On Monday South Korea deported three senior Greenpeace staff, known for their role in our campaign against that country's nuclear expansion plans. This is just the latest proof that nuclear power and democracy do not mix. It's the latest attack on freedom of speech from an industry forged in the furnace of military secrecy, which has over the last 60 years left in it's a wake a legacy of lies, cover-ups and broken promises.
What is it the industry and its government sponsors fear? What do they hope to achieve by excluding peaceful people from Greenpeace? What do they have to hide? What is it that they do not wish the people of Korea to hear?
Surprisingly, as the International Executive Director of Greenpeace, while I was stopped and questioned, I was not denied entry at the airport. Yet, I have been to Chernobyl. I have been to Fukushima. I can tell you firsthand of the devastation, of the ruined lives, and of the ongoing lies and cover-ups surrounding these nuclear power disasters.
Greenpeace scientists have highlighted that the devastation wrought on those communities, the painful legacy of radioactive contamination that I witnessed, was unnecessary. We do not have to run the risk of nuclear accidents. The world and Korea have bountiful renewable energy sources and the ability to use energy in a much smarter way. Even the respected Economist magazine in its March 14 issue ran a cover story calling nuclear power "The Dream that Failed," showing why nuclear is not a viable energy solution for the future.
I will now continue alone with my planned meetings and I will seek more. I wish to speak to the Minster for Justice, to hear why my colleagues and friends represent in his view such a threat. I will try to cover the work of my friends and colleagues. When I met with the mayor of Seoul, Park Won Soon, I expressed my admiration and hopes for Korea's leadership in championing sustainable development in the run-up to this year's Rio+20 Summit on Sustainable Development. I shall tell him that nuclear power has no role to play. The mayor said the deportation of my Greenpeace colleagues was unreasonable.
No doubt we will talk of the fact that Korea will host a ministerial meeting in the run up to the next round of global talks on climate change later this year. Known as COP18, these talks in which progress is desperately needed in tackling climate change do not include discussion of nuclear power, as any keen follower of climate talks knows nuclear energy is not considered a safe, clean or sustainable energy source by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is, therefore, not included in the UN's Clean Development Mechanism.
I hope to meet with many key leaders of political parties and anti-nuclear NGOs about Korea's expanding reliance on risky nuclear technology, despite the abundance of renewable energy alternatives it can turn to. But also about the role Korea can play in promoting a just, equitable and sustainable future.
This latest example of the government's crackdown on our anti-nuclear power campaign makes it harder to believe that South Korea's government will play such a positive role: that its action will match its rhetoric.
Last June, the Greenpeace ship the Rainbow Warrior carried out a "Nuclear-Free Korea" tour and travelled to Yongduk, a planned site for a nuclear power plant. Local groups were harassed by the local government, as they prepared for the ship's visit. Their anti-nuclear campaign posters were torn down, every person participating in a forum against nuclear energy was photographed, and a planned protest march was cancelled. People felt and were intimidated.
In August, following the announcement that Greenpeace would launch an office in Seoul, the government declared it would spend an additional 10 billion won to promote nuclear energy.
Greenpeace seeks to promote a clean, safe, and sustainable future for all Koreans. It is extremely disappointing to find that peaceful non-government organizations that are working to this end are unwelcome.
When I was fighting against apartheid in South Africa, I was inspired by the struggle and sacrifices of the Gwangju Democratization Movement and the popular uprising in Gwangju in 1980. This movement still stands out in my understanding of South Korean people. But, I fear that the spirit of that movement is now being forgotten by the Government.
Greenpeace will continue to reach out to the people of Korea, despite the fovernment's attempt to quash public debate and discontent over its nuclear plans. Later this month our largest campaigning and research vessel the Esperanza (Spanish for 'hope') will tour Korea. Called the "Energy Hope Tour," its voyage will see the full launch of our Energy [R]evolution scenario for Korea showing that nuclear energy is not needed, that it is a deadly and unnecessary risk, and outlining the potential for clean, safe and sustainable energy solutions. These solutions will also boost the economy and ensure energy security.
I urge the Korean government to return to form, to remember the Gwangju Democratization Movement, to embrace the open and honest debate Korea needs to have over its energy future.
I hope for the people of Korea that sanity prevails, that democracy and civil liberties win through, and that of course my colleagues can soon visit and be heard despite the overbearing influence of the nuclear industry and its friends.
Follow Kumi Naidoo on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kuminaidoo
SK Immigration Deports 3 From Greenpeace
http://www.helencaldicott.com/books/nuclear-power-is-not-the-answer/
"Trained as a physician, and – after four decades of antinuclear activism – thoroughly versed in the science of nuclear energy, the bestselling author of Nuclear Madness and Missile Envy here turns her attention from nuclear bombs to nuclear lightbulbs. As she makes meticulously clear in this damning book, the world cannot withstand either."
aldvh1 - I think that's a yes. Very interesting; but still no apparent moderation of your views, which can be summarised as - 'Never mind the science, it's scary'. All I need now, to make this a worthwhile bit of research, is a response from every one of your fans.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-solar-green-20120406,0,1278620,full.story
Mr Naidoo, I was wondering if you could comment on the advisability of plowing under pristine habitat for solar farms?
How is it that such plowing is environmentally sound?
Straw man.
See: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/new-take-on-impacts-of-low-dose.html
The real lesson is that this way of perceiving risk can be risky all by itself. As valid as our feelings feel, they sometimes cause us to be too afraid, or not afraid enough, and as this example teaches, that can raise new risks. It's raising the risk for people who aren't afraid enough of radiation and pay to expose themselves to a known carcinogen, and it's raising the risk for you and me., as excessive fear of the biological threat of radiation has lead to energy policy that favors fossil fuels, exposing us all to local particulate air pollution and global climate change.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-ropeik/nukes-and-tanning-beds-risk_b_1402562.html
Go ask the people of Fukushima, Chernobyl, Windscale, Three Mile Island, West Valley New York, and the countless other contaminated area if their fears of radiation are irrational. Ask the residents of Fukushima and surrounding prefectures who lost their homes, farms businesses and incomes if their fear of radiation is irrational. Your are one deluded individual.
The irrational dismissal of the dangers of nuclear power is insanity.
All radiation is different. How many times do I have to prove that?
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/federal/402-r-99-001.pdf
EPA radionuclide exposure coefficients
all radiation is different and routes of exposure matter.
Can't smell it, cant see it, cant taste, cant feel it (right away)
Can remove it, using these tricks that take planning.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/p/radiation-decorporation-resources.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-ropeik/nukes-and-tanning-beds-risk_b_1402562.html
http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation.html
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/
But in the meantime, be prepared, make your shelter in place kit, here is an awesome and free checklist.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/p/radiation-preparation-resources.html
It seems that there are contradictions in your stance that I would like to understand.
Per your annual report 2010, Greenpeace was responsible for obstructing the safe transit near Gorleben Germany of spent nuclear fuel.
Exactly how does preventing safe transit of something that everyone agrees must be handled carefully improve safety, sir?
Per the same annual report, Greenpeace claims to be interested in averting climate change as one of its top priorities, and yet it opposes the single largest worldwide contributor of low-GHG power (nuclear power).
Exactly how does one reduce the risk of climate change while also attempting to eliminate the technology that provides the largest single worldwide portion of low-GHG power?
If anyone (including Mr Naidoo) can answer those two questions, I am listening.
Follow the instructions presented. It's simple to get from their answers to the truth: make sure all risks are multiplied by a factor of 40, all costs increased by a factor of 5, and remember that all students are responsible for constructing their own coherent arguments, as the course leader doesn't work with them.
How's your thesis going, the one that lets you state clunker reactors can go from 40 years operation to 80? On your say-so?
Or boasting that experience of helping build the San Onofre nuclear plant entitles you to belittle anyone who disagrees with you?
How does 'your' thesis pan out at San Onofre with reactor 1 decommisioned after 25 years? Or the remaining reactors shut down for safety reasons?
But credit where credit is due; helping build the site, were you the one who installed a 420-ton nuclear-reactor vessel backwards?! Lol!
And you and your ilk spout and pontificate as bringers of truth and competance while accusing others.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/p/videos-moderated-prompt-criticality.html
Look at the plutonium we filtered out of the air with our lungs. Humans are very efficient filters.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2012/03/plutonium-admission-by-epa.html
Nukes are trillion dollar cancerous disaster, million year cancerous waste and civilization ending proliferation, for energy we can get cheaper from rooftop solar, for half the price for wind and waste and half that again for efficiency.
The nuke pr firms spend big money even here at Huff.
Those 500 nukes around the world are worth 500M$ per reactor per year in gov cheese, and they don't want to lose that. They have and worldwide organization dedicated to keep the gravy train going. They can apply unbelievable pressure.
Vote for the Kucinich, Grayson, Warren cpc progressive in the primaries and the Dems in the general. The GOP are sold to the highest bidders, that's the nuke folks.
Internationally? You folks need to figure out who is on your sides and vote them in.
S Korea has great solar, great offshore wind and great waster bio char bio fuels. That combo is forever, cheaper, safe, clean and faster to install.
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2125848/south-korea-announces-gbp20bn-green-energy-plan
Nukes disaster require marshal, law, Fascism.
Nuclear power require secrecy of waste shipments and operating process's: fascism.
You are foreign nationals. This is not international waters; you cannot do as you please.
I mean, if your visas clearly stated that you were in the country to sow fear among it's people, distrust of government(all government); well, then, I think you might have an argument.
But, alas, you are "tourists," or perhaps something to do with "raising awareness."
You violated the terms of your visa; they threw you out.
It's called sovereignty.
I discovered just how poorly these plants were being run and how poorly
they were designed from the get-go. And then I discovered how one of
the basic premises of risk control, separation of risks, was completely
ignored. That being that the used fuel rods were the most dangerous
part of the plant, but for "convenience" the most dangerous things were
stored right next too or even RIGHT ON TOP OF the reactors themselves.
This is done to conserve cost, if they were to ship off the ......
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/p/manifesto-why-shut-them-down.html
Please-bring us up to date with your 'inside' knowledge. Tell us about its recent history and current operating status.
And that is why I applaud the Korean decision to refuse entry to Greenpeace, who are opposed to honest and open debate.
Greenpeace are not elected. They are not impartial. They are often disruptive. They rarely respect free speech for opposing views. And they commonly distort or fabricate stories to push their ideology.
The hypocrisy of this article would be breathtaking, if it weren't now a common tactic in media to accuse your opponents of your own shortcomings.
no investor would take that deal
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2012/03/nuke-makes-no-economic-sense.html
At least the providers of bespoke suits, shirts and shoes to the top of the legal profession will be delighted with the business nuclear plans will generate.
Why even consider the use of Satan's Matchsticks (nuke power)
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/p/renewable-and-energy-efficiency.html