Nuclear Physicist Debunks Greenpeace Nuclear Energy LIES

Nuclear Physicist Debunks Greenpeace Nuclear Energy LIES

For exclusive content as well as to support the channel, join my

Join the friendly Nuclear subReddit to discuss nuclear energy, ask questions and share memes - r/friendlynuclearfamily

Instagram - @elinacharatsidou
TikTok - @elinacharatsidou

In today's eye-opening video, I, as a nuclear physicist, tackle some of the biggest misconceptions and outright falsehoods about nuclear energy perpetuated by Greenpeace on their website. Join me as I debunk their misleading claims with facts, logic, and scientific evidence. This is a must-watch for anyone interested in the truth about nuclear power and its role in our quest for clean energy. Don't forget to LIKE, SHARE, and SUBSCRIBE for more credible and insightful content!

🔗 Relevant links and resources:

👇 Join the conversation! Comment your thoughts on nuclear energy, and let me know if you have any questions or concerns. I'll be happy to address them.

Hope you like the video about Nuclear Physicist Debunks Greenpeace Nuclear Energy LIES. Don't forget to like, subscribe, and share with friends and family.

#NuclearPhysicist #GreenpeaceDebunked #NuclearEnergyFacts #CleanEnergyFuture

[YourFriendlyNuclearPhysicist]

This was a very different and quite eye opening review of the Greenpeace website! It was the first time I read their blog posts and I’m quite puzzled as you’ve noticed from the video!
Let me know if you’d like me to make more of these videos going into more detail on their nuclear related content 👩🏽‍🔬☢️

[nickhancock]

My geology professor in college was previously part of a large government study (in a leadership role) aimed at deciding the best methods of packaging, transporting, and storage of nuclear waste for the long term. He was also a member of the Sierra Club. He was contacted by the club's magazine and asked if he would be amenable to an interview about this. He agreed, with his usual conditions, specifically he retained the right to squash the interview and forbid them from ever mentioning that he had been interviewed and they would be required to turn all instances of any notes, recordings, and records. The reasons for this policy will become obvious in a moment. When he sat down with the reporter he was ready to discuss the current state of disposal technology, its successes, and pitfalls. The first question of the interview: "Don't you agree that it's stupid that we have nuclear waste to dispose of?" The Dr. stopped the interview and clarified that he was there not to discuss the merits of nuclear power, but to tell what he knew about how to deal with the waste that already existed, and told the reporter to start again. The next question was: "Don't you agree that it's stupid that we have nuclear waste to dispose of?" My professor immediately ended the interview, invoked all the clauses on the agreement the magazine signed to turn over all the notes and recordings, and never mention their contact with him again. This was decades ago, and the lack of any sort of balanced discussion of the realities of the issue still isn't on the table for these people. The technology has advanced, the ideology has not.

[ConradSpoke]

Here's a word you might like: conflate.
When Greenpeace calls a nuclear plant a "nuke, " this conflates nuclear power with nuclear weapons.
Also: sleazy.
Greenpeace is sleazy.

[thomasdaily]

They use the word "nukes" because it's scary. It helps them to skew people's perception by making them think of nuclear weapons instead of nuclear power.

[moreauclement]

As a french guy, i facepalmed when the sentence "say no to new nukes" appeared. The good thing in being in one of the country with the most developped nuclear park is that, at the very least, we know from basic experience that nuclear civil powerplant are nothing compared to nuclear weaponry. The problem is that even in France, while we were ahead on that aspect, we have only regressed these past few years. This hysteria has gained such a voice in public debate in place of scientific accuracy, it's concerning at best

[Eleanor_Ch]

The fact that Germany is closing nuclear power plant and building coal ones, sums this hysteria quite well.

[asalways]

What grinds my gears the most is that politicians who like to claim they trust in science always seem to take environmental advice from these bozos.

[danamccarthy]

20+ years ago I was a research assistant on a project for Department of Energy researching turning nuclear and other toxic wastes into glass so that it could not dissolve into ground water even in the event of a breach of waste storage sites. We had a decent success with this and that was decades ago.

[Chrupignat]

Over a decade ago when I was a poor student I was asked by one of their activists if I would agree to "donate" to Greenpeace. She decided to advertise the organization by talking about how they want to stop nuclear plants from being built and I asked which type of nuclear plants. She didn't know and I gave her my very limited understanding of different types and that not all of them are as hazardous as Chernobyl plant. The basic gist of it is that they don't even know what they are talking about and if they know then they are complete cynics lying through their teeth.

[petros]

I know a nuclear physicst and I'm honestly so mad over incredible amount of misinformation going around nuclear technology, thank you for clearing everything up and educating people

[alphanaut]

Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace, parted ways with their organization over how they treated nuclear power. Along with James Lovelock, father of the Gaia Hypothesis, they believe clean nuclear energy MUST be part of the path to a cleaner, more environmentally friendly future. According to Lovelock, Nuclear is supported by people who believe in scientific environmentalism, but opposed by people who believe in religious environmentalism.

[Kenj]

I'm not a nuclear physicist, but I'm an armed guard at a Nuke plant and let me tell ya, I catch more dose sitting in the sun than when I'm patrolling around the spent fuel pool.

[dROUDebateMeCowards]

Greenpeace is not aiming to inform. They’re aiming to persuade. Bold assertions are more persuasive than measured discussions.

[kazekami]

In primary school, we called greenpeace the heavy weed smokers...I guess we weren't that far from the truth.

[Niitroxyde]

Ecologists denying nuclear energy is the one thing I'll never understand. If they were coherent, nuclear energy would basically be their messiah.

[scillyautomatic]

Green Peace is not 100% honest?? I'm shocked! SHOCKED, I tell you!

[dragonturtle]

Activists have learned in the last few decades what corps and politicians have long before then: that solving problems puts you out of a job, but creating problems, making them worse, or convincing people things are problems that weren’t before make you more business as long as you aren’t blamed.

[Biggerbadwolf]

Green Peace motto: If you can't beat them with brains, then baffle them with BS!

[jdpalmer]

One of their complaints about Nuclear power is how slow and expensive it is to build a plant but never mention their own part in making it that way. Decades of lawsuits and delays they themselves create are the main reasons for those.

[ivarwind]

No surprises here. Greenpeace has never let pesky little details like fatcs and honesty get in the way of their primary purpose: Making money!