Greenpeace has lost itself 5.15 million dollars - Polidicks

[quote] A gamble gone wrong on worldwide currency markets lost Greenpeace International around 3.8 million euros ($5.15 million), the environmental charity announced on Sunday. Officials with the organization said the loss was caused by an employee acting on his own, without receiving the necessary approval to do so. They also said there was no indication of corruption. "Nothing suggests at this point that he acted for personal gain, it seems to be a terrible miscalculation," Mike Townsley, communications director at the organization's head office in the Netherlands told the AFP news agency.[/quote] sounds grea-- [quote]Townsley also said no Greenpeace campaign would be affected by the loss.[/quote] oh. source: [URL]http://www.dw.de/greenpeace-loses-big-on-international-currency-markets/a-17709210[/URL] here's what I don't like about greenpeace mostly if you wanna know [url]http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/[/url]

[quote]Officials with the organization said the loss was caused by an employee acting on his own, without receiving the necessary approval to do so. "Nothing suggests at this point that he acted for personal gain, it seems to be a terrible miscalculation,"[/quote] Sounds like someone just lost their job.

[QUOTE=OvB;45118132]Sounds like someone just lost their job.[/QUOTE] Sounds like they need a fall guy.

Came in expecting cryptocurrency investment gone wrong.

[QUOTE=OvB;45118132]Sounds like someone just lost their job.[/QUOTE] He did get fired, according to a Dutch article. Imagine being a guy who just lost his company over five million dollars because of a calculation error.

Even though I agree with environmental protection I really don't like green peace, some of the stuff they do borders terrorism, like trying to break into nuclear powerplants and stuff

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;45118397]Even though I agree with environmental protection I really don't like green peace, some of the stuff they do borders terrorism, like trying to break into nuclear powerplants and stuff[/QUOTE] Not only that, some times they really don't seem to know their shit on what's good for nature and what's not.

[QUOTE=Kirth;45118414]Not only that, some times they really don't seem to know their shit on what's good for nature and what's not.[/QUOTE] Well yeah like how nuclear for now is probably our best bet at curbing carbon emissions, sure it isn't sustainable but for now it's better than oil, yet they seem to be against it. I mean what alternatives do we have? Cover Europe in solar panels and wind farms? Renewables just aren't good enough yet.

Nuclear is the future. Greenpeace are extremely out of touch. I actually laughed at the article in OP about Greenpeace and nuclear power "But as we know there is nothing "peaceful" about all things nuclear."

[QUOTE=Azza;45118441]Nuclear is the future. Greenpeace are extremely out of touch. I actually laughed at the article in OP about Greenpeace and nuclear power "But as we know there is nothing "peaceful" about all things nuclear."[/QUOTE] Well it isn't the future so much, considering if we used it for too long the waste problem would get pretty bad, but as a short term solution until we get better renewables (or fusion) then it's our best bet.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;45118446]Well it isn't the future so much, considering if we used it for too long the waste problem would get pretty bad, but as a short term solution until we get better renewables (or fusion) then it's our best bet.[/QUOTE] Aren't there (currently only theoretical) methods to use the waste as power though?

Greenpeace fights for a good cause, but with the wrong methods, I dont like them.

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;45118502]Greenpeace fights for a good cause, but with the wrong methods, I dont like them.[/QUOTE] they're pretty wacko on many things, there are way better pro-environment organizations out there.

[QUOTE=Erfly;45118498]Aren't there (currently only theoretical) methods to use the waste as power though?[/QUOTE] There are but I think that can only take you so far.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;45118547]There are but I think that can only take you so far.[/QUOTE] even still, by the time waste disposal would become a major problem we'd likely be able to have gotton nuclear fusion going, or improved renewables enough.

[QUOTE=V12US;45118318]He did get fired, according to a Dutch article. Imagine being a guy who just lost his company over five million dollars because of a calculation error.[/QUOTE] Also imagine trying to get hired ever again.

[QUOTE=silentjubjub;45118574]Also imagine trying to get hired ever again.[/QUOTE] It's not like this is breaking international news, he can probably just not mention his job at greenpeace.

[QUOTE=Erfly;45118498]Aren't there (currently only theoretical) methods to use the waste as power though?[/QUOTE] Yes its called MOX fuel, it stands for mixed oxide fuel, they take the spent uranium, process out the plutonium and mix it with a small amount of fresh unrefined uranium to make a good fuel and it leaves depleted uranium and burns up most of the wastre, its just you have to have a supply of reactors that can handle Mox fuel and the facilities to make it [editline]16th June 2014[/editline] Waste is only a problem with the last generation reactors, the latest generation really focused on burning up everything and new reactors would make jobs and power and lower the burden on the aging reactors that should have been retired decades ago

[QUOTE=Erfly;45118498]Aren't there (currently only theoretical) methods to use the waste as power though?[/QUOTE] There are production power plants that can run on spent fuel, a bigger issue isn't what to do with the fuel, it's convincing people to actually do it. Fuel reprocessing was banned in the USA back in 1977 by Jimmy Carter, since then it's either stored on site, or sent to another country where it can be re-processed.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;45118547]There are but I think that can only take you so far.[/QUOTE] It can take you a fuck load farther than "renewable" energy. Wind turbines, solar panels, and hydroelectric dam can only do so much. Wind turbines and solar panels produce wildly varying power, hydroelectric dams destroy a large area of land, geothermal energy is only available in a few locations, and fossil fuels spew shit into the atmosphere. Nuclear power is the best form of power production and no amount of "Well when X technology improves" will change that fact. It is cleaner, it is safer, it is more efficient, and it has a lower ecological effect than every other form of power production. It doesn't produce anything near the levels of harmful radiation that the fear mongers claim and it is very easily stored, the people who run nuclear power plants are VERY aware of the dangers and do everything they can to minimise them. Sorry if I'm coming across ass aggressive, but the fear mongering of nuclear power pisses me off.

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;45119286]Nuclear power is the best form of power production and no amount of "Well when X technology improves" will change that fact. It is cleaner, it is safer, it is more efficient, and it has a lower ecological effect than every other form of power production. It doesn't produce anything near the levels of harmful radiation that the fear mongers claim and it is very easily stored, the people who run nuclear power plants are VERY aware of the dangers and do everything they can to minimise them. Sorry if I'm coming across ass aggressive, but the fear mongering of nuclear power pisses me off.[/QUOTE] Nuclear power is all of the things you say it is when you completely ignore the fact that it produces tens of thousands of tons of waste per year worldwide. And said waste must be disposed of where it has zero chance of being exposed to the environment for the next 100,000 years, which isn't possible to predict. It's like shitting land mines in strategic locations around the planet that fuck everything organic for thousands of generations to come for convenience in the present. There's no 100% safe end to end solution to nuclear power, which is the problem.

[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;45119074]There are production power plants that can run on spent fuel, a bigger issue isn't what to do with the fuel, it's convincing people to actually do it. Fuel reprocessing was banned in the USA back in 1977 by Jimmy Carter, since then it's either stored on site, or sent to another country where it can be re-processed.[/QUOTE] then unban it

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;45119286]It can take you a fuck load farther than "renewable" energy. Wind turbines, solar panels, and hydroelectric dam can only do so much. Wind turbines and solar panels produce wildly varying power, hydroelectric dams destroy a large area of land, geothermal energy is only available in a few locations, and fossil fuels spew shit into the atmosphere. Nuclear power is the best form of power production and no amount of "Well when X technology improves" will change that fact. It is cleaner, it is safer, it is more efficient, and it has a lower ecological effect than every other form of power production. It doesn't produce anything near the levels of harmful radiation that the fear mongers claim and it is very easily stored, the people who run nuclear power plants are VERY aware of the dangers and do everything they can to minimise them. Sorry if I'm coming across ass aggressive, but the fear mongering of nuclear power pisses me off.[/QUOTE] B-but Chernobyl!!!

[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;45119601]Nuclear power is all of the things you say it is when you completely ignore the fact that it produces tens of thousands of tons of waste per year worldwide. And said waste must be disposed of where it has zero chance of being exposed to the environment for the next 100,000 years, which isn't possible to predict. It's like shitting land mines in strategic locations around the planet that fuck everything organic for thousands of generations to come for convenience in the present. There's no 100% safe end to end solution to nuclear power, which is the problem.[/QUOTE] Sounds bad until you compare nuclear waste per year to other forms of electric production waste products... Nuclear isn't as scary as the general public believes. A bit on the subject.... [url]http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Radioactive-Waste-Management/[/url] Also, also- green peace are nutters. But so are most established charity organizations so meh

[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;45119601]Nuclear power is all of the things you say it is when you completely ignore the fact that it produces tens of thousands of tons of waste per year worldwide. And said waste must be disposed of where it has zero chance of being exposed to the environment for the next 100,000 years, which isn't possible to predict. It's like shitting land mines in strategic locations around the planet that fuck everything organic for thousands of generations to come for convenience in the present. There's no 100% safe end to end solution to nuclear power, which is the problem.[/QUOTE] It's not 100% safe but we know for sure the other alternatives are 100% not safe, there's nothing to debate about. You can't argue "if we do that things [I]could[/I] go wrong" when we know for a fact that all other options WILL go wrong for sure.

[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;45119601]Nuclear power is all of the things you say it is when you completely ignore the fact that it produces tens of thousands of tons of waste per year worldwide. And said waste must be disposed of where it has zero chance of being exposed to the environment for the next 100,000 years, which isn't possible to predict. It's like shitting land mines in strategic locations around the planet that fuck everything organic for thousands of generations to come for convenience in the present. There's no 100% safe end to end solution to nuclear power, which is the problem.[/QUOTE] The 4th generation of nuclear power plants will be able to cut the half-lives down to ~500 years (which will also mean that we'll get a lot more energy out of the same amount of fissile material, so less waste overall), and we can't go on using fossil fuels.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;45119871]It's not 100% safe but we know for sure the other alternatives are 100% not safe, there's nothing to debate about. You can't argue "if we do that things [I]could[/I] go wrong" when we know for a fact that all other options WILL go wrong for sure.[/QUOTE] remember when hydroelectric power [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam]killed 171,000 people and destroyed 11 million homes[/url]? [editline]16th June 2014[/editline] how could anyone possibly look at that and think "no, nuclear power is too dangerous"

[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;45119601]Nuclear power is all of the things you say it is when you completely ignore the fact that it produces tens of thousands of tons of waste per year worldwide. And said waste must be disposed of where it has zero chance of being exposed to the environment for the next 100,000 years, which isn't possible to predict. It's like shitting land mines in strategic locations around the planet that fuck everything organic for thousands of generations to come for convenience in the present. There's no 100% safe end to end solution to nuclear power, which is the problem.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://is.gd/O4WLCI"]haha oh boy here we go again[/URL]

I like how this went from a rogue employee siphoning funds from an eco terrorist group to a pro/anti nuclear cockfight, again. Way to go guys.

Good riddance. Here's hoping this person continues to do this until these fucking terrorists are bankrupt and forced to disband.