Greenpeace France nuclear action prompts security alert

[Hidole555]

[B][QUOTE]Environmental activists have broken into a French nuclear power station, to highlight the "vulnerability" of atomic sites in France.[/QUOTE][/B]

Reminds me of that one episode of NUMB3RS when they were trying to track down that Special Forces guy who was paid to break into military bases to test their security.

[CanadianBill]

"Let's purposely break into a nuclear reactor and prove we can destroy it to show how they can break"
Yes.

[MIPS]

[QUOTE=CanadianBill;33586516]"Let's purposely break into a nuclear reactor and prove we can destroy it to show how they can break"
Yes.[/QUOTE]

I still think one day they will get a taste of their own medicine and someone's going to end up being killed for infiltrating a then high security nuclear facility.
Then they'll scream because they'll criticize the use of deadly force at nuclear facilities.

[timman]

That's funny, isn't nuclear power considered one of the safest sources of energy?

[DeathDoom]

[QUOTE]"The aim is to show the vulnerability of French nuclear installations and how easy it is to get to the heart of a nuclear reactor," said a Greenpeace nuclear specialist, Sophia Majnoni.[/QUOTE]
Because climbing to the top and unfurling a banner is the [i]exact same thing[/i] as getting to the heart of a nuclear reactor.

Really, I think it's just poor justification for defacing property owned by a nuclear power company, even if it is just a banner.

[redhaven]

[QUOTE=Jawalt;33585393]We should just use solar panels. Why build reactors when there's a giant one in the sky?[/QUOTE]Problem #1: cost-benefit ratio.

[CaptainJL]

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;33583799]I think calling it the safest is a bit of an exaggeration, it is incredibly dangerous, however with the amount of safety precautions we've put in place it's incredibly safe.[/QUOTE]
I suppose it depends on what aspect you're trying to define. If you're talking about how dangerous it is if the reactor melts down (which is essentially impossible today), then yeah, it's an extremely dangerous fuel source. If we're talking about the history of nuclear power though, even if you include Chernobyl, nuclear power is directly responsible for less fatalities than either coal, hydroelectric or natural gas. Beyond that, there has only been one catastrophic meltdown in the history of the technology, and it's a mistake that can literally never happen again as it did.

[Gilboron]

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;33599398]I suppose it depends on what aspect you're trying to define. If you're talking about how dangerous it is if the reactor melts down (which is essentially impossible today), then yeah, it's an extremely dangerous fuel source. If we're talking about the history of nuclear power though, even if you include Chernobyl, [B]nuclear power is directly responsible for less fatalities than either coal, hydroelectric or natural gas[/B]. Beyond that, there has only been one catastrophic meltdown in the history of the technology, and it's a mistake that can literally never happen again as it did.[/QUOTE]

And has been around for a much shorter time. Can you name me one coal, hydroelectric or natural gas incident that had the same impact as Chernobyl? And for that matter, name me one lethal wind turbine or solar power related incident. Also enjoy your waste that will take billions of years to stop being dangerous to fucking everything.

(By the way, since when did Greenpeace get such a negative reputation? Is that a recent thing or something? My dad has been with Greenpeace for almost thirty years and I always thought they were pretty okay.)