Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
Bond villains blamed for nuclear power's bad image, Greenpeace laughs
A debate has spring up about who is responsible for the 'bad image' that nuclear power has with the general public in the 21st century.
Prof David Phillips, president of the Royal Society of Chemistry, told the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-16509668"; target="_blank">BBC</a> that James Bond villains like Dr No, with his personal nuclear reactor, helped to create a "remorselessly grim" reputation for atomic energy.
The RSC wants to promote a resurgence in nuclear power, but worry that 007's nemesis from 1962 still leaves an enduring negative image of nuclear power as something that could be wielded by megalomaniacs with aspirations to world domination presented to the audience as a "barely-controllable force for evil".
The Prof wrapped up by saying, "it is not at all surprising that the public at home and abroad are sceptical. But the RSC asserts that nuclear power has to be part of the future national energy mix, in which it plays a major role, complemented by renewable sources. Fossil fuels have to be eradicated for people to live in a healthy environment. Let's say yes to nuclear and no to Dr No's nonsense."
<img src="http://www.mi6-hq.com/images/stills/dn_24_280.jpg">;
"Dr. No" is not the only Bond movie to deal with the nuclear threat in the hands of a villain. Two years later, Auric Goldfinger attempted to detonate a dirty bomb inside Fort Knox to irradiate America''s gold reserve. The 1999 film "The World Is Not Enough" saw villain Renard attempt to use stolen nuclear material to cause a reactor meltdown in a submarine.
<img src="http://www.mi6-hq.com/images/stills/twine_65_280.jpg">;
The Green Party has dived in to the debate claiming that the Bond villain plot actually reflected concerns rather than creating them. "Although James Bond is fiction, the truth is that nuclear power is dangerous, dirty and unsafe," said spokesperson, Penny Kemp. "It is improbable to think that people's perceptions have been influenced solely by The World is Not Enough, but this film came after the Chernobyl disaster so the film was merely picking up on a real fear people have of nuclear power. And rightly so."
Richard George of Greenpeace had a bit more of a sense of humour about it, saying: "A handful of Bond films haven't tarnished the nuclear industry's reputation. They've managed to do that all by themselves. I don't think they've got a top secret fake volcanic island though. But if they did, it would probably be cheaper to build than a nuclear power station."
Prof David Phillips, president of the Royal Society of Chemistry, told the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-16509668"; target="_blank">BBC</a> that James Bond villains like Dr No, with his personal nuclear reactor, helped to create a "remorselessly grim" reputation for atomic energy.
The RSC wants to promote a resurgence in nuclear power, but worry that 007's nemesis from 1962 still leaves an enduring negative image of nuclear power as something that could be wielded by megalomaniacs with aspirations to world domination presented to the audience as a "barely-controllable force for evil".
The Prof wrapped up by saying, "it is not at all surprising that the public at home and abroad are sceptical. But the RSC asserts that nuclear power has to be part of the future national energy mix, in which it plays a major role, complemented by renewable sources. Fossil fuels have to be eradicated for people to live in a healthy environment. Let's say yes to nuclear and no to Dr No's nonsense."
<img src="http://www.mi6-hq.com/images/stills/dn_24_280.jpg">;
![http://www.mi6-hq.com/images/stills/dn_24_280.jpg">](http://www.mi6-hq.com/images/stills/dn_24_280.jpg">){kind=link}
"Dr. No" is not the only Bond movie to deal with the nuclear threat in the hands of a villain. Two years later, Auric Goldfinger attempted to detonate a dirty bomb inside Fort Knox to irradiate America''s gold reserve. The 1999 film "The World Is Not Enough" saw villain Renard attempt to use stolen nuclear material to cause a reactor meltdown in a submarine.
<img src="http://www.mi6-hq.com/images/stills/twine_65_280.jpg">;
![http://www.mi6-hq.com/images/stills/twine_65_280.jpg">](http://www.mi6-hq.com/images/stills/twine_65_280.jpg">){kind=link}
The Green Party has dived in to the debate claiming that the Bond villain plot actually reflected concerns rather than creating them. "Although James Bond is fiction, the truth is that nuclear power is dangerous, dirty and unsafe," said spokesperson, Penny Kemp. "It is improbable to think that people's perceptions have been influenced solely by The World is Not Enough, but this film came after the Chernobyl disaster so the film was merely picking up on a real fear people have of nuclear power. And rightly so."
Richard George of Greenpeace had a bit more of a sense of humour about it, saying: "A handful of Bond films haven't tarnished the nuclear industry's reputation. They've managed to do that all by themselves. I don't think they've got a top secret fake volcanic island though. But if they did, it would probably be cheaper to build than a nuclear power station."
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
An idea for the next film.
Rubbish rightwing talk.
While I not always agree with said organisation they have done a lot for the awareness that a lot of folks lack when it comes to marine wildlife and health.
yes, i do agree with that statement.
And that suggestion comes from a common man in the street with something called common sense!
I am not against this organisation at all but still glad some folk out there are referencing the Bond films to look for a scapegoat.
I really don't think the Bond villains mentioned or film plots have much to worry about do you?!
Bollocks. Greenpeace is an activist political front organization. They stopped having any relevance a long time ago. If you love animals (which I do) support your local wildlife organization or the World Wildlife Fund. Stay clear of Greenpeace, unless you want to hang with Chavez, Castro etc. Vive le revolution!
Peta on the other hand, though quite whacked at times with their anti-meat activism, does run some great naked-model anti-fur campaigns, so they are not all bad.
Greenpeace. Anti-nuclear you say? :O Yawn.
Thought so.
Thank you kindly for your remarks Sir.
You'll find lots of like-minded "thinkers" within your friendly neighborhood Greenpeace ranks.
Yes I would be perfectly happy to have nuclear power plants in my own backyard. In fact we have plenty of them in Canada, despite the best efforts of Socialist International ( I mean Greenpeace). Nice clean energy btw. Now they are trying to derail our Northern Gateway Oil Pipeline and the tens of thousands of jobs and economic prosperity it brings. What a schock! Who woulda thunk? But Matt Damon is on board, so there is that.
Meanwhile back in the real world, energy demand continues to rise and people need work.
Greenpeace btw is a $350-million-a-year multinational corporation and huge energy consumer — not just jetting around the world to fancy press conferences but also with a fleet of heavy-oil-burning ships.
Greenpeace has the carbon footprint of a city.
They'd have us sell our first-borns to pay skyrocketing energy bills to um "save the planet" from global warming.
What a racket. :ar!
Support your local wildlife foundation!
And just say no to Greene Planet (Domenic Greene), I mean Greenpeace.
What I said was that organsations like Greenpeace serve a purpose, namely stopping/questioning the unlimited abuse on nature done by multinationals for pure financial gain. It is just like a democracy with checks and balances.
The tabacco industry has very long succesfully defended that smoking is an innocent action due to idealists which were called leftist, socialist communist activists we now now that it is a fairly unhealthy habit.
I am not disagreeing that Greenpeace has made some questionable choices in the past but they did a lot of good and still do in my humble opinion. I support their actions against the Whaling community before they wipe out the whales from our oceans. I personaly find them beautifull creatures that should remain in our sees instead of on our plates.
"Rubbish rightwing talk." Who made this crack, I wonder? Pot, kettle black.
btw, I think your understanding of the global whaling industry is probably quite "limited."
We'll say no more. ;)
You mean Japan & Some Scandinavian countries were the ones left whaling, and currently it is only Japan and only because of "sciencetific research". If I am well informed? So why did all those nations quit hunting??
My bad calling you rightwing since from my perspective in my own political world (The Netherlands) you would not easily be ever a leftie. While I always will be considered left due to my locality. I do forget sometimes the difference between a large part of Europe and the Northern American continent.
Hope they have better luck with their helicopters though. That must be real annoying to the whales. ;)
I don't care if you call me right-wing btw. Just don't accuse me of being left-wing. #-o
I'm not a leftist. I simply don't let your kind of teanazi propaganda go by unchecked. Your cronies of course feel more at home with sinking civilist ships and killing a few of your hated 'leftists' in the bargain. I too have an idea for the next film. The right-wing teanzi preachers would be a worthy target indeed.
That would make you a veritable exception, for your ilk in general tends to blab away about how supportive of nuclear energy they are only as long as they are not affected by it. Sad fact: the mouths get bigger the further away from the action people are. So no, I don't buy your happy
right-wing propaganda. Proof's in the cake, y'know.
I note that while you repeat your sick teanazi accusation to connect Greenpeace with Chavez and Castro your potty still produces only hot air, of the smelly variety. Perhaps you are able to refrain from such hate propaganda until you have facts to show. Or you just keep it for the parties with your cronies and refrain from it around other places.
People shouldn't be riding buses after watching Speed!
But please do visit. We have our very own nuclear plant in Pickering. You can take a tour. Lots of us live nearby. In fact it employs numerous locals.
At risk of "hate propaganda" though: Do support your local wildlife-foundation. Healthy bears and wolves are that much more capable of devouring pesky Greenpeace pipeline-protestors.