This piece by @whatisnuclear is so valuable that I want to briefly provide some extra clarity to make sure as many folks appreciate it as possible.
https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-10-25-greenpeace-mistaken-on-radiocarbon-impact.html 1/6

Firstly, be crystal clear that Greenpeace is all about killing #nuclear energy, and fitting assertions to that goal rather than being at all scientific about it. As revealed by @Atomicrod years back. 2/6

So despite laudably consulting an expert like @clairecorkhill, @CNNEditionWorld has assisted this detrimental agenda. Its chosen headline *does not help* with "low societal acceptance" challenges, as specifically noted in recent GHG intensity research. https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints 3/6

@whatisnuclear calculates 1.7×10²² total atoms of the radioactive form of carbon (¹⁴C) in all the tank water from Greenpeace's claim. Never mind what "moles" are, you're probably not a chemist - just compare it to 2.2×10²⁶ for natural annual ¹⁴C in the air we breathe. 4/6

Those exponents are of course powers of ten, making the amount of annual natural breathable ¹⁴C roughly 10,000 times *more* than in the tank water at Fukushima Daiichi.

Think maybe putting this in a @CNNEditionWorld headline could help with societal acceptance? 5/6

IMO, with this stubborn exploitation of such a dramatically unlethal triple #nuclear meltdown 9 years on, Greenpeace & the like have dealt themselves out of the rational effort to address #ClimateEmergency & energy access. Media, please stop helping them & start helping. 6/6