What makes a country support/oppose nuclear?

[Gunnar Larsson]

Cranberry's latest series as you may have seen, had a wholly unrealistic result: a landslide victory (in Austria) for nuclear power. And that got me thinking. In the UK, Canada, the US, France and most of Scandanavia there is a fairly ephemeral movement opposing nukes; but they have never received significant attention from the public. But in, say, German speaking countries the opposition is persistent, strong and influential enough to swing elections. Why is this?

Of the countries in Scandinavia only Sweden got nuclear power (and Finland if you use the term more broadly), so in general there is not that much to protest against (though not having any didn't stop the Danes from complaining about Swedish nuclear plants..). Further Sweden had a referendum in 1980, the outcome of which was that we should get rid of our nuclear plants. So wouldn't say that the opposition is that weak.

More broadly speaking I would guess that it is associated with having a strong environmentalist movement and a general high regard for "natural" things. Not sure why the Germans generally have a stronger affection for things being "natural" though.. However it seems have quite some history with all sorts of movements appreciating the natural as opposed to the artificial/modern.

[Gunnar Larsson]

Cranberry's latest series as you may have seen, had a wholly unrealistic result: a landslide victory (in Austria) for nuclear power. And that got me thinking. In the UK, Canada, the US, France and most of Scandinavian there is a fairly ephemeral movement opposing nukes; but they have never received significant attention from the public. But in, say, German speaking countries the opposition is persistent, strong and influential enough to swing elections. Why is this?

Of the countries in Scandinavia only Sweden got nuclear power (and Finland if you use the term more broadly), so in general there is not that much to protest against (though not having any didn't stop the Danes from complaining about Swedish nuclear plants..). Further Sweden had a referendum in 1980, the outcome of which was that we should get rid of our nuclear plants. So wouldn't say that the opposition is that weak.

More broadly speaking I would guess that it is associated with having a strong environmentalist movement and a general high regard for "natural" things. Not sure why the Germans generally have a stronger affection for things being "natural" though.. However it seems have quite some history with all sorts of movements appreciating the natural as opposed to the artificial/modern.

Placing a nuclear plant within a radius of 50 km of another country's capital is an obvious provocation.

How? That is basically saying that placing Malmø 20 km from Copenhagen was a provocation..

[Gunnar Larsson]

Cranberry's latest series as you may have seen, had a wholly unrealistic result: a landslide victory (in Austria) for nuclear power. And that got me thinking. In the UK, Canada, the US, France and most of Scandinavian there is a fairly ephemeral movement opposing nukes; but they have never received significant attention from the public. But in, say, German speaking countries the opposition is persistent, strong and influential enough to swing elections. Why is this?

Of the countries in Scandinavia only Sweden got nuclear power (and Finland if you use the term more broadly), so in general there is not that much to protest against (though not having any didn't stop the Danes from complaining about Swedish nuclear plants..). Further Sweden had a referendum in 1980, the outcome of which was that we should get rid of our nuclear plants. So wouldn't say that the opposition is that weak.

More broadly speaking I would guess that it is associated with having a strong environmentalist movement and a general high regard for "natural" things. Not sure why the Germans generally have a stronger affection for things being "natural" though.. However it seems have quite some history with all sorts of movements appreciating the natural as opposed to the artificial/modern.

Placing a nuclear plant within a radius of 50 km of another country's capital is an obvious provocation.

How? That is basically saying that placing Malmø 20 km from Copenhagen was a provocation..

No, a city can't be radioactive.

But a nuclear plant is and people do not want their kids to end up like this if something goes wrong:



Sry, but nukes suck and kill, no matter how the pro-lobby argues. They all need to be shut down.

Parts of the inside is, not the outside. A nuclear plant emit far less radiation than a coal plant. Sure nuclear plants have issues, but nowhere near as many issues as coal plants, which needs to be shut down first. It is unfortunate that sometimes the experienced risk is very different from the real risk.

Obviously nukes sucks, and if Sweden started lobbying nukes towards Copenhagen it would indeed be somewhat offensive.. However, noone has suggessted such a thing.

[Gunnar Larsson]

Cranberry's latest series as you may have seen, had a wholly unrealistic result: a landslide victory (in Austria) for nuclear power. And that got me thinking. In the UK, Canada, the US, France and most of Scandinavian there is a fairly ephemeral movement opposing nukes; but they have never received significant attention from the public. But in, say, German speaking countries the opposition is persistent, strong and influential enough to swing elections. Why is this?

Of the countries in Scandinavia only Sweden got nuclear power (and Finland if you use the term more broadly), so in general there is not that much to protest against (though not having any didn't stop the Danes from complaining about Swedish nuclear plants..). Further Sweden had a referendum in 1980, the outcome of which was that we should get rid of our nuclear plants. So wouldn't say that the opposition is that weak.

More broadly speaking I would guess that it is associated with having a strong environmentalist movement and a general high regard for "natural" things. Not sure why the Germans generally have a stronger affection for things being "natural" though.. However it seems have quite some history with all sorts of movements appreciating the natural as opposed to the artificial/modern.

Placing a nuclear plant within a radius of 50 km of another country's capital is an obvious provocation.

How? That is basically saying that placing Malmø 20 km from Copenhagen was a provocation..

That is a stupid comparison.

Nuclear plants posses a certain danger and they should not be placed near major cities, that are difficult to evacuate and where the consequences of an accident would be tremendous - that is not hysteria, but prudent risk management. A country may decide to take that risk on behalf of its own citizens, but it is not reasonable to do so for other countries.

Btw Malmoe was obviously "placed" where it is while Scania was Danish.

Even in a worst case scenario both Copenhagen and Malmø were at enough distance to be safe (from radiation, not hysteria..). The risk zone around Barsebäck was about 10-20 km.

If have a city of some size it requires quite a lot of things to run, of which quite a few can be dangerous. If for example someone were to hijack a plane from Copenhagen Airport and fly it into Turning Torso lots more people would die than from a nuclear plant accident.

I am aware that Malmø was founded whilst Scania was Danish, that was my point. You can hardly blame modern politicians for having two cities (with associated dangers) in two different countries that close to each other. You can't expect there to be a safety zone around Copenhagen that would limit the growth of Malmø and other cities.

[Gunnar Larsson]

Hysteria over nuclear power kills a lot more people than nuclear power itself.

What would be examples of this "hysteria" which is killing people ?

And how does these "hysteria" deaths beat the 1 Mio. + dead and maimed so far that nuclear energy caused ?

(Hiroshima, Nagasaki, nuke testings that resulted in massive cancer deaths in the former Soviet Union and Western US as well as the Pacific), Chernobyl & Fukushima disasters ? Not to mention all the people who live near nuclear reactors and who have much higher cancer rates than the people who live elsewhere, but which the nuclear lobby likes to keep in the drawers ?

You people are just crazy if you believe the nuclear lobby 1:1 ... get yourself a brain and not copy/paste what the lobbyists say.

You would need to source those statements...