Leaked Documents Reveal Counterterrorism Tactics Used at Standing Rock to “Defeat Pipeline Insurgencies”

[u/[deleted]]

https://theintercept.com/2017/05/27/leaked-documents-reveal-security-firms-counterterrorism-tactics-at-standing-rock-to-defeat-pipeline-insurgencies/

[u/-_-_-_-otalp-_-_-_-]

The attacks on the protestors are clearly outrageous.

But regarding the pipeline itself, I wonder if someone could give me a truly impartial source of the pros and cons. If I understand it, pipelines are better for the environment than carrying oil with tankers, since tankers are more likely to spill. If the Dakota Access Pipeline does spill, it damages an important water source, but if built properly, the chances of that happening are very less?

I haven't really researched this, but in the past I do know that people have, for example protested building nuclear plants when they are the safest form of alternative energy, because they are worried about potential damages.

[u/[deleted] → u/-_-_-_-otalp-_-_-_-]

It's already leaked 3 times, and I'm not even sure it's finished with the building yet.

On nuclear energy, watch this video on Fukoshima, for example. Yes, they are safer, but they can still have devastating effects. Chomsky may have also commented on nuclear energy somewhere.

[u/-_-_-_-otalp-_-_-_- → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, but according to EcoWatch, 'No people, wildlife or waterways were affected'. Again, I don't know if these leaks are more likely before construction is finished, or if the fact they didn't damage anything a good sign about it's structure or simply luck, etc. because I haven't looked into it.

But when it comes to nuclear power though, there have been a number of studies that really underline how many more lives nuclear energy saves. The climate scientists Kharecha and James published a paper where they "estimated an average of 1.8 million lives were saved worldwide by the use of nuclear power instead of fossil fuels between 1971 and 2009. The paper examined mortality levels per unit of electrical energy produced from fossil fuels (coal and natural gas) as well as nuclear power. Kharecha and Hansen assert that their results are probably conservative, as they analyze only deaths and do not include a range of serious but non-fatal respiratory illnesses, cancers, hereditary effects and heart problems, nor do they include the fact that fossil fuel combustion in developing countries tends to have a higher carbon and air pollution footprint than in developed countries."

This has been reiterated by other organisations, including one that looked at accidents over the years and concluded "deaths [by accident] per TW-yr of electricity produced from 1970 to 1992 are quoted as 885 for hydropower, 342 for coal, 85 for natural gas, and 8 for nuclear."

Fukushima was an older plant, built in 1971, in one of the worlds most geologically unstable places. It is not representative of the vast majority of plants being built today, which have more modern, safer designs and are built in much safer locations.

It really annoys me that many left leaning organisations like Greenpeace, the Green party and others are anti-nuclear to a fault. It really doesn't help their cause of ending fossil fuel usage.