Homer Simpson and the three-eyed fish graced TV screens in 1989. In the preceding ten years, the world had seen a sequence of serious nuclear accidents: Three Mile Island, Sellafield, Chernobyl...
The smear campaign was accomplished by the companies and nations that built and maintained those shoddy, dangerous plants. Blaming Greenpeace makes as much sense as blaming them for climate change.
>...In the preceding ten years, the world had seen a sequence of serious nuclear accidents: Three Mile Island, Sellafield, Chernobyl...
Considering that it would be illegal to build a Chernobyl style plant in any other country rather than the Soviet Union, it probably shouldn't be on your list.
>...The smear campaign was accomplished by the companies and nations that built and maintained those shoddy, dangerous plants.
But even including the deaths from Chernobyl, nuclear power has been safer over the last 60 years than all other types of mass energy production: coal, natural gas or hydroelectric.
>...Blaming Greenpeace makes as much sense as blaming them for climate change.
I think the point the OP was making was that by smearing nuclear (a power source that doesn't put CO2 into the atmosphere from generating power) the alternative has usually been to build a natural gas or coal plant that does put CO2 into the atmosphere when it generates power.
If only those alternatives were actually safer than nuclear.
People die in installation and operational accidents for wind and solar at a higher rate relative to amount of electricity provided than all deaths attributable to nuclear.
And hydro has a quite horrible track record thanks to construction accidents and dam failures (even if you exclude the single worst incident - the Banqiao dam failure that killed an estimated 171,000 people).
The smear campaign was accomplished by the companies and nations that built and maintained those shoddy, dangerous plants. Blaming Greenpeace makes as much sense as blaming them for climate change.