects  
of their actions!

Rod Adams
Editor, Atomic Insights
Co-host, The Atomic Show Podcast

On Feb 2, 2007, at 7:35 PM, Ruth Sponsler wrote:

> Randal -
>
> Thanks for this forward!
>
> Greenpeace, the Sierra Club etc. have totally
> counterproductive positions on climate change because
> of their opposition to nuclear energy.  I view these
> organizations as standing in the way of viable
> solutions to reducing CO2.  Nuclear energy is one of
> the "wedges" needed to stabilize CO2 emissions.
>
> http://www.princeton.edu/~cmi/resources/stabwedge.htm
> http://www.princeton.edu/~cmi/resources/CMI_Wedge_Game_Jan_2007.pdf
>
> By contrast, I like Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers'
> approach.  He will probably propose building a nuclear
> power plant (or 2) in the Carolinas.
>
> I hope that Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc. continue to
> lose members over their mindless opposition to nuclear
> energy.
>
> A great weekend to all!
>
>
> ~Ruth
>
> http://wesupportlee.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> --- Randal Leavitt <randal.leavitt@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>> I received a copy of an email sent to Greenpeace
>> yesterday, and the
>> Greenpeace response.  If I may editorialize a bit,
>> the Greenpeace guy
>> just does not get it.
>>
>> ==========
>>
>> Dear people at Greenpeace, membership coordinator,
>>
>> Please cancel my membership and my monthly donation
>> to Greenpeace,
>> effective immediately.  Please remove me from any
>> and all contact lists
>> you have.
>>
>> I feel very strongly that our means define our ends,
>> regardless of the
>> illusions we would like ourselves to believe.  The
>> reason I am leaving
>> Greenpeace is that I feel that Greenpeace has become
>> a terror
>> organization, spreading fear rather than sense.  The
>> video on the
>> Greenpeace International site under the nuclear
>> campaign entitled "Do we
>> really want..." is obscene.
>>
>>
> http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear
>>
>> I want NOTHING TO DO with an organization that
>> employs terror, or seeks
>> to employ terror, as means of achieving its goals.
>> In this respect
>> Greenpeace is in perfect alignment with the military
>> industrial complex
>> and its drive to constantly create new enemies, real
>> or perceived, to
>> fuel demand and public brainwashing.
>>
>> Nuclear installations in the West are required to be
>> able to withstand
>> the impact of a plane.  Even without an intentional
>> attack, there is a
>> recognized risk of such a thing happening by
>> accident and consequently
>> plants are constructed to withstand them.
>>
>> Of even more importance than this basic abuse of
>> fact in the
>> above-mentioned video, the creation of a perception
>> of a supposed threat
>> from supposed Arab terrorists has been the vehicle
>> by which the American
>> public was conned into condoning four years of
>> criminal international
>> aggression and the murder of 100's of 1000's of
>> innocent men, women and
>> children.  How ironic that we perceive as real a
>> terrorism that does not
>> exist and anguish about 3000 deaths yet we cannot
>> see the terrorism that
>> is in front of our faces every day and the blood
>> that stains our own hands.
>>
>> To this day there has been no official, public
>> investigation into the
>> plane attack in New York in 2001.  Given the vast
>> amount of money that
>> has changed hands as a result of this event, not to
>> mention the nearly
>> 3000 deaths and now the many suffering from having
>> breathed and been in
>> the area at the time, why have we not had a full
>> blown inquiry? (10's of
>> billions of dollars changed hands in American
>> Airlines stock trades and
>> WTC insurance claims before and after the attack,
>> have you ever tried
>> counting to a billion?  Or figured out how many
>> minimum wage salaries
>> fit into a billion dollars?  Or how many windmills
>> could be erected?)
>>
>> Of the many reasons the White House administration
>> has not held an
>> official and public inquiry, one is clear:  It wants
>> to use the attack as
>> a tool of terror, on its own people.  The element of
>> terror relies
>> heavily on the unknown; if we knew what happened, it
>> would not be a
>> mystery any more and the 'terror factor' would
>> diminish.  There are
>> many, serious questions as to whether it could even
>> be possible for a
>> bunch of inexperienced pilots and terrorists to pull
>> off everything they
>> would have had to pull off in order to pull that
>> off.  Enough so that it
>> is irresponsible and deceitful for anyone speaking
>> about fact, rather
>> than feeling or fiction, to express any certainty
>> about the origins of
>> the attacks or the motives behind them.  While
>> Greenpeace has something
>> of a mandate to act in the absence of fact, it's
>> credibility relies on
>> accurately representing those we know.
>>
>> For Greenpeace to seek to leverage this fear is the
>> proverbial straw,
>> for me.  I had been willing to agree to disagree
>> about nuclear energy
>> given the many other projects and actions that
>> Greenpeace undertakes.
>> However the use of terror is simply unacceptable.
>>
>> I feel that Greenpeace's official position on
>> nuclear energy is outdated
>> by 30 years, immature and irresponsible in the face
>> of an urgent need
>> for the elimination of greenhouse gas emissions, in
>> light of the fact
>> that conservation will only delay demand, not stem
>> it, and that other
>> green sources could not meet more than a quarter of
>> our demand.  Yes, we
>> need to invest in developing these technologies,
>> however we do not have
>> the luxury of time.  Greenpeace could be a major
>> influence in making the
>> nuclear industry transparent and accountable, in
>> influencing WHICH KINDS
>> of nuclear technologies get developed, ensuring that
>> only reactors that
>> do not enrich their fuel are adopted, that the
>> processes for recycling
>> ALL fuel in a 200 year cycle (which technology
>> exists today) are
>> required by law, that plants that can burn existing,
>> used-once nuclear
>> fuel (waste is a misnomer as it is still full of
>> energy) are built and
>> that better mining practices are applied, to name a
>> few focuses that
>> would be construtive.  Instead we will get whatever
>> nuclear plants make
>> it by the protests with
>> no more public knowledge about them than 'Nuke.
>> Baaaaad.'
>>
>> Given Greenpeace's supposed strong position on the
>> Environment and
>> Climate Change, the position on Nuclear Energy makes
>> no sense, indeed it
>> is contradictory.  Even based on exaggerated,
>> worst-case scenarios and
>> calculations, nuclear energy is far less lethal than
>> fossil fuel energy,
>> emits zero green-house gases and could be a
>> zero-polluting source
>> today.  In fact, Greenpeace actually helps the
>> fossil fuel industry,
>> because the demand must be met, other alternative
>> sources will not come
>> close to meeting demand any time soon and protesting
>> nuclear rather than
>> demanding it be done well make nuclear harder to
>> implement.  How ironic
>> is that?
>>
>> Goodbye, good luck, and my warmest wishes that
>> Greenpeace evolve out of
>> an organization of terror into an organization of
>> peace befitting of its
>> name.
>>
>> X
>>
>> ==========
>>
>> Dear Mr. X,
>>
>> Thank you for your support of Greenpeace. It is
>> through supporters like
>> yourself that Greenpeace is able to remain free of
>> the influence of
>> corporate and government funding.
>>
>> I am in receipt of your request to put a stop to
>> your monthly
>> contribution to us. Your email has gone to the
>> correct place to make any
>> changes to your Greenpeace file.  ...  I have put a
>> stop payment code on
>> your file effective immediately, so that the last
>> deduction to us will
>> have been the one in January 2007. I have also
>> placed our "Remove from
>> Database" code on your file so that you will not be
>> hearing
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________ 
> ______________
> Need Mail bonding?
> Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
> http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091
> _______________________________________________
> cdn-nucl-l mailing list
> cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA
> http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l