Skip to comments.Why I Left Greenpeace
Posted on 04/21/2008 8:02:57 PM PDT by Aristotelian
In 1971 an environmental and antiwar ethic was taking root in Canada, and I chose to participate. As I completed a Ph.D. in ecology, I combined my science background with the strong media skills of my colleagues. In keeping with our pacifist views, we started Greenpeace.
But I later learned that the environmental movement is not always guided by science. As we celebrate Earth Day today, this is a good lesson to keep in mind.
At first, many of the causes we championed, such as opposition to nuclear testing and protection of whales, stemmed from our scientific knowledge of nuclear physics and marine biology. But after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986.
The breaking point was a Greenpeace decision to support a world-wide ban on chlorine. Science shows that adding chlorine to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health, virtually eradicating water-borne diseases such as cholera. And the majority of our pharmaceuticals are based on chlorine chemistry. Simply put, chlorine is essential for our health.
My former colleagues ignored science and supported the ban, forcing my departure. Despite science concluding no known health risks and ample benefits from chlorine in drinking water, Greenpeace and other environmental groups have opposed its use for more than 20 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
BTW, are you an Aristotelian? I plowed through his collected writings last year (via the Great Books Of The Western World series). I still remember a statement of his from one of his biological treatises: “Gawdy and showy bees, like gawdy and showy women, are good for nothing.”
Not quite. Chlorine can form Chloroform in water up to several parts per billion with the usual chlorination process. Five ppb is the 1 in a million cancer risk for Chloroform, and that is the risk level to which many drinking water "action" levels are set. However, the Chloroform action level is set much higher, I think at 200 ppb, simply because chlorinated drinking water supplies typically cannot mee the 5 ppb level. Still, far more lives are saved by chlorination than are lost to cancer from Chloroform.
And yet they decided it was their mission to educate the world.
Typical elitist arrogance of the left.
I think I’ll take my chances with the “clean” water over my lottery-like odds of getting cancer.
The more I read about Greenpeace these days the more I am convinced that the root belief and dogma behind its actions is an utter loathing of humanity and all its works.
Simply put, true Greenpeace believers want to kill as many humans as they can. They would be utterly delighted if a horrible plague extinguished human life in Africa, South America, most of Asia and anywhere else — with the possible exception of where THEY live.
Dying to preserve Gaea is for the little people. After all, the Greenpeacers need to survive so the can appreciate the wonderful natural biosphere without all those grubby humans stinking up the place.
Show me proof!
An insight into the political agenda behind the various green movements.
Proof of what? That chlorine added to water can form chloroform? That the action levels are 5 ppb for Chloroform? A net search should easily give you the answers to these questions. Give it a try. You might even find that I am wrong. If you do, let me know.
Yes, it is a life saver and it makes life safer.
Read the final part of Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six if you haven’t yet.
Green is the new Red.
and it takes a lot of my greens to keep it alive. 8=(
Patrick Moore’s a good guy. Greenpeace, in my area, goes door to door to sell memberships...60% of which goes to the seller as a commission. Typical comment from the seller when you don’t bite is...”so you’re in favor of killing baby whales?” Slam.
“We all have a responsibility to be environmental stewards. But that stewardship requires that science, not political agendas, drive our public policy.”
Yeah, sure, like that has ever happened. People only trust scientists when they say what people want to hear.
If it means preserving the republic of The United States, then yes, I am in favor of killing baby whales. Where are they?