Majority of the "environmental" activism organisations sadly joined an anti-scientific movement initiated primarily by Jeremy Rifkin ages ago, probably because it sold better.
This is why you have Greenpeace hiring Seralini for GMO reports and Greenpeace Energy in Germany selling fossil gas and preferring it over nuclear against all available scientific evidence, including IPCC 🤷♂️
@kravietz
I'm sorry, but this statement is as unscientific as you claim activists to be. Instead of disproving the precise claims of these people you accuse them of being related to a movement (which you did not prove btw). Even if it is like you say, this does not mean their claims are wrong (logical fallacy of guilt by association).
Aside from that: By directly providing sources for your claims in context, you can make a focused discussion easier.
@michiel
@kravietz @michiel
And I have to add, that using Greenpeace, a strongly hierarchical organization, as a representative example for calling all activists that do not agree with nuclear power unscientific is a bit of a small sample for the whole movement. There are bigger organizations like e.g. Friends of the Earth who call a lot of well recognized scientists their members and have high scientific standards (with the exception of a few wavies that had to be cast out).
The primary scientist supplying data to the anti-nuclear activists is M.Z. Jacobson and his mode of operation can be summarised as "always assume the worst case for nuclear, and the best case for renewables".
For example:
"New nuclear power plants cost 2.3 to 7.4times thoseof onshore wind or utility solar PVper kWh, take 5 to 17years longer between planning and operation, and produce 9 to 37 times the emissions per kWh as wind"
Source: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NuclearVsWWS.pdf
