Nuclear Power in Germany

[Franzl]

Why are only nuclear accidents relevant? Other energy types have proven a lot more dangerous than nuclear over time....but I suppose that doesn't fit the propaganda from the Greens' crusade.

[Franzl]

But it hasn't always been that way...and I think we both know that nuclear is demonized a good deal more by the Green folks than dirty CO2 producing energy sources.

[Franzl]

Why are only nuclear accidents relevant? Other energy types have proven a lot more dangerous than nuclear over time....but I suppose that doesn't fit the propaganda from the Greens' crusade.

Want you to live in a contaminated environment? These are the consequences of a nuclear accident. Be happy that you live near Darmstadt and not in Prypiat (Ukraine)

Again, it's an issue of probabilities. Correctly run nuclear power plants are not very dangerous. Especially in an area with virtually no natural disasters.

[Franzl]

Even if it doesn't sway undecided voters, I'm worried that turnout among the Green base will be depressingly high.

[Franzl]

It's strange how German opinion is so vehemently anti-nuclear. In Sweden there is a very solid majority in favour of retaining it.

I agree. I've never understood the German Left's weird fetish for destroying valuable energy sources.

[Franzl]

It's strange how German opinion is so vehemently anti-nuclear. In Sweden there is a very solid majority in favour of retaining it.

I agree. I've never understood the German Left's weird fetish for destroying valuable energy sources.

Well if you read about what's happening currently in Japan I think that should help.

Nope. I tried, but it didn't help.

[Franzl]

The "specialists" said a big Nuclear Meltdown is only one in 100000 years. I'm 43 years old and in my life there was 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and now Japan.

Under any definition of the word "big" you want to use, Three Mile Island didn't have a "big" meltdown.  Partial yes, (just like in Japan), but under no circumstances was it "big".  Chernobyl was big, yes, but it was caused by idiots.  Clearly it should be illegal for idiots to run nuclear power plants (or any power plants for that matter), but to suggest we shouldn't continue to utilize nuclear power as one of our many methods of getting electricity based on these three incidents is just silly.

Especially because other energy forms have led to far more deaths and destruction than nuclear ever has. (Not to mention the evil CO2 caused by them.)

[Franzl]

@Franzl
You must feel very alone in Germany with your opinion. Even the majority of the CDU / CSU and FDP voters are opposed to nuclear power.

Certainly. CDU and FDP aren't really good representatives of my views on nuclear power, but I don't think there is any party with real common sense on this issue.

I support nuclear power because it's one of the safest and cleanest energy forms available at the present time.

Regarding your pictures from Chernobyl.....tragic, absolutely. But I could show you lots of pictures from other things, such as abortion, which I imagine you support. Or PiT's example with cars is just as valid. Showing pictures like that only seeks to add an emotional factor to the debate without seriously presenting any facts.

[Franzl]

These are the consequences of nuclear power

     I could just as easily post pictures of mangled corpses with the caption: "These are the consequences of cars". That's an appeal to emotion, not logic.

Cars don't make large swaths of land uninhabitable though. Cars also do not cripple whole generations with having birth defects like nuclear power does.

They kill far more people than nuclear power ever has or will.

[Franzl]

That's the motto of the nuclear power proponents:

Anything else to offer but cheap slogans?