Fact or Fiction?: Greenpeace President Supports Nuclear Energy

Greenpeace President Supports Nuclear Energy: Fact or Fiction?
C-Span aired Monday morning, August 11, 2008, Nancy Pfotenhauer, Senior Economic Advisor for the John McCain Campaign.
Upon being questioned by a caller about McCain's energy plan she stated that "former president and co-founder of Greenpeace Patrick Moore supports Nuclear Power Plants". Well, he does, but these are not all the facts.

From a Bear's perspective this sounded like a ploy to dupe uninformed two-leggeds into believing that if an "environmentalist" thinks it's good, then it must be. She was so pathetic in wanting to sound like she was educated about Nuclear issues that she plagiarized Patrick Moore's words from an article he wrote.

So, I took it upon myself to call Daniel Kessler, media officer in the Greenpeace San Francisco office. Daniel informed me that she was referring to PAST president of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore who worked with Greenpeace in the 1970's. Daniel also told me that the current president of Greenpeace and Greenpeace, DOES NOT SUPPORT Nuclear anythings.

To find out more about Patrick Moore I went to the Washington Post which had an article, "Going Nuclear, A Green Makes the Case, By Patrick Moore, Sunday, April 16, 2006; Page B01" Moore says "In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change... ". Moore also says in his article, "And although I don't want to underestimate the very real dangers of nuclear technology in the hands of rogue states, we cannot simply ban every technology that is dangerous. "

Is this to say that, nuclear technology isn't dangerous in a corporation's hands or the United States Military? What, like just because the US is poisoning it's own people, the planet and all life with nuclear technology, this isn't abnormally savage behavior?

If you look further, you will see that Patrick Moore works as an "environmentalist" along side former EPA Chief, Whitman for none other than the Nuclear Energy Institute who's sole purpose is to sell Nuclear Power. I encourage anyone to take a good look at the NEI site, because even they can not deny that the present radioactive and nuclear waste, is being stored in containers that only last about 100 years. If it wasn't poisonous, do you think that they would have to put it in containers and try to bury it? Their long term plans are to store it in underground caverns that can be found at Yucca Mountain, Nevada...and oh by the way we have one here in Carlsbad New Mexico, in the Land of Enchantment, Home of the Atomic Bomb. It's called WIPP. The cavern in New Mexico is basically made out of sandstone. Sandstone is porous. Where do you think the waste will go if a container leaks or breaks? If you said, aquifer, you're right.

You may still say, what's the problem with Nuclear Power? First of all radiation and uranium poisoning should be considered. Nuclear Power Plants use Uranium. Who better to speak out than mothers and people who live next to and around areas of uranium mining, nuclear energy plants, nuclear development laboratories such as LANL, and babies that have been born from parents of depleted uranium bomb fall out exposure . NUCLEAR Power Plants use URANIUM. Please connect the dots. Uranium Nuclear technology is hazardous to your and ALL LIFE"S health.

The Radiation and Public Health Project states in their findings "Nuclear reactors emit generally low doses of radioactivity into the air and water, not just from accidents but during routine operations. It is important to understand emission patterns and trends in evaluating safety and health risks". Among these health risks are genetic alteration and cancer.
So what's so bad about genetic alteration? Ever seen a deformed baby? Do you want to change the very genetic structure of all life on this planet?

From a Bear's perspective I guess I need to be direct with you, two-leggeds, "Nuclear" was already known about by the Hopi Nation of Arizona thousands of years ago. Now, is the time for you to choose the road you will travel for the future generations of ALL LIFE!!! Do not compromise. Say NO to Nuclear technology and power plants.

Thanks for listening,
Bearsense

http://www.nei.org/
http://washington post.com
http://www.mothersalert.org/
http://www.radiation.org/spotlight/healthriskstudies.html
http://www.welcomehome.org/rainbow/prophecy/hopi1.html
http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/uran.htm