I love Kraftwerk, but contributing to anti-nuclear sentiment in Germany hasn't been a major success. If only more European countries had followed the French example and developed substantial nuclear fleets.

▲

01100011 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Like most backward looking judgements these days, such things require understanding the culture and zeitgeist of the mid 70s.

I'm pro-nuclear as well, but understand that for many decades the "smart" thing to do was to oppose it. I wouldn't expect a musical artist to have a more nuanced opinion than most of their contemporaries.

▲

colechristensen 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It was largely our own governments wanting to scare us of nukes so we'd be scared of the Soviets, like in America with the schoolchildren doing duck and cover drills.

Having enemies the population is afraid of is good for politicians and they'll take any enemies they can find, and they'll do so indiscriminately regardless of the real nuance of the issues.

Immigrants, abortion, this religion or that, rock music, jazz music, alcohol, marijuana, global warming, windmills, books... just whatever as hard as they can regardless of if it's reasonable or not.

	▲	01100011 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I think it came from peaceniks and hippies mostly. You're talking about the equivalent of modern anti-vax liberals. Anti-science and given to conspiracies and mysticism. There was a pretty good reason to be scared of nukes when these folks were children in the 50s. The world was quite a different place back then. The US was lagging behind the Soviets, militarily speaking, and Communism was much more expansionary.

▲

kingleopold 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

coal kills more people, this is a fact. so with blocking nuclear lead to coal, so they indirectly supportered killing thousands, incredible stats really. who said art can't be bad for the public?

	▲	kev009 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		A hidden danger of coal is ironically the radioactivity of its waste, which gets put into concrete products and contribute to indoor air quality issues. The paranoia around nuclear power is tied to generational fear mongering of governments during the Cold War. The oddest part is why not use safer reactor designs; water reactors make sense for the US Navy and not on land.

▲

pepa65 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What do you mean by "nuclear fleets"??

	▲	acidburnNSA 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This is often used within the industry to mean many dozens of commercial nuclear power plants.

▲

msla 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Being against nuclear only kept the world on coal longer.

▲

rectang 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And perhaps meaningfully contributed to a reduction in the quantity of radioactive waste products requiring custodianship on a timescale that humans can barely conceive of let alone commit to or execute responsibly.

▲

acidburnNSA 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I always find this sentiment curious for 2 reasons:

1. Radioactive waste gets less toxic over time unlike many toxins like mercury, lead, and cyanide. People seem to emphasize the duration of toxicity for radiation while apparently giving 'forever toxins' a total pass.

2. Short-lived radiation is what's really dangerous. When atoms are decaying fast, they're shooting out energy that can cause real damage fast. Longer-lived radioactive stuff with billion-year half-lives like natural uranium can be held in a gloved hand, no problem. In the extreme, and infinite half life means something is stable and totally safe (radiologically at least).

Yet people still want to emphasize that radioactive byproducts of nuclear power have long half lives. I don't really get it.

	▲	rectang 3 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I don't trust the coal industry to manage forever chemicals over the long term, and I don't trust nuclear industry to manage spent nuclear fuel over the long term. The question that matters is what bad things happen when their stewardship inevitably lapses and the happy path dead-ends. I don't like either answer, so that heightens the urgency of pursuing alternatives with fewer long-term hazardous byproducts.
	▲	cma 12 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		There were also big proliferation concerns out of 70s era designs.

▲

mgfist 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Coal power produces more radiation waste into the environment than nuclear power. That's because nuclear power has this amazing quality where all the waste is neatly packaged whereas burning coal just releases it into the air.

> requiring custodianship on a timescale that humans can barely conceive of let alone commit to or execute responsibly.

This is fearmongering. Casing waste in big concrete casks is enough. It's so incredibly overblown that we're willing to burn coal and kill people over it.

▲

rectang 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I distrust techno-optimist promises to manage ever-growing collections of spent nuclear fuel over millennia. We can hardly trust plant operators to manage it safely over decades.

Will it actually get encased successfully, will it be stored onsite in environmentally sensitive areas because it’s too much trouble to move, will your children’s children uphold the commitments you foisted on them through the political and economic turbulence in their lifetimes, and if not what happens comparatively when those coal ash heaps and nuclear fuel dumps are left to rot…

The externalities of concentrated radioactive material are not something that our socio-economic institutions are capable of handling at scale. Tragedies of the commons are the rule and eventually all of that waste will be go through periods of mishandling at one time or another.

	▲	mgfist 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I distrust techno-optimist promises to manage ever-growing collections of spent nuclear fuel over millennia. We can hardly trust plant operators to manage it safely over decades. Nuclear power plants have been extremely safe for many decades! Fuck, even the worst disasters related to nuclear power plants have killed less people than coal or oil disasters, even including Chernobyl which was a fuck up beyond comparison. > Will it actually get encased successfully Yes, this is literally done and has been done for many decades. > will it be stored onsite in environmentally sensitive areas because it’s too much trouble to move What does that mean? You can live 1 feet away from a cask and receive less radiation than you do from the sun. > will your children’s children uphold the commitments you foisted on them through the political and economic turbulence in their lifetimes, and if not what happens comparatively when those coal ash heaps and nuclear fuel dumps are left to rot… This is a bad argument because all of society relies on our grandchildren upholding present commitments. What happens if our grandchildren stop upholding the electricity grid? They die. What happens if they stop large scale agriculture? They die. And on and on and on. > The externalities of concentrated radioactive material are not something that our socio-economic institutions are capable of handling at scale. It's quite literally something society has been doing very successfully for 50+ years.

▲

3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

senectus1 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

only if renewable resources are not considered an option.