Talk:Criticism of Greenpeace
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criticism of Greenpeace article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Greenpeace support for bitcoin not mentioned edit
Greenpeace accepts bitcoin donations and at least unofficially uses bitcoin. This support for bitcoin is surprising since it consumes roughly 24TWh annually, comparable to a small country. Using traditional banking would be thousands of times more environment friendly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:20C0:5570:210D:47FB:B904:6866 (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Criticism of Greenpeace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/chemicals/international/pubs/seminar-1.pdf - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070318195919/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/greenpeace-response to http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/greenpeace-response
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110820150558/http://scienceblogs.com/sciencepunk/2011/07/in_the_early_hours_of.php to http://scienceblogs.com/sciencepunk/2011/07/in_the_early_hours_of.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018) edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Criticism of Greenpeace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070816203438/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/the-stockholm-convention-s-ent to http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/the-stockholm-convention-s-ent
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
This is INCORRECT - Remove or Edit edit
Nuclear fusion edit
Greenpeace falsely claimed that nuclear fusion is unsafe and produces waste like nuclear fission.[1] However, nuclear fusion does not produce nuclear waste nor is there a meltdown risk because the conditions required to sustain nuclear fusion mean that if there is a containment breach, the fusion reaction would simply halt.[2][3]
This is incorrect as nuclear fusion does produce nuclear waste as you need to have nuclear material to produce the reaction, which does produce nuclear waste as not all the material will be used and needs to be constantly refilled. The Sun does not produce nuclear waste but that is whole different matter.
https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-theyre-cracked-up-to-be/
References
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
:2was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "Advantages of fusion". ITER. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
- ^ Fountain, Henry (2017-03-27). "A Dream of Clean Energy at a Very High Price". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-05-18.