What makes a country support/oppose nuclear?

[Tender Branson]

Because Austria and Southern Germany were among the most contaminated areas of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, besides northern Ukraine/Belarus itself and Scandinavia, because of the western winds that brought us all the radiation from the power plant which was 1000 miles away:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nuclear-heritage.net/index.php/Anti-nuclear_Movement_in_Austria#Austria_And_Nuclear_Power_After_Chernobyl

The high radiation of course still exists for example in mushrooms. You are advised not to pick, cook and eat too many at once.

[Tender Branson]

A more broader explanation can be found here:

Austria's NO to Nuclear Power

Currently, 90% of Austrians are opposed to nuclear power plants and 5% support them. That's the highest level of opposition in Europe.

I'm one of the opponents too (nuclear power plants should be banned). We have enough renewables here anyway (mostly water and wind energy).

[Tender Branson]

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.

[Tender Branson]

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.

[Tender Branson]

Nuclear weapons =/= Nuclear power plants

Don't try to spin ...

Nuclear weapons = nuclear power (just the destructive version of it).

Two sides of the same coin, of which both are killing tons of people.