• Sweden's news in English

Greenpeace activists charged for nuke break-in

AFP/The Local · 12 Oct 2012, 00:00

Published: 12 Oct 2012 13:47 GMT+02:00
Updated: 12 Oct 2012 00:00 GMT+02:00

Facebook Twitter Google+ reddit

All of the detainees are foreigners and public radio station Sveriges Radio (SR) identified some of them as Germans.

Some 29 activists from the environmental group Greenpeace were charged with trespass and one was charged with aggravated trespass.

The latter was charged with the more serious offence as he was able to remain within the power station for more than a day.

The charges relate to the a break in to the Forsmark nuclear power plant in eastern Sweden and could see the activists fined. Four interpreters were employed to assist the court.

More than 60 activists in total including two from environmental group Greenpeace on Tuesday entered two of Sweden's three nuclear plants to highlight security weaknesses and concerns over the safety of the decades-old facilities.

"Our two activists left by themselves to be on the evening TV news. They were never found" while on the premises, Greenpeace Sweden spokesman Daniel Bengtsson said on Wednesday.

"It's really surprising that they were able to stay hidden for so long. We thought we'd stay for 24 hours, and it's been 38 hours."

While the two were able to avoid detection at the Forsmark facility, other activists who had entered the southern Ringhals plant were found by police on Wednesday afternoon.

Eva Hallden, director of the Ringhals plant, told the TT news agency that the security response would have been more intense if the intruders had been considered dangerous.

The government has called on Vattenfall, which operates both plants, to explain the fiasco.

Environment Minister Lena Ek said during a press conference that the government would consider measures to improve security.

Story continues below…

Some 35 percent of electricity in Sweden is generated from nuclear power.

Results of the European Union's stress tests of European nuclear reactors have shown that immediate safety upgrades costing billions of euros are needed in power plants "nearly everywhere" in Europe.

Many of the EU's 132 reactors failed to meet international safety standards, according to the report released last week, which was commissioned in the aftermath of Japan's Fukushima disaster in March last year.

AFP/The Local (news@thelocal.se)

Facebook Twitter Google+ reddit

Your comments about this article

08:09 October 12, 2012 by jackityjack
Thank you Greenpeace for highlighting the clear and present dangers of nuclear energy. And also for suggesting cleaner alternatives. Good on ya!
09:10 October 12, 2012 by byke
"The government has called on Vattenfall, which operates both plants, to explain the fiasco. "

Ask yourself this question : Who owns and operates "Vattenfall" ?

"Eva Hallden, director of the Ringhals plant, told the TT news agency that the security response would have been more intense if the intruders had been considered dangerous."

I am lost for words .....

Heja Sverige!
10:33 October 12, 2012 by entry
Idiots jump a fence, hide in trees and complain that all of them were not found on the grounds outside of the nuke plant. What security threat did they pose?

Here is a partial list of wind farm deaths/accidents:


Show me the stacks of bodies that the anti-science/anti-vaxers/Global Warming believers claim are laying on the roadside due to nuclear accidents or use.

The Panic Over Fukushima - WSJ.com


No respect for the morons that have to check their Ipads for calendar information to see which protest/cause they have regained conciseness after passing out the night before. Put on your black hoodies, jump up and down and hoot and howl.
10:36 October 12, 2012 by Bender B Rodriquez
The state owns Vattenfall, but they do not run and operate it if that's what you are after.
14:37 October 12, 2012 by eppie

correction; only pro science people know global warming is true.

The uneducated masses believe in conspiracy theories, people such as yourself it seems.
15:06 October 12, 2012 by skogsbo
If they wanted to protest about green issues and global warming, why break into a nuke plant and not coal, oil or gas. Hopefully they'll lock them up for wasting people's time.
15:21 October 12, 2012 by Nomark

I'm a proper scientist who publishes in peer-reviewed journals, works in academia etc etc. However, my views of global warming attribution have changed over the years. At first I had no problem with the AGW-hypothesis since I believed that peer-review worked well, as it does in my discipline. However the flaws in the hockey stick temperature reconstruction and, more importantly, the response of the community to these flaws (i.e. ignore them and smear those who identified the flaws) has led me (and a lot of people) to a rethink. Add to that the ridiculous "science is settled" claims (science is *never* settled) and the even more ridiculous consensus arguments (science does not proceed by consensus - it proceeds via reproducibility and falsification tests) and I've become a downright sceptic. I'm happy to be convinced that AGW is happening to a degree which we should worry about but I've found the arguments and evidence not especially strong.

Also, I doubt you'd find anyone more "pro science" and less inclined to believe conspiracy theories than me on this site.
17:22 October 12, 2012 by MichaelZWilliamson
Yes, nuclear energy is so dangerous. Consider the zero people who died at 3 Mile Island, and the zero people who died at Fukushima. Tragic.

We should absolutely stick to burning coal, or living in trees in the forest. Or something.
17:37 October 12, 2012 by Reason and Realism
@ Nomark

Something like 50% less polar ice coverage in summer this year than 20 years ago, highest average temperatures on record, record number of forest fires and droughts.

If you are a sceptic about global warming, and you say 'hey maybe this is just a freak statistical data point', then how do you reconcile the massive temperature rise in the past 100 years vs. all previous 100 year slices that can be analyzed by oxygen content within ice core samples etc for the last 10000 years? Are you of the opinion that it is a coincidence that this temperature rise and the industrialization of the world occured in the same 100 year slice? Even if the entire increase is due to the population increase and livestock, it still makes sense to attempt to limit that increase.

I am pro-nuclear power, partly because it is climate neutral, but also partly pragmatism, namely the fact that it is an installed power base that simply needs increased security (where I see a great utility for an otherwise idle Swedish military batalion or two with night vision equipment etc...). I would be even more comfortable if all of our electricity was hydro electric, but for now I am more than prepared to live with a gradual transition over 20 yearrs to hydro and other green sources of for use in Sweden.
18:06 October 12, 2012 by Nomark
Reason and Realism

You are referring to the past temperature reconstructions. They are problematic for a number of reasons. One problem is that some show exceptionalism and others don't. Its extremely unwise to say "look at this measurement - it shows a warm century in comparison to the rest" when other measurements point towards this century as not being exceptional. To do this is called cherry picking and we frown upon it in science (well some of us do - climate scientists seem not to care to much). A lot of assumptions and statistical reasoning go into making these temperature reconstructions. This is why its important that results are independently verified from raw data. However, much of the data used to make these measurements is not openly archived so independent reproduction (also important for science) is not possible. Please show where the raw data for the measurement you cite is archived. Please also show me where the results have been independently reproduced.
18:47 October 12, 2012 by Reason and Realism
@ Nomark

Gas absorption spectroscopy has been around for about 100 years, and this shows the easily reproducible spectrum over which CO2 absorbs and re-radiates thermal energy (roughly half of which will be radiated back toward the earth). Place any barrier next to a heat source and the temperature will rise within the region enclosed by the barrier, even an imperfect barrier. The spectrum of sunlight has also been measured and most of the sun's energy is at wavelengths to which gaseous CO2 is transparent.


The logical conclusion is simply that over production of CO2 will lead to a temperature increase, regardless of the source of the CO2, and regardless of whatever factors affected global temperatures over the past 10000 years. If the local derivative of temperature vs. time is alarmingly high, and if the rate of CO2 increase in the atmsophere over the past 100 years is at a record high, then it makes sense to reduce the emissions of CO2.

This is the accepted model of global warming. What evidence (reproducible, and multiply verified, to adhere to your criteria) do you have to suggest that this century's thermal temperature increase is NOTcaused by CO2?

In any case if the temperature rise is costing trillions and killing millions, then it makes sense for us to attempt to slow it, and limiting CO2 is one avenue to do that, even IF (and I emphasize IF) CO2 over production is not the principal cause of the rise in temp that we have had over the past 100 years.
18:51 October 12, 2012 by entry
Flubber and ground up Unicorn horns cannot support human existence.

Do the math and realize why we laugh at you. -Paul
22:48 October 12, 2012 by Rat bat
Well two things , firstly if you do the maths you will find that the addition of more CO2 will not block infra red light from leaving the earth. The absorption at the wavelengths for CO2 is already very strong (has been for many 100s of years)

What is more dangerous to us is if we release gases into the air which block other wavelengths for example methane releases into the air or worse of all SF6 (which both absorb at other wavelengths) are far more harmful to the climate.

Secondly these Greenpeace clowns need some real hardcore industrial grade punishment, a fine will not do the job. I think that community service cleaning toilets would be ideal.
14:21 October 13, 2012 by Nomark
Reason and realism

Glad to see you've dropped your proxies argument following me pointing out that other proxies tell different stories and that the data aren't generally available for replication studies. Cherry picking and non-replication is pretty much anti-science in my book.

I'm well aware of the CO2- heat argument - I'm a physicist. You'll find few sceptics who disagree with you on this point (although please be careful about translating laboratory measurements to the earth's system, things are complicated) so I'm unsure why you labour with it other than that you don't really know how climate models (used to determine human-induced contributions) work. The problem is that its *not* the greenhouse gas CO2 which is dominantly responsible for the predicted rises in the temperature. The climate models postulate that the CO2 gives rise to more water vapour and the water vapour causes temperature rises. While the theory of CO2-induced greenhouse warming is well established and experimentally tested by laboratory work, the water vapour feedback mechanism isn't - eg nobody really knows how to model clouds properly. Funnily enough, the climate modellers and IPCC tend not to promote that bit of info, instead relying on the CO2 argument i.e. the soundest part of the argument chain to convince the masses (it clearly worked on you) . Many scientists think the feedback leads to more warming, others think it could even be weakly negative. The IPCC models certainly think that feedback leads to more warming. However, this means relying on models which haven't undergone classic falsification tests. For example, we have faith in the predictions of quantum mechanics (another physics model) because there have been a number of measurements which could have put that theory to the sword, yet QM survived by predicting what was observed, time and time again. Climate models haven't yet passed that fundamental test. When they fail to describe data, they are simply modified. Like cherry-picking, scientists take this type of thing (i.e. falsification) seriously (though maybe not in climate science).

In short, lots of the non-controversial things I teach students about how to do

experimental science (reproducibility, no cherry picking, falsification tests) simply haven't been done here to the standard I would expect. None of this means that the AGW hypothesis is wrong. Being sceptical means what it says on the tin i.e. not being dogmatic. It does, however, mean that the AGW-hypothesis rests on far weaker foundations than those who promote it would care to admit. This is very important information when it comes to deciding whether mitigating action should be taken.
23:29 October 15, 2012 by Reason and Realism
@ Nomark

I did not drop thermal proxies because you 'pointed out' anything - 'pointing out' something is not the equivalent of supplying links to peer reviewed journal articles, based on repeatedly verified and openly available raw data, which is what you ask others to supply, even though you have thus far failed to do this yourself. After my reference to ice core samples, you wrote that

'its important that results are independently verified from raw data. However, much of the data used to make these measurements is not openly archived so independent reproduction is not possible. Please show where the raw data for the measurement you cite is archived. Please also show me where the results have been independently reproduced.

Since the raw data in this case constitutes the measurement of gas bubbles within the ice core samples, you should know that the US geological survey maintains an inventory of ice core samples that researchers can request from Antartica, Greenland, and the US, as stated on its webpage: http://nicl.usgs.gov/coresite.htm

I 'laboured' you with global warming basics to remind you that AGW has a plausible basis in easily reproducbible lab measurements that supports the sign in front of one differential term in the nonlinear PDE that governs the earth's atmospheric temperature (which I am perfectly aware must include various other terms and cross terms, reservoirs/memory effects, terms for other gases and water vapour, and where recent increases to some rates of change must be included due to the recent surge in industrial gases - all of which can lead to complex responses over time - in other words I fully appreciate what goes into climate models, contrary to your assertion). My point was simply that on the basis of that term, and others like it for other overproduced industrial emissions, an argument can be made to limit emissions without the need to resort to the Earth's entire thermal history.

Whether you intend it or not, your repeated assertion that you are a 'downright skeptic' promotes inaction, even though the models that you criticize have not been supplanted by a more rigorously verified alternative model (and let's face it - the amtosphere is complicated - even the weather cannot be reliably predicted more than a few days in advance - and yet you appear to be waiting for something that,

to your satisfaction, successfully predicts temperature rise over an entire century). Precautionary decisions must sometimes be taken before 100% proof is there, particularly if the consequences of failing to take those decisions

are likely to be dire. The accepted model for AGM at least has a plausible basis, and the legacy that will be left by those who advocate reduced emissions will at the very least be cleaner air, water, and environement, and possibly vastly more than that. What meritorious legacy will be left to us by the skeptics?
10:15 October 17, 2012 by Nomark
Regarding the ice core work, here is a description of the state of archiving by one of the top ice core temperature reconstruction scientists:

http://climateaudit.org/2012/07/08/lonnie-thompsons-legacy/ .

In other words, its simply not enough to do as you've done and give me a webpage. These data are being used by people like you to promote expensive public policy changes. Its unacceptable that they are not archived and available for full replication.

Regarding me pointing out that temperature reconstructions tell different stories, my apologies. I thought you were acquainted with the primary literature (you certainly should have been if you want to lecture people about this). Here is a sample of "hockey stick" studies which have been heavily promoted by AGW-proponents:


A sharp hockey stick except that (a) the hockey stick shape comes out if noise is fed into the algorithm and (b) it relies on one specific proxy for its shape - if that is removed (and people who took the data think it isn't a reliable temp proxy) - the hockey stick vanishes and a strong medieval warming period appears. BTW the authors wrote that the conclusions doesn't depend on one proxy. See pretty much any of the McIntyre and McKitrick papers which all point this out.

Then there is Briffra et al., 2001. This one is a classic. It shows a hockey stick except that temperatures fall in the late 20th century - bad news since the instrumental record shows a rise. Solution ? Remove these data from the IPCC reports to present a "tidy picture". This is appalling - scientists are *not* allowed to delete adverse data. This is cherry picking, end of story.

And you still want to rely on temp reconstructions to promote AGW ? Good luck but don't expect those of us who read the papers and who don't subscribe to any given ideology to follow suit.

Regarding the climate models, can you give me a prediction of temp rise due to your CO2 "term" argument (with uncertainties). Since the feedback production of more water vapour accounts for a huge amount of predicted warming you're fixed onto the smallest possible rise. It must be possible for you to outline why we need to worry about that.

Regarding the sceptics "meritorious legacy" it will be (a) a tradition of not accepting scare tactics, BS and scientific waffle before spending vast sums of money and (b) a tradition of demanding research of the highest quality.

I note that you move from earlier posts of trying to hector me about the implausibility of my position given the strong scientific evidence which apparently refuted my arguments to one where you talk about the science being plausible. There is nothing wrong with not knowing something but there is lots wrong with cherry picking the science to try and prove a point.
Today's headlines
Sweden: Russian warships in the Baltic 'worrying'
Swedish Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist. Photo: Vilhelm Stokstad/TT

Two Russian warships equipped with long-range missiles have entered the Baltic Sea after passing Denmark.

Why businesses are worried about Sweden's drone ban
A drone filming in Stockholm. Photo: Pontus Lundahl/TT

The Local investigates what Sweden's new drone ban could mean for businesses in the country.

This is the new top boss of Swedish Ericsson
Börje Ekholm. Photo: Magnus Hjalmarson Neideman/SvD/TT

Telecoms giant Ericsson has appointed a new CEO after a turbulent year for the company.

These are Sweden's best universities: ranking
A new university ranking has been released. Photo: Cecilia Larsson Lantz/Imagebank.sweden.se

At least according to this global ranking, which picks 12 Swedish universities among the top-1000.

Swedish pharmacies restrict paracetamol sales for teens
The move is intended to cut paracetamol overdoses. Photo: Nora Lorek/TT

Sweden's pharmacies are banning teens under 18 from buying more than one pack of pills at a time.

The Local List
12 Swedish words with just awesome literal translations
A filthy-minded lobster, i.e. a snuskhummer. Photo: Gorm Kallestad/NTB scanpix/TT

One of our favourite things about the Swedish language is its wonderful compound words, which range from being utterly bizarre to making perfect sense.

Rwandan genocide suspect held in Sweden
A memorial centre in Kigali, Rwanda. Photo: Ben Curtis/AP

A man has been arrested in Sweden suspected of involvement in the 1994 Rwandan genocide which claimed 800,000 lives.

Sweden can extend border controls, EU says
A police officer carrying out a check at Sweden's border with Denmark. Photo: Emil Langvad/TT

EU countries including Sweden should be granted permission to extend temporary border controls by a period of a further three months, the European Commission has decided.

Nobel Prizes
'I'd say he's arrogant but I'd be lying': Swedes on Bob Dylan
Bob Dylan performing in France. Photo: David Vincent/AP

Almost two weeks have passed since Bob Dylan was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature and he has yet to acknowledge the win. The Local asked Swedes what they think of the singer's silence.

Sweden cuts 2016 refugee forecast by thousands
A Swedish migration authority office in Stockholm. Photo: Maja Suslin/TT

The country has also slashed its prediction for 2017.

Sponsored Article
Stockholm: creating solutions to global challenges
Property of the week: Kungsholmen, Stockholm
Sponsored Article
Last chance to vote absentee in the US elections
Will Swedes soon be looking for fairtrade porn?
The Local Voices
'I simply don’t believe in nationality'
Blog updates

6 October

10 useful hjälpverb (The Swedish Teacher) »

"Hej! I think the so-called “hjalpverb” (auxiliary verbs in English) are a good way to get…" READ »


8 July

Editor’s blog, July 8th (The Local Sweden) »

"Hej readers, It has, as always, been a bizarre, serious and hilarious week in Sweden. You…" READ »

Sponsored Article
This is Malmö: Football capital of Sweden
Why we're convinced Game of Thrones is based on Sweden
Sponsored Article
Where is the Swedish music industry heading?
People-watching: October 21st-23rd
Fury at plans that 'threaten the IB's survival' in Sweden
Analysis & Opinion
Are we just going to let half the country die?
Sponsored Article
Why you should 'grab a chair' on Stockholm's tech scene
Angry elk chases Swede up a lamp post
Sponsored Article
Swedish for programmers: 'It changed my life'
The Local Voices
'Alienation in Sweden feels better: I find myself a stranger among scores of aliens'
People-watching: October 20th
Sponsored Article
Top 7 tips to help you learn Swedish
The Local Voices
A layover at Qatar airport brought this Swedish-Kenyan couple together - now they're heading for marriage
Sponsored Article
‘Extremism can't be defeated on the battlefield alone’
Swede punches clown that scared his grandmother
Fans throw flares and enter pitch in Swedish football riot
Sponsored Article
Stockholm: creating solutions to global challenges
Could Swedish blood test solve 'Making a Murderer'?
Sponsored Article
Why you should 'grab a chair' on Stockholm's tech scene
Property of the week: Linnéstaden, Gothenburg
Sponsored Article
Where is the Swedish music industry heading?
Swedish school to build gender neutral changing room
Sponsored Article
One expat's strategy for making friends in Stockholm
People-watching: October 14th-16th
Sponsored Article
Nordic fashion in focus at Stockholm University
Man in Sweden assaulted by clowns with broken bottle
Nobel Prize 2016: Literature
Watch the man who discovered Bob Dylan react to his Nobel Prize win
Record numbers emigrating from Sweden
People-watching: October 12th
The Local Voices
'Swedish startups should embrace newcomers' talents - there's nothing to fear'
How far right are the Sweden Democrats?
Property of the week: Triangeln, Malmö
Sweden unveils Europe's first elk hut
The Local Voices
Syria's White Helmets: The Nobel Peace Prize would have meant a lot, but pulling a child from rubble is the greatest reward
jobs available