4 ms·

I guess a knee-jerk reaction can be expected in a country where nuclear power is currently pretty controversial.

by pieter 16y ago

raganwald 16y ago
Think of a needle on a gauge representing public opinion about nuclear power. One half of the gauge reads green for nukes. The other half is red for no nukes. If the needle is firmly in the green, a slight shift towards red in response to Fukushima might mean commissioning some studies and announcing a budget for upgrading the safety features. But if the needle is just barely into the green, a slight shift moves it into the red and that means shutting them down. So yes, in a country where public opinion is divided, it is not out of the question to swing from yes to no in response to the biggest emergency since Chernobyl. I'm not sure about the phrase "knee-jerk," though. It may seem like a drastic move, like a leg kicking in response to a small tap, which implies a response out of [proportion to the stimulus. However, perhaps the response is in proportion, it's just that when the needle is right on the dividing line, it only takes a small move to get from green to red? Now that I write my thoughts out, I obviously agree with you :-)
- nopassrecover 16y ago
  "Biggest (nuclear) emergency since Chernobyl" seems hyperbolic unless the situation has changed considerably since I last looked at it. Indeed in Japan alone the Mihama Nuclear Power Plant accident in 2004 caused more fatalities than Fukushima has so far.
  - ceejayoz 16y ago
    According to Wikipedia, the 2004 incident involved people being killed by a broken steam pipe. That's an emergency that happens to have been at a nuclear plant, not a nuclear emergency, and the regional effects were zero.
secretasiandan 16y ago
I don't think this is a knee jerk reaction. I think this is a move for short term political gains without regard for the long term societal costs. They had decided to extend the life of the reactors just last year. No new risk inherent to their design has been exposed. No new tsunami or earthquake risk in Germany has been exposed. I agree with the person quote in TFA (despite the fact that his statement may be a political play as well) : "She just wants to get through the provincial assembly elections," said Social Democrat leader Sigmar Gabriel, accusing her of playing political tactics with people's fears.
- serichsen 16y ago
  Note that Sigmar Gabriel wants to shut down all nuclear reactors himself.
  - secretasiandan 16y ago
    Here is a link to an article from his official web page where he appears to be stating a generally anti-nuclear point of view http://www.sigmar-gabriel.de/Nachrichten/details/20110313_atomkatastrophe.html http://www.sigmar-gabriel.de/Nachrichten/details/20110313_at... This gives his statement about Merkel's move just being politics more weight
wladimir 16y ago
It's only a temporary measure anyway, the plants will be inspected and (if everything well) turned on again until 2023 or so. Personally, I'd feel a lot safer if all nuclear plants were turned off forever. Sure, the chance of something going horribly wrong is low, but if it goes wrong it is a big big mess. Just too horrible to warrant any of the advantages that nuclear power has.
- nopassrecover 16y ago
  The deaths from other fuel sources, while not as immediately obvious as "oh look that nuclear plant just blew up" are potentially far greater.
  - wladimir 16y ago
    Frankly, I have heard that argument many times. I know other fuel sources cause deaths too. Gas tanks can explode, fossil fuels exhaust gasses can be poisonous, oil can leak into the sea, and so on. And still I'd rather be exposed to all of those risks than worry about one nuclear explosion. As I said, the consequences can be just too horrible, for too many people. I'd love to move on from fossil fuels to something else, but not something that can cause such disasters.
    - nopassrecover 16y ago
      That's because you're mind is clouded by the effects of a mental fallacy (the availability heuristic to be precise) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic
      - wladimir 16y ago
        You have the full right to disagree with me; I voiced my post as my personal opinion. But you're very rude to say my mind is clouded. I simply don't like large downside risks.
        16y ago

I guess a knee-jerk reaction can be expected in a country where nuclear power is currently pretty controversial.

by pieter 16y ago

I guess a knee-jerk reaction can be expected in a country where nuclear power is currently pretty controversial.

Think of a needle on a gauge representing public opinion about nuclear power. One half of the gauge reads green for nukes. The other half is red for no nukes. If the needle is firmly in the green, a slight shift towards red in response to Fukushima might mean commissioning some studies and announcing a budget for upgrading the safety features. But if the needle is just barely into the green, a slight shift moves it into the red and that means shutting them down. So yes, in a country where public opinion is divided, it is not out of the question to swing from yes to no in response to the biggest emergency since Chernobyl. I'm not sure about the phrase "knee-jerk," though. It may seem like a drastic move, like a leg kicking in response to a small tap, which implies a response out of [proportion to the stimulus. However, perhaps the response is in proportion, it's just that when the needle is right on the dividing line, it only takes a small move to get from green to red? Now that I write my thoughts out, I obviously agree with you :-)

nopassrecover 16y ago
"Biggest (nuclear) emergency since Chernobyl" seems hyperbolic unless the situation has changed considerably since I last looked at it. Indeed in Japan alone the Mihama Nuclear Power Plant accident in 2004 caused more fatalities than Fukushima has so far.
- ceejayoz 16y ago
  According to Wikipedia, the 2004 incident involved people being killed by a broken steam pipe. That's an emergency that happens to have been at a nuclear plant, not a nuclear emergency, and the regional effects were zero.

secretasiandan 16y ago

I don't think this is a knee jerk reaction. I think this is a move for short term political gains without regard for the long term societal costs. They had decided to extend the life of the reactors just last year. No new risk inherent to their design has been exposed. No new tsunami or earthquake risk in Germany has been exposed. I agree with the person quote in TFA (despite the fact that his statement may be a political play as well) : "She just wants to get through the provincial assembly elections," said Social Democrat leader Sigmar Gabriel, accusing her of playing political tactics with people's fears.

serichsen 16y ago
Note that Sigmar Gabriel wants to shut down all nuclear reactors himself.
- secretasiandan 16y ago
  Here is a link to an article from his official web page where he appears to be stating a generally anti-nuclear point of view http://www.sigmar-gabriel.de/Nachrichten/details/20110313_atomkatastrophe.html http://www.sigmar-gabriel.de/Nachrichten/details/20110313_at... This gives his statement about Merkel's move just being politics more weight

wladimir 16y ago

It's only a temporary measure anyway, the plants will be inspected and (if everything well) turned on again until 2023 or so. Personally, I'd feel a lot safer if all nuclear plants were turned off forever. Sure, the chance of something going horribly wrong is low, but if it goes wrong it is a big big mess. Just too horrible to warrant any of the advantages that nuclear power has.

nopassrecover 16y ago
The deaths from other fuel sources, while not as immediately obvious as "oh look that nuclear plant just blew up" are potentially far greater.
- wladimir 16y ago
  Frankly, I have heard that argument many times. I know other fuel sources cause deaths too. Gas tanks can explode, fossil fuels exhaust gasses can be poisonous, oil can leak into the sea, and so on. And still I'd rather be exposed to all of those risks than worry about one nuclear explosion. As I said, the consequences can be just too horrible, for too many people. I'd love to move on from fossil fuels to something else, but not something that can cause such disasters.
  - nopassrecover 16y ago
    That's because you're mind is clouded by the effects of a mental fallacy (the availability heuristic to be precise) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic
    - wladimir 16y ago
      You have the full right to disagree with me; I voiced my post as my personal opinion. But you're very rude to say my mind is clouded. I simply don't like large downside risks.
      - 16y ago