It's your analogy. I'm just continuing along its logical implication; that if something can be misused, it shouldn't be used. Because that's what you're saying, isn't it?
Your 'logic' went like this: "Pigs are dirty. Cops are dirty. Therefore cops are pigs". A logical fallacy.
And when was the last time this apocalyptic scenario you describe took place, hm?
There were many accidents in nuclear power plants all around the world after Chernobyl, none of which was the size of Chernobyl.
So you really think people that leave the comfort of their living rooms and focusing their entire life on protecting the environment are a bunch of loonies?
Hey, it does not surprise me a bit. After all, Bush was elected. And people support Intelligent Design over Evolution.
Could you describe how a modern reactor could do anything similar as Chernobyl? For me it seems near impossible, at least you will have work really hard to make similar thing to happen.
Accidents may happen not due to bad design but due to human negligence. A new reactor may be 100% safe for now, but not in 30 years when its components are not replaced with new ones.
Name one accident that has happened in a nuclear reactor that has killed a few people or contaminated notable area. I know Chernobyl and no other. How many do you know?
Nuclear and radiation accidents
I'm not sure who run it but sometimes they are certainly against weird stuff. Basically they are trying to be good in short term and don't care what will happen in the long run. They are popularizing green energy but so far I don't know any that wouldn't have massive impact on nature.
What I am trying to say is that we can not rule scientists as liars or crazy madmen just because they do not support our policies. I am speaking in 1st person, but I am talking in general: USA policies, France policies, etc. These people are scientists, first and foremost. If they saw something illogical, they wouldn't support it. And it is not like they are paid by someone to damage USA's economy or something.
What's the difference? No one's going to advocate fission reactors once they get fusion working.
If we find a way to safely produce power from fusion, then it will be accepted and I am sure Greenpeace will not have a problem with it, as long as it is a proven fact that fusion is safe.
Car accidents (plural) kill 1.2 million people a year [en.wikipedia.org]. How many are killed by accidents caused by nuclear reactors?
Car accidents do not pollute the water, air and ground for millenia, nor they result in the birth of deformed children or in cancer.
Furthermore, counting deaths as absolute numbers is misleading, at least. You should count the dangerousness of an event by applying weights to it. For example, number of dead people/number of responsible people or period of accident/deaths. You will see that with a nuclear accident, it takes very few people and a very small period of time to kill millions, something not possible with car accidents.
This is why you should read the previous posts in the thread. It's getting repetitive.
Some things never change. For example, accidents in flights have increased because companies reduced safety for economic reasons.
There is nothing that guarantees that a prosperous society that can maintain nuclear reactors today can do so in the future. And when its economy suffers, they will try to do everything to cover it up, including lack of proper maintenance of nuclear power plants...and then one day, 'kaboom'.
* Twisting facts and making outright lies
See kids, science can be fun when you use the right methods!
Sad day today. You all people have more faith in Bush and religion than in science? Perhaps humanity deserves what it gets.
Instead of blaming politicians and greedy corporations, you blame scientists!
That's what everyone's been wondering all along.
The propaganda against Greenpeace has been started by the same group that started the propaganda against the United Nations. This group includes the current USA government, the British government, the defense industries and the pharmaceutical/genetically modified crops companies that do not want to see their profits set back by taking steps to ensure the environment is preserved.