Dr. Patrick Moore on Greenpeace and Anti-Nukes

[justanoldman1]

If all the anti people would offer a workable source it would be different but they just complain about everything, they are negative and not useful at all. Perhaps in the far future new sources of energy will be found but for now mankind needs oil and nuclear energy to survive.

[publicminx]

Greenpeace is an antimodernistic religious sect ...

[granddad2002]

There are 4 debates that I don't get into 1.The Moon Hoax 2. Creation Science 3. Holocaust Deniers 4. Anti-Nuclear ! Personally, I have no problems with Solar, Wind or conservation. These technologies are useful in niche markets. I'm a fan of Geothermal and biofuels... they are better with boarder application. But kilogram to meters cubed... Nuclear and its reasonable advances are amazing. Unless somebody can make an orbital tower in the next 20 years.. Nuclear is a solid bet.

[98raza20]

@granddad2002 you should probably add a 5th to that. Zionist new world order conspiracy theories.

[MannySteinerBleeky]

I wouldn't put it past the pro-nuke conspiracy to change this guys name just so it conflicts with the astronomers.

[squamish4244]

@MannySteinerBleeky His name is authentic, check Wikipedia.

[raspaskas1]

i have one name Nikola Tesla moore think about him , free clean energie. they make money one nuclair power its only money.

[yann33fr]

Anti-nuclear people are retarded and backward

[statickk14]

Go Nuclear Power...free us of the greenhouse gas and fossil fuel!!

[suemorphplus2009]

Demand to give back money from the stimulus, and ask the president and Congress to respend the money on nuclear power, that they wanted to use in subsidizing solar and wind!

[robost]

On the face of it he makes sense,but this is not an intellectual exercise alone.Looking at the bigger picture,what is appropriate human activity on the planet and on what scale? All this talk of the scale of power generation and no discussion whatsoever as to how efficiently it's used or to what end use. It is like children: "I want that. Why do you want that? Because I want it." We are a victim of our own successes. We have gone too far and now things are breaking down. Ego is the problem.

[Pilkie101]

You have not made a point, sir

[robost]

I may have not expressed myself in a manner that is easy to accept or understand. The point is this, the modern world is an example of self-glorification through technology and altering the face of the earth. Every activity has consequences, deemed either positive or negative. In the past 200 years the relationship between freedom and responsibility has been quite troublesom for many to reconcile. Nuclear power does not confer freedom over the long run,only the short run.

[QuarereAude]

"Politically difficult" . . . and logically impossible, and unethical, to argue for nuclear energy. Once again life-cycle costs are ignored in the commentary.

[Stefnir94]

there is enough uranium in the ocean to produce nuclear energy for another 3000 years.

[papcio]

well currently we use only U235, but there are no problems with using Plutonium, Thorium and U238, with these fuels combined we could produce cheap energy for hundred thousends of years, so why dont we use those fuels? because there is no need !

[Stefnir94]

Exactly, there is plenty of fissile material to use.

[MannySteinerBleeky]

@Stefnir94 - yes there's loads of uranium justnow, but as a source of power generation it's retarded. why do you listen to things that ignore the fact you are a human with a biological body, living on a planet with a water-based ecosystem you entirely rely upon operating correctly? why all this threat to life itself - as if in their minds some people think they are actually mechanical entiies who are immortal...that can plug nuke rods into them for power.

[bimmjim]

Get serious Norsk, there are millions of lives at stake here.

[soylentgreenb]

"Get serious Norsk, there are millions of lives at stake here. "

Yes, without clean, safe and cheap power from nuclear energy, millions of lives are at stake.

[bimmjim]

In engineering mathematics the risk is never zero. To say there can never be another Chernobyl is like saying "this airplane will never crash". To continue the airplane analogy it is as if you are saying "this airplane will never crash" and then you are going on to describe all the safty features of the airplane. BUT AIRPLANES KEEP CRASHING.

Who is paying you?

[NorskeDivision]

The risk is sometimes zero. What's the risk a stone will role up a hill spontaneously? Zero

What's the risk a sub critical mass of Uranium will enter into an unstoppable chain reaction when control rods are present? Zero

The risk that water (or radiation) will leak from a vessel from which a leak is impossible? Zero.

Who is paying you? (I'm putting my money on the coal industry). We need renewables and nuclear. Not a few renewables and lots of coal (that's what we're getting right now!).

[milofonbil]

"The risk that radiation will leak from a vessel from which a leak is impossible? Zero." It's clear to me that you are confusing risk and probability of an event occurring. 1) No such thing as impossible. People just don't understand all the failure mechanisms. 2) The cost of such an event is not free. Risk=probability of the event x the cost incurred should it happen. Clearly risk is not zero for your example. It's time you hit the engineering books before you spout off more nonsense.

[brianng999]

Okay, but it would be safe to say that the risk of a uncontrollable nuclear chain reaction is so miniscule that it is negligible.

For example, oxygen atoms zipping around in the air are moving randomly. You could say that it is possible that all of the oxygen atoms in your room could suddenly move away from you and suffocate you. We all know that is highly unlikely to occur right? Too bad :)

[milofonbil]

No it's not minuscule. As matter of fact, it's already happened in Japan not ten years ago and you probably have not heard about it. Look up the criticality accident at Tokai nuclear fuel plant in Japan.

[soylentgreenb]

"No it's not minuscule. [Tokai]"

That's not an uncontrollable nuclear reaction; that's a self-limiting nuclear reaction. The criticality continued intermittently for 20 hours, with no offsite implications and two worker fatalities.

You need bomb grade material backed by a great deal of inertia holding the thing toghether to have more than a fizzle. The two fatalities and zero off-site radiological implications of the Tokai accident was no more serious than any other workplace death.

[bimmjim]

To Norsk and n8dog:

You young people making comments here should try to learn the difference between advertising and reality. This video is advertising paid for by the nuclear industry.

The N-industry is not adressing the two main problems with nuclear power.(1) The risk of the next Chernobyl (2) The long term storage of nuclear waste.

[NorskeDivision]

I've not even watched the video. Just responding to the uninformed comments here.

The risk of the "next Chernobyl" was addressed in the US before Chernobyl was even on the drawing board. Containment domes, multiple levels of separation, passive safety measures. If people at a US reactor simply walk away, it will auto-scram. Even in a total melt-down, as in Chernobyl (almost impossible), the radiation will be contained within the containment dome. Chernobyl was just a reactor in a warehouse.

[NorskeDivision]

The long term storage of nuclear waste is not a technical problem, but a political one. Many geological formations have not changed for BILLIONS of years (eg. large swaths of Australia are unchanged, except for erosion), finding secure geological repositories is not difficult.

Baring that, we could dump ceramic casks into the subduction zone, and it would be sucked down into the earth's crust. That would be a dumb waste of good nuclear material though. Todays waste will be next millenia's fuel

[ChrisPCrunchy]

AHH So now we know the truth YOU ARE A STOOGE FOR PANGEA. Thought so, contaminate the last major relatively untouched continent with filthy waste from the northern hemisphere. You are a low life scumbag. You have no morals, we did not generate the waste why should we suffer the health effects of it. There will be blood in the street before this happens. Those who make the waste should have to deal with the cancers deformaties and eventual extinction that their decissions have made inevitable.

[kingofpaintball]

Cancer rates down wind of plants higher in independent studies Why do european studies show a increase in cancers in children under 15.down wind of plants Why is stronium showing up in kids teeth Why does the industry refuse to except that it causes cancer We have had plastics,lead piant, clorine and other contamination but cancer rates real took off after the nuclear age started Do we get trituim strontium cecsium carbom14in small inhalable particals from the sun

[NorskeDivision]

Increase in cancer rates? Right. There are also cancer clusters far away from nuclear plants, and nuclear plants without cancer clusters. Think for a second about where nuclear plants are located. Mostly in undesirable locations which previously played host to other heavy industries (In Germany often heavy weapons manufacture). Cancer rates took off due to increase diagnoses of cancer, and chemical exposure was well as longer life and increased tanning.

[milofonbil]

There are persistent leukemia clusters in children near these locations: Seascale (Sellafield), Dounreay, Aldermaston in the UK, where both reactors and fuel cycle installations were operated, La Hague in France and Germany's Kruemmel nuclear power plant. These have been confirmed by independent teams from 10 different countries. The tie to tritium releases is pretty strong. It's not something you can easily sweep under the rug.

[NorskeDivision]

Also, all of those studies assumptions about Uranium recovery from seawater were superceded by a much more extensive study by Tamada in 2006, which used a scaled down version of a practical leaching cage and used actual material costs. The resulting Uranium oxide was actually sold and used in a nuclear power plant. Cost per kg was around $240, well within practical range. The uranium shortage is a myth.

[bimmjim]

If you look up Patrick Moore's other work, you will find that he is a paid mouthpiece for any anti environmental cause. He supports more fish farming in B.C. He says that there is more biodiversity in a clear cut than in an oldgrowth forest.

He would say that his grandmother was a donkey if you paid him a few thousand dollars.

[ChrisPCrunchy]

He used to have a hyphonated name. It was Patrick Moore-on. He is a mouth piece for the Nuclear industry. He has no balls due to a nasty radiation accident and he is a mutated freak.

[NorskeDivision]

Wow, how clever. "Patrick Moore-on"

[ChrisPCrunchy]

Thanks!

[n8dogg87]

Are you REALLY listening to what he's saying?

Be realistic. We have more than 6 Billion people in this world. If you stay staunchly against everything that could benefit mankind at the cost of changing the environment for the SOLE PURPOSE of opposing 'big business', then you have to wake up. We will hurt the environment no matter WHAT we do. Better to make sure we do it the least harmful and most efficient way possible.

[Stefnir94]

Greenpeace isn't doing anything to stop global warming. We have the opportunity to stop global warming with nuclear energy and hydro power, BUT THEY ARE AGAINST IT!!!?!??!

[milofonbil]

Of course Greenpeace has been working on the global warming issue and yes, they are against it. Greenpeace has identified global climate change as one of the greatest threats to the planet. Greenpeace is against nuclear power because they feel it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and humanity. Nuclear power already delivers less energy globally than renewable energy, and the share will continue to decrease in the coming years. Why not shut it down completely?

[beezalax13]

Someone please answer this question. Say climate change is as bad as the most pessimistic prediction there is right now. How would we alleviate it the best without going nuclear? I personally think that if it is as bad as the alarmists say, we have to go nuclear at least in the interim. And milofonbil, you sound like yet another conspiracy theorist who puts together a few facts and coincidences, and comes up with some asinine conclusion.

[milofonbil]

There is not enough uranium to replace all of the existing sources of energy with nuclear power considering that reprocessing and breeding are both not economically feasible. Furthermore electricity is only one small part of our energy needs. We need energy for heating, transportation and electrical needs. Nuclear does not address the largest consumers of energy.

[milofonbil]

A study by Jan-Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith claims that if all the world's existing fossil fuel based power stations were replaced by nuclear, there would only be enough uranium for 3-4 years.

[Stefnir94]

Did I ever mention we should replace all of them? I just want to increase their numbers.

We can use, electricity for heating and transportation and by the way, many nuclear power plants produce 5000 megawatts. We need every single CO2 free energy source to battle global warming including nuclear and hydro energy.

[milofonbil]

Well then we need to build plenty of wind turbines and geothermal sources as well.

[Stefnir94]

OK.

[NorskeDivision]

That study is a joke to anyone who even does cursory analysis of its results and many of its assumptions have already been disproved. It assumes pitiful reserves near the Grand Canyon, recent exploration there indicate actual reserves to be over 100 times larger then they indicate! Their estimates for other reserves are likely also wrong.

tinyurl . com / 3mcqoy

Their energy estimates are glaringly wrong when one looks at Olympic dam. It totally ignores the positive results of Sugo (2003).

[ChrisPCrunchy]

Australia has three active Uranium mines and is limited by legislation to just three, recent estimates show that Australia alone would have enough known reserves to run existing needs for over 80 years. The question is not can we but should we. If the Australian people did not live in a fake democracy, defacto-dictatorship or if there was a referendum on the subject they would be closed in a heartbeat.

[NorskeDivision]

A referendum on almost any sort of mining anywhere the mining would be stopped. I would guess that if you put a referendum before California they would vote to outlaw coal power. Does that mean that coal power should immediately be made illegal? No, because too many of the people voting do not understand the consequences of policy decisions. Democracy does not mean people micro-manage every decision the government makes, they elect representatives.

tinyurl . com / 5hj7x8

[ChrisPCrunchy]

People will never vote down something that benifits them. Australians have made a concious descission NOT to participate in nuclear power. The government tried to railroad us into it years ago at Jarvis Bay but the protests and blockades made it impossible to continue. The only way they could mine the stuff was to promise to limit it to just two mines. There is a company called Pangea advocating Australia as a waste dump for the northern hemisphere there will be blood in the streets first.

[milofonbil]

The study is not a joke. If it were a joke, the industry would ignore it.

Why would anyone under-estimate the reserves?

1) Claims are not reserves. You can't call 'em reserves until the claim has been mined.

2) When you understate the size of your find, the banks lend you *less* money.

More nonsense

[soylentgreenb]

"Why would anyone under-estimate the reserves?"

Because you as a uranium miner care about resources you can mine at a price that is currently or in the near future going to be attractive to fuel manufacturers. You don't care about a century into the future.

"When you understate the size of your find, the banks lend you *less* money."

When you overstate the size of your find you may be criminally liable. Again, banks only care what you expect to do in the next few decades.

[milofonbil]

Beesalax, you said "you sound like yet another conspiracy theorist who puts together a few facts and coincidences, and comes up with some asinine conclusion." Rather than telling you what you sound like, I will ask you to talk to specifics instead of making broad-sweeping accusations. Tell me specifically what few facts and coincidences you are referring to. Perhaps I can point you to a few references.

[beezalax13]

I don't know where you get your facts, but you are completely wrong about most of them. We do not have a shortage of uranium (as if thats the only fuel that can be used). There is no scientific study linking leukemia to nuclear plants. It will be expensive at the beginning, but will flatten out once the market gets going. I can refute most of your "facts." Let it be know that I work in the industry, so I have a lot better sources than Wikipedia and Google. And yes you are a typical CT loon.

[milofonbil]

Peak uranium is a shortage due to the inability to produce at the rate demanded, not the endless quantities of uranium in mines, phosphates and in the sea. Currently the uranium cycle is not closed, so it's being used pretty much once-through.

I have worked in the industry as well, but I don't any more. So what.

Leukemia - Search Germany.

[chinese5angel]

Greenpeace is a profit organization to collect money. They do not reveal the details of their expenditure. Do not donate any money to them. Give foods to the African children who are starving instead.

[warchild81]

Donate plutonium to Africa!

[milofonbil]

Certainly being a spokesman for the NEI pays a lot better than being a Greenpeace member. I bet the NEI has to pay well in order to get a top-notch turncoat.

[QuimbyMouse]

He just gave a lecture at our local university, in which, only his transportation was payed for. I guess the biology department tried to get David Suzuki for a lecture a few years back, but he charges $20,000 per lecture. Do some research on Dr. Moore's company before you start throwing accusations around.

[milofonbil]

I have. The NEI is very well funded by the nuclear industry. This year for example, wind and solar did not get any tax subsidies by the government, but nuclear industry did. This is why the NEI can afford to pay Dr. Moore's lecture fees for you. And David Suzuki, he has to make a living. He charges.

[QuimbyMouse]

I have no doubt that you researched the NEI....you did, however, fail to research Moore's company, Greenspirit.

Keep in mind also, that I have nothing against Suzuki....but if Moore was backed by a gready, capitalist profit driven group, wouldn't they possibly be keen on charging a bit of $ for a lecture or two?

[QuimbyMouse]

Also, keep in mind that Moore is pushing Geothermal as well (seems odd, for someone on NEIs payroll to be pushing other energy sources).....but people like you like to ignore that.......you aren't aloud to agree with anything the 'bad guys' say. Like he said....anti-intellectualism.

[milofonbil]

I'm not signed onto any sort of a must have this or that kind of electrical power cult. I do think that nuclear power is a disastrously complicated way of boiling water. Why not take advantage of the earth's core? - it's a nuclear reactor too.

[QuimbyMouse]

Nuclear Submarines...

Ok, great, now you're not answering my question. Why, if Dr. Moore, is a member of the industry baddies, is he pushing alternate energy resources?

And the earth's core (perhaps, it was sarcasm)? Come on. You're saying that Nuclear energy is already expensive, but we should tap into the earth's core?

[milofonbil]

Sure... The core of the earth is hot due to a giant nuclear furnace. You don't have to drill down too far. You can boil water and get steam out by just drilling down 10,000 feet with two holes. Pour water down one, and get steam out of the other. You don't have to worry about expensive permitting and rising fuel prices. Uranium has gone up from $7 in 2001 to $75 in 2008 (1000%).

I think nuclear fission is great when it's in the ground, self contained, self fueling and self shielded.

[milofonbil]

Greenspirit is listed on an NEI website as one of the Friends of NEI. Patrick Moore now heads the PR firm Greenspirit Strategies. NEI's Steve Kerekes said Greenspirit will allow NEI to provide "a unifying platform that supporters of nuclear energy can add their voices to." Essentially, Greenspirit is a front group for the NEI and their "green" lobbying arm. No one is falling for it.

[milofonbil]

"Greenspirit is using its relationship with NEI to communicate more effectively the need to use nuclear technology as a key component in the climate-change challenge. This furthers our agenda. No doubt the relationship is a symbiotic one, one of the most desirable ecological conditions as both parties benefit." Dominic Rushe, "The man behind the nuclear power shift" The Sunday Times

December 2, 2007

[milofonbil]

"Moore is supported by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)" - Wikipedia article on Patrick Moore (environmentalist)

[milofonbil]

I don't have anyone telling what "I'm allowed to thing" Again, I will tell you that unlike Dr. Moore, I think that Nuclear is not the answer because of a variety of factors. The biggest is that it does not solve our independence of foreign fuels. The US imports 84% of uranium right now. It's also a very expensive way to boil water. You can provide a base load much cheaper by using the earth as a heat source to boil water. California is the world leader in geothermal right now.

[milofonbil]

Thirdly, Nuclear power, although it has a good safety record with the operations part, still is contributing to the bad health of its workers due to 1) the mining and milling process and 2) still has releases of radio active gases. Leukemia rates are much higher around reactors. 3) There is still no answer on disposing nuclear wastes (after 55 years)

[Stefnir94]

the leukemia is caused from the power lines, not the plant.

[milofonbil]

There many studies that have found that children living within 5 km of nuclear power plants have an significant increase in leukemia.

Also, there have been many studies where the children lived within 50 meters or so of a high voltage line and contract leukemia. But none of those studies have shown any causal relationship.

I guess they will have a significant amount of wind turbines soon to show that the high rates of leukemia near power plants and high tension wires only occur near nukes.

[Stefnir94]

Scientists have checked the area around nuclear power plants with geiger counters and they only found backround radiation.

[milofonbil]

Scientists have also checked the fields created by the high tension lines. The fields are far less than the earth's electromagnetic field.

[milofonbil]

"Owners of U.S. nuclear power reactors bought 67 million pounds of uranium in 2006. Out of that 84%, or 56 million pounds, were imported from foreign suppliers, according to the Energy Department.[61]" - Wikipedia article on Peak uranium

[timDOGcrane]

Nuclear energy is by far the best way to go!

Nuclear energy is an environmentally clean option to produce electricity! It produces no harmful greenhouse gases.

NO ONE HAS DIED from nuclear energy in this country!

The U.S. Navy has used nuclear power for more than 50 years with NO nuclear accidents. The U.S. should be more like France whom gets 80% of their electricity from nuclear.

[milofonbil]

environmentally clean - What about the accidental releases? What about the radioactive waste? What about the radio active plant when you are done with it.

Deaths - there have been deaths.

The Navy operates a totally different kind of nuclear reactors.

Yes ... France is abandoning nukes and moving towards renewables. Germany shut down 12 of its reactors due to poor economics.

[milofonbil]

To be specific, the Navy's reactors use HEU instead of 5% enriched. It puts a whole new dimension on a BWR.

France has run out of Uranium and must import it all. They are moving towards renewables because they can't count on the Uranium supply.

Germany ran out of Uranium as well. Their imported Uranium is far too expensive now.

The US is running out too. But people are not talking about it due to industry pressure.

[Billdo64]

Patrick Moore on the Issues:

Greenpeace and Sierra Club: Out of Date

Nuclear Power- Most Expensive way man has come up with to boil water: Good.

Clear Cutting Forests, Inc. Mountainsides: Good

USGS proven leaking Radioactive Waste Dumping Sites, HLRW & LLRW: Safe and Good

Salmon Farming Business: Turned Bad

Money from Nuclear Industry, Hazardous Waste Industry, Timber and Lumber Industry: Great.

Money before principles: Good, Good, Good