Greenpeace’s Credibility is a Myth

This is a tough accusation.
But if you read below you will understand.

Crew of PHYLLIS CORMACK. 1st Greenpeace trip to Amchitka Isl. to protest USA nuc. testing From the start Greenpeace was an anti nuclear-energy movement that demonstrated against US nuclear testing.
Already at that time (1971), one could easily see that nuclear bombs nowhere in the world had been a result of, or a further development of nuclear power.

Yet this confusion of concepts is maintained uncompromisingly by Greenpeace and has been the cornerstone of what has gradually developed into an overwrought campaign where everything associated with radioactivity is distorted so that it is perceived as a high risk.

The motives for this confusion are lost in the Cold War.
But in the following you will see some of the methods used by Greenpeace and followers.
The result can not be discussed:
More greenhouse gases and higher costs – both human and financial.

On the Danish language website “Safe nuclear power is a myth” the attentive reader will get a good insight into the methods used to spread incorrect “information” by writing something, quite naturally seen in the intended way.
Vindkraft i DK Fløjtespilleren2
But by clever use of the language it is prevented to write something that is factually wrong, if taken strictly using an almost legal interpretation.
Thereafter the debate will quickly be taken over by numerous followers who will soon transfer a clever hint into an undisputed fact.

I will settle for four typical details:

One reads:
Nuclear facilities and terrorism is a dangerous cocktail

Although it has never been explained how this cocktail might be composed, ‘ordinary people’ will automatically think of a “Dirty Bomb”. Something like the following:

A terrorist breaks in and take possession of radioactive material and use ordinary explosives to spread it out in an area that will be uninhabitable for a long time.
1) You may need more than a standard wheel loader, or even a hijacked airplane, to penetrate into the critical place behind the two-meter thick reactor containment.
2) If it should have any effect beyond the psychological, you will require a fairly large amount of radioactive material.
3) Long before this terrorist will have collected just one percent of the required, he will die a miserable, but not that glorious death from acute radiation sickness.

A Dirty Bomb, which to available knowledge only is known in connection with horror stories, is something quite different:

An “ordinary” nuclear bomb, surrounded by a substance, eg Cobalt.
It will then be radioactive by absorbing some of the neutrons left over from the bursting of the real nuclear bomb.

Same place we read the following:
Highly enriched uranium and plutonium can be used for nuclear weapons
Factually this is true, but when it is presented in an article entitled
“Safe nuclear power is a myth”, it will, at the best, be nonsense if you look at the context:
1) Highly enriched uranium is not used in connection with nuclear power. Here uranium is enriched to less than five percent.
More in submarines but not highly enriched.
2) The plutonium generated in the nuclear reactors is contaminated with another isotope, making it unusable for nuclear bombs.
However, with the exception of the dangerous reactor type of at Chernobyl.
3) But even if a terrorist mysteriously obtains some plutonium of ‘weapons-grade’, he will hardly be able to develop the very special initiator required.

The Waste Ghost
Of course you will not avoid the following:

Until now there has not been found any viable solution to the final disposal of highly radioactive waste despite 50 years of trying.
These are high-level radioactive waste, which must be kept totally separate from all living in up to ¼ million years – a totally unacceptable problem.

Although this has been repeated countless of times, it will not be true.
Everything indicates inability or unwillingness to communicate the realities.

Therefore, the following:
Apart from countries where Greenpeace has succeeded in putting a spoke in the wheel, there are good and longtime approved depots for the final disposal of what is still called waste.
Thus, the Swedish waste scheme was approved in 1979 as a condition for start of the last six reactors.

Of course it is ignored that actually it is not that urgent:
The spent fuel rods from the reactors are stored under water, first three years on the power plant and thereafter at an intermediate storage for up to 30 years.
This is because one will wait for final disposal, or reprocessing to reuse, until it has “cooled down”. (Atoms with relatively short half-life will decay into harmless atoms.)

However, this material, still classified as waste, is a valuable future resource that contains huge amounts of useful energy to be used in the future.
Thus the former “final depots” are now rebuilt to be “safe but accessible depots”.

At the same time it is bypassed that:Kulokraft
The coal, which is a result of the great resistance to nuclear, will, in addition to the discharge of radioactive substances in the smoke, results in over two thousand annual deaths in coal mines and well over two million due to air pollution.

Contrary to an imaginary fear of something, thousands of years into the future, it would be wise to concentrate on the imminent danger from the real waste problem:
The greenhouse gases, leading to an imminent danger of catastrophic climate change.

By ‘scrolling down’ to the third page, you will find what might be called
‘The Usual’:
No more Chernobyl
“It is now more than 20 years since the Chernobyl nuclear accident, which affected millions of people in western Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.
The disaster was the fault of a hundred times more radiation than the nuclear bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Today, more than twenty years later, the nightmare continues for thousands of people. “

With a minimum of investigative journalism you will know the following:
1) Although the Danish Broadcasting Corporation reported on 1,000 dead.
There were only five who died in the disaster.
Later 26 more died, most rescue workers who died from burns and radiation.
2) There have been numerous reports of radiation sickness, but the few other deaths were not from radiation sickness.
There was no permanent damage – apart from suicide and psychological damage.
3) There were not distributed iodine tablets – perhaps because it was believed that the disaster could be kept hidden.
Therefore, there were many cases of thyroid cancer, something that can be easily treated.
Thus, there were only nine who died of thyroid cancer.
4) There has been many horror stories about countless future cases of cancer.
However, the experiences from survivors of the nuclear bomb attacks in Japan show that there will be very few extra deaths due to cancer, if any.

All this is nothing compared to the damage due to radiation in nuclear bomb attacks where radiation sickness killed 60,000 alone in Hiroshima.

Thus, it is difficult to understand how there could be a hundred times more radiation than the nuclear bombs.

Even the title “No more Chernobyl” is misleading:
5) This design, which is unstable and without a usual reactor containment, has been abandoned and has never been considered in the context of nuclear energy outside the old Soviet.

The result of this confused opposition to everything that begins with Nuclear, has left its deep marks:

Oversvømmelse– Expensive and unstable
– A looming climate
– Many unnecessary deaths in
coal mines.
– Injuries and countless
deaths as a result of air
– Sleep disorders and other ailments among neighbors of wind turbines.Vindmøller skygger for freden
A heavy responsibility rests on the shoulders of Greenpeace and other

Greatings from Thorkil Søe

I ask – – Can you give an answer ?

Why is it necessary for Greenpeace to give falsified information?
Write to me on

You ask – – Try to find answers

In connection with the sometimes hot debate about nuclear power, I am often met with what I, a bit churlish, call “the usual misunderstandings.”
Instead of asking me the usual “But what about – – – -”
So I ask you to consider if you do not get a response by one of the following posts:

About nuclear power and the many falsified pieces of “information”:

Thorium has been touted as a future energy source.
Sure, it is.
But perhaps it will be an excuse to delay the expansion of traditional nuclear power and ‘just wait’ until it’s too late and the climate change is rampant.

About Chernobyl.
An irresponsible reactor was tested in an irresponsible way.
Even the media coverage was irresponsible:

About the accident at Fukushima and the exaggerated / false “information”.
Also about the unnecessary evacuations:

Despite repeated “Information” / horror stories, you can see that there is very little correlation between radiation and cancer.
Instead of just brushing this off as being nonsnese, have a look at

The assumption “no matter how little, then all radiation is always harmful” (LNT) is frequently used.
But this initial assumption has long since been overtaken by realities.

Sometimes one hears how terrorists will acquire radioactive material and making large areas uninhabitable.
Although a “Dirty Bomb” sounds terrifying, the first and probably only victim will be this aspiring terrorist.

Children born to parents who have been exposed to even very strong ionizing (radioactive) radiation, have shown no more cases of birth defects / deformities:

Despite decades of misleading propaganda, it can be seen that
The Waste Problem
is not a problem:

In Europe, new nuclear power plants tend to be prohibitively expensive.
But not in Russia, China and Korea.
See why:

Greetings from Thorkil Søe