Chernobyl my love

image: National Geographic

The true soviet revolution starts now. Aeroflot wants Alitalia. We’ll have Russian air hostesses, so far so good. But also Tupolev aircraft and here we’ll have to touch our heads before landing.
To exchange the favour, Enel invests in soviet nuclear reactors, older than the Chernobyl one. When innovation comes, it comes.
And in Italy we know, it never comes. But 30% of Enel belongs to the State and Italian citizens, after Chernobyl, voted against nuclear in a referendum.
Let’s use the Greenpeace petition to remind the employee Prodi when he comes back from Japan. I wouldn’t want things to have gone to his head while he was passing by Hiroshima.

Letter from Greenpeace:
”Double protest today by Greenpeace against Enel’s decision to invest 1,800,000,000 Euro for the completion of two nuclear reactors at Mochovce in Slovakia. Today outside the headquarters of the banks in the main cities of Italy, Italian activists distributed ironic likenesses of Enel adverts explaining how instead of investing in innovation there’s investment in a reactor using soviet technology that in fact pre-dates the Chernobyl disaster.
Today’s brochure reads: “The true revolution is to go back to soviet nuclear technology.”
In Europe, Greenpeace has also protested in front of the Italian Embassies in Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria.
The letter sent to the Italian Government emphasizes that Italy that has closed down its own reactors cannot the atomic risk export abroad.
In fact the government is Enel’s reference shareholder with a 30% share. The main criticisms of the project are the low level of safety and also the economics that are open to discussion.
The plan is to construct at Mochovce, 2 soviet reactors (VVER-440/213) that were designed at the end of the 1970s.
The reactors are well below the current safety standards and it’s unlikely that they would get authorization n most of the European States. For example, they don’t have a double outer layer to give protection if there were to be an impact from an aircraft.
Not only that, but for Greenpeace, there’s an issue of legitimacy because the project was authorised in 1986 by the communist government of that time with no environmental impact evaluation nor involvement of public opinion.
Even today, Slovakia’s Ministry of the Environment refuses to conduct an environmental impact assessment…..”
“Next month Enel is due to take the final decision on Mochovce and Greenpeace has started a web-based petition to ask Prodi to drop this project immediately.”

Complete text from Greenpeace.

Posted by Beppe Grillo at 11:55 AM in | Comments (21)
Post a comment | Sign up | Send to a friend | | GrilloNews | TrackBack (0) |
View blog opinions

Comments iagi. s html

Posted by: hhh vb | August 7, 2007 02:53 AM

Hello there Mr. Migliarini
Your posted comment:
“Should be there something more stupid than, first, build and promote a strong competitive, individualist, darwinian, wild society, where only few "winners" will reach all the prizes an a mass of supposed "losers" is thrown out of every human quality, alienated and scorned, and then let them have guns?”
My personal reply: “Personal because that is what I think of your comment, not because it may be correct or incorrect.
Yes a better way is the Italian way “Built a weak uncompetitive Society, pluralistic (Only the one with double Surnames belongs to it?), un-darwinian (Once in it, never out regardless of age exactly like in Italy!) wild society (Guns only for Mafia, ndrangeta, police and politicians body guards?) few winners (Exactly like in italy, 3% of population 96% of Income?while the Government sucks in 66.6% of GDP for Servicing Italian constituency) and to finish in Style the Mass of Loosers gets an Armani suit or DG wardrobe (This is the Italian Dream?).
Thank you very much for showing us the proper way!

Posted by: Giacomo Chiametti | April 25, 2007 05:16 PM

Dear Leonardo,

I also thought my interpretation was extreme and I am glad it is incorrect. ;)

The blog provides a wonderful opportunity for communication and understanding--but also, at times, for misunderstanding :D

Your later message indeed clarifies your point of view.

I agree with you that the US and Europe are very different. From this observation I draw two conclusions which, by the way, could maybe appear contradictory.

The first is that on a practical level, some arrangements adopted by the US (especially with regards to business and the economy) could be copied and applied successfully in Europe.

The other is that an evaluation of the characteristics of one society should take into account its overall context. Direct comparison of single characteristics of two different societies can, in my opinion, lead to inaccurate inferences, if the social, cultural and economic context is not taken into account.

From your message, I understand that the current prominence of the US should be explained mainly in terms of resource endowment and war.

Look at Russia: it is a vast country with enormous resources. Yet its citizens have lived in misery for decades.

By contrast, Switzerland´s resources do not nearly justify its wealth and influence.

In my opinion, organization explains economic success far better than resources.

China seems a good proof of this. Compare China today with China 40 years ago. Then it was dirt poor and now it is rising to be a great economic power. Yet, it is the same country, the same people and it has the same resources. Only the organization is different.

This is also the case for the US. Immigration has had a significant and positive influence on the US. People were moving to the US not for its resources, but for its opportunities--which are the result of its organization.

As well, the role of war in advancing the economy and, as a consequence, the well-being of a society is by far overrated.

Granted, war expenditures can have a positive impact on an economy in the short term. The government injects money into the economy to sustain its military endeavors. However, war is consumption--destruction. The resources committed are used up during the war. Money is simply spent.

That money spent will either be recovered by exploiting the conquered land. Or it remains as a burden to the state--namely, it will probably end up increasing public debt.

If you consider all the money spent by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan and also take into account the fact that they are unlikely to exploit the territories but, on the contrary, probably provide reconstruction funds... it is hard to conclude that the wars are improving the US economy. Even harder to argue that they boost the US image and prestige!

The US is sustaining significant costs to carry on the wars and those costs end up increasing public debt. Public debt is a burden that will negatively affect the citizens´ standards of living.

So, in my opinion, organization is a better explanation of the US dominance than the wars. From there, it should follow that it could be worthwhile examining the US to see what we could copy from them.

I should add a post-scriptum. While I do think that overall the US has made some significant accomplishments and that there are many aspects that are worth copying, I also have some reserves as to the sustainability of US prominence. To name just two reasons: current economic imbalances and... China.

Posted by: Dave Matthews | April 19, 2007 06:43 PM


Keep your eyes on the ball, we are talking about Italy and the stupid nuclear plants.


Posted by: Antonio Disarò | April 19, 2007 09:20 AM

Uh - just something more_

i feel as you see in my words a hate or a desdain for USA_

let me say to you that i love a lot of people and products from USA_

a few example:
Whitman, E.Dickinson, Cummings, Kerouac, Salinger, Lloyd-Wright, H.Ford, W.Allen, a lot of directors and musicians - and many many more_

and i like their greatness and advances in many fields_

i'm only disgusted by their social culture and their politics_ That's all_

Posted by: Leonardo Migliarini | April 19, 2007 06:27 AM


now i read your posts_

i'm still convinced that you can study or eventually read something, but not understand_

and i'm convinced too that between us you are the only one speaking in name of a totalitarian ideology, the last one operating today_
reading your words is enough_
look well about this: communism is dead, fortunately, nazism too - now only your ideology keeps standing, dangerous and extreme like any other_

Here's the evidences:

1 -- where did i talk about people running out from USA?

i only told that US society is individualist, highly competitive, founded on social darwinism, just like many other modern social ideologies, and i say that a lot of people within it are alienated in A TERM OF HUMAN QUALITIES AND NEEDS_
Which doesn't happen in many countries you should find "uncivilized"_

2 -- you keep talking about US wealth with the same words of the dominant ideology - essentially "they're the best in everything" - forgetting every element for a multidimensional analysis - and just like any ideology, you're trying to prove it with statistics_
However, many countries, including Asia and Latin America, were rich like USA short before WWII_

3 -- i guess you, as poor sterile and lobotomized economist, neither know how unemployment statistics or GDP are calculated - i suggest you to study, for example, Heinz Dieterich publications, among others, and expand your knowledges to other branches, like sociology, political economy, anthropology, history (particularly non western civilizations)_
Study a little more, sonny boy_

4 -- as you see, i wished to write in the english block, even with my rudimentary english, hoping to be understood - what should prove i'm far away from any frustration - anyway, i don't know how many tongues you can speak, i speak french and spanish rather well, but finally what's important for me is to communicate each other in every circumstance_ So, you're talking about me, and dare to write "Danimark" (!!!!), have you ever seen just one international sport competition in your life??
I told you, keep studying hard, and maybe one day your neurons will begin to move by themselves_

5 -- i believe you have no idea about the differences between England, or Canada, and USA, otherwise you didn't tell such stupid things_

6 -- what kind of schools are you talking about, when you say that US "education" is far better than european??

Well - there were many things more i would tell you, but honestly you tired me_

Good luck - you really need it_

Posted by: Leonardo Migliarini | April 19, 2007 06:10 AM

Dear Dave Matthews, first of all, let me tell you i like your music_

Then, i hope you could excuse me, but i have no time to read every Prrrrrrrr. JSM fool chitchatting - i know him for he used to post in the italian block, where in fact he was our clown_ But he basically cannot use his own mind and repeats everything he reads in his books - as mommy pay down his college fee_ Maybe i'll read it later, in a free time_

So - i don't think to have told what you're seeing in my lines_ Even when i read it carefully again_ I don't even told that US society is the world's worst society at all_

I only told that US promote and develop a peculiar kind of society which is absolutely unconnected and alien to european culture_ I said also that the basic civil principles they brought in their newly born society were merely european, and they don't even improved or carried it further in progress_ They only could apply those "modern" and revolutionary principles in their Constitution because they're getting out of a Great Revolution and a Great War of Indipendence, so they're founding their new society on a totally virgin sheet in which they could draw in full freedom_ But from then on, those principles remain just like tiny scattered and almost infertile seeds_ Indeed, do you have the name of some great fundamental social philosopher from US to compare with the european ones of XX century??

About what should be the meaning of "world's worst society" or "world's best society" - i think that such definitions are nonsense - i think that a good or "best society" is when one people can have the political control of his territory and can choose his own structures of public and economic organization_

Finally - i simply think that, when one deems the economic growth of US as mere result of their supposed advanced standard of civilization, he's in a rough mistake_ Nowaday it's generally, and let me say obviously, recognized that the US wealth rests, first of all, on the impressive amount of resources per capita they had for all the XIX and part of the XX centuries, then on their technologic and miltary investments, which, joined with their geographic location, enable them to the WWII victory, including when they naturally seize every cultural, technic, economic capital of defeated nations, as well as on their monetary and financial dominance policies, drifted into a cultural, financial, commercial neo-colonialism de facto_

Now i see that it's impossible to carry out a discussion like that in this medium_ I eventually hope to have expressed my point of view clearly enough_

Anyway, i don't think to base my statements and considerations on any ideology at all_ I'm quite sure to have talked about pure facts, examined and published in a lot of studies_

Nice to have met you - i hope we can talk in some other time_

Posted by: Leonardo Migliarini | April 19, 2007 03:13 AM

From the Sydney Morning Herald

Individual carbon rationing with penalties for those who exceeded their quotas is one of a number of radical measures that might be neened to tacle climate change,the former NSW premier,Bob Carr,say.Arange of regulations and carbon trading schemes were emerging in Britain and the US,but rationing an individual's carbon use was one of the most interesting ideas,Ms Carr told a Business conference in Sydney yesterday.Speaking as chairman of an advisory council for think tank the Climate Institute,Mr Carr said British Labour Government and the Conservative Party Opposition were taking the idea seriously."Here is the most exciting concept.That is,the idea that every citizen be given carbon credit,"he told the association of Chartered Certified Accountants."every time you buy fuel at the garage or pay a gas or electricity bill or get on a plane,carbon will be deducted from your account."Lat me say very quickly there are a lot od difficulties with this idea,a lot of difficulties of treating people who live in rural area and have to travel by necessity long distances by motor vehicle the same as someone who lives in the city and has access to public transport."The British Enviroment Minister,David Milliband,tipped to be a contenderfor the prime ministership,has described personal carbon accounts as a "thought exsperiment of what it would be like to "spens" carbon save it and trade it in the same way we do with money"."the principle is simple:there would be a decision about the nation's annual level of carbon emissions;permits and quotas for that level would be issued on per capita basis(probably for personal food,household energy and travel emissions);and those who spend under the quota would be able to sell to those who spend above,"Mr Milliband said.

For those who do not know,Mr Carr resigned from been the Premier of NSW and now works for Macquaire Bank,and it is all been planned for all of us.ciao

Posted by: evakulnura | April 19, 2007 02:50 AM


Reunification is a significant contributor to German unemployment figures. Another factor is the process of restructuring that has taken place in recent years. As a result, many of the weaker companies have shut down, but the economy has come out much stronger.

In fact, Germany has been a leading exporter over the last several years.

If official figures (which I have not checked) say that Italians and Germans have the same productivity levels, I think it is most likely because of some statistical distortion: I have seen Germans work and I have seen Italians "work." The two activities are utterly different!

So, while I agree with Joe´s general line of argument, I would not place Italy and Germany in the same basket. Germans may rightfully be offended! :)

Posted by: Dave Matthews | April 19, 2007 02:21 AM

Leonardo´s question seems to imply that the US is about the world´s worst society.

I am surprised of such opinion, as I would have no difficulty naming several countries who do far worse in just about every respect.

My impression is that Leonardo´s opinion is mostly based on ideology and an abstract understanding of economics.

Posted by: Dave Matthews | April 18, 2007 11:53 PM

Yes Antonio - i think it's time to begin cleaning the current vision of western civilization from some ideological and false matter_

The modern western civilization, or better, that field where natural yearnings of human and social progress were cultivated and grew till today, was born in Europe_

Americans only generated wealth by the exploitation of their huge resources - and with those capitals only took care to build their military and financial supremacy_

Posted by: Leonardo Migliarini | April 18, 2007 09:47 PM

Guardiamo e diffondiamo

Posted by: Leo Maldo | April 18, 2007 09:33 PM

Dear Leonardo

...don't look at me, I live in Germany and I am a convinced European.

I agree with you, and Germany is a much more "social country" than Italy (no comparison possible with USA), starting from the people. People perceive "being part of a group" as very basic attitude here...with exceptions of course.


Posted by: Antonio Disarò | April 18, 2007 09:03 PM

Dear gentlemen of United States, i have a question for you, the smart self-elected lords of modern civilization_

Should be there something more stupid than, first, build and promote a strong competitive, individualist, darwinian, wild society, where only few "winners" will reach all the prizes an a mass of supposed "losers" is thrown out of every human quality, alienated and scorned, and then let them have guns?

Posted by: Leonardo Migliarini | April 18, 2007 08:23 PM

Ooops...not enough space for the whole link.

Try this:

Posted by: Antonio Disarò | April 18, 2007 05:37 PM

Exaclt Mattew

More in detail, one of the last Time issues, explained 51 ways to reduce carbon emissions, some of them are even fun!,28804,1602354_1603074,00.html

This passed unobserved by Grillo's staff. I propose here to add a permanent section in the Blog, and translate this in Italian for the italian folks (which very often can't read english).


Posted by: Antonio Disarò | April 18, 2007 05:35 PM

Antonio makes a very good point that gets surprisingly little attention: Energy efficiency.

There would be plenty of ways to reduce energy consumption--which would not even require us to lower our living standards. From LED light bulbs to lighter vehicles, to better public transportation, to better home insulation, to wider use of technology (which could save a lot of useless trips to useless offices...).

This is the easiest energy "source" to tap. And also the most sustainable. Instead of building power station to add capacity, we could do a lot more with the capacity we already have.

There would also be significant benefits to the environment (less pollution) and to the trade balance, since energy is largely imported.

Measures such as insulation standards for construction could simply be copied by countries who have developed efficient codes, such as Germany, for example.

Posted by: Dave Matthews | April 18, 2007 05:15 PM

P r o f J o h n S t u a r t M i l l

I am not really teaking your side, I am just expressing my views...I am happy if people share them, but are just my views.

Concerning your contributions, I would suggest leaving out the f-word, I am sure that your contributions will stay in, if language is appropriate...I guess...

Just give it a try, keep your eyes on the ball, forget Grillo's staff.


Posted by: Antonio Disarò | April 18, 2007 04:41 PM

...and what if a Tupolev crashes onto a Soviet nuclear power station?

Jokes apart, one aspect I think is really worrying: nuclear power stations make wonderful targets for terrorists.

Preventing this problem should be a real concern, both for future and existing plants.

As for Italy, I think all considerations about the desirability of nuclear power stations fade into irrelevance if one considers that Italy already buys electricity produced by nuclear power stations in France. It makes no difference who is the owner of the power stations. And it makes no difference that they are 10 km across the border.

(The only difference is that the French are probably more reliable than the Italians as far as maintenance is concerned... so maybe it´s better to leave things as they are!)

Posted by: Dave Matthews | April 18, 2007 04:33 PM

Only a comment about the Western vs. Ex-Soviet technology.

It is not true that the technology ITSELF is inferior, but the collapsing USSR took away a lot of founding to just about any aspect of running the country.

When a Tupolev crashes, it is not a matter of design and technology, it is a matter of lack of proper maintenance.

The Space Shuttle killed much more people than the Soyutz...actually, without the "old fashioned" soyutz, the international space station program would have been abandoned.

This bein said, I am against fission reactors, there are many other cleaner technologies that could be developed, independently from the single or double layer, starting from producing energy through SAVING it, in this Grillo (and Gore before Grillo) are completely right.


Posted by: Antonio Disarò | April 18, 2007 12:41 PM

If we burned Berlusconi´s money
we could warm up the whole country
for ten years!

Bertinottolo, the 8th dwarf.

Posted by: Nanetto Bertinottolo | April 18, 2007 12:12 PM

Post a comment

Beppe Grillo's Blog is an open space for you to use so that we can come face to face directly. As your comment is published immediately, there's no time for filters to check it out. Thus the Blog's usefulness depends on your cooperation and it makes you the only ones responsible for the content and the resulting outcomes.

Information to be read before using Beppe Grillo's Blog

The following are not allowed:
1. messages without the email address of the sender
2. anonymous messages
3. advertising messages
4. messages containing offensive language
5. messages containing obscene language
6. messages with racist or sexist content
7. messages with content that constitutes a violation of Italian Law (incitement to commit a crime, to violence, libel etc.)

However, the owner of the Blog can delete messages at any moment and for any reason.
The owner of the Blog cannot be held responsible for any messages that may damage the rights of third parties Maximum comment length is 2,000 characters.
If you have any doubts read "How to use the blog".

Post a comment (English please!)

First name and Surname*:

Email Address*:
We remind you that anonymous messages (without real first name and surname) will be cancelled.

* Compulsory fields

Send to a friend

Send this message to *

Your Email Address *

Message (optional)

* Compulsory fields