4 ms·

I just by default doubt any anti-nuclear thing that comes out of Germany. We do not need Germanys CO2 emissions. That's the big problem here. And the amount of

by boxed 3y ago

I just by default doubt any anti-nuclear thing that comes out of Germany. We do not need Germanys CO2 emissions. That's the big problem here. And the amount of radioactivity spewed into the atmosphere by German coal plants is way bigger than cold war era weapon testing.

PaulHoule 3y ago
They are definitely not saying it comes from German NPP. Makes me wonder though if wild pigs have the flavor of truffles. (You better believe the taste of chicken eggs depends on what they eat or that the complex flavor of venison has to with the random stuff wild animals eat. Turns out truffles really love Cesium.)
- fullspectrumdev 3y ago
  Wild pig has a certainly different taste to even farm pigs given a lot of space. I wouldn’t say it’s a taste of truffle though, it’s just a different, stronger flavour (that I quite like).
ceejayoz 3y ago
Nothing in "be careful eating wild boar" and "don't blow up nuclear bombs in the atmosphere" is going to affect Germany's CO2 emissions.
- hedora 3y ago
  The original article says that a surprising amount of the radiation comes from WWII munitions. A better conclusion would be “stabilize your energy production before shortages and rolling environmental catastrophes lead to a rise in fascism and a third world war”.
  - akolbe 3y ago
    I can't find any reference to WWII munitions in the original article. What they are talking about are atmospheric nuclear tests carried out primarily in the period after WWII: "For weapons-137Cs, the cessation of atmospheric tests resulted in no noteworthy new weapons-137Cs fallout after the last test in 1980 ... this study illustrates that strategic decisions to conduct atmospheric nuclear tests 60–80 years ago still impact remote natural environments, wildlife, and a human food source today."
mschuster91 3y ago
[dead]
pgeorgi 3y ago
The source for Germany's CO2 emissions is a pro-coal-miner stance, not an anti-nuclear position: Germany happily threw away a 120k workers strong photovoltaics industry while protecting a 40k workers strong coal mining industry. The anti-nuclear position comes from radioactive boars and even more-so from the fuck up that is the Jülich experimental reactor, a "safe by design" system that by now took 40 years of maintenance while taking another 80 before it can be dismantled. Politics and industry have demonstrated that they can't ensure safe nuclear operation in Germany. USSR (1986) and Japan (2011) just drove the point home that it's not a specific German failing. (Case in point: the anti-nuclear movement in Germany started in the 1970s. Unless you believe in time travel, those big incidents at most fueled the flames)
- badpun 3y ago
  > (Case in point: the anti-nuclear movement in Germany started in the 1970s. Unless you believe in time travel, those big incidents at most fueled the flames) The whole green movement in the Germany was co-created by KGB, in order to hamper West Germany's economic development.
- alexey-salmin 3y ago
  > Politics and industry have demonstrated that they can't ensure safe nuclear operation in Germany. USSR (1986) and Japan (2011) just drove the point home that it's not a specific German failing. Politics and industry have repeatedly demonstrated that nuclear power generation is one of safest industries in the history of humanity. One terawatt-hour of nuclear causes on average one premature death in 33 years, even safer than wind and hydro.
  - Incipient 3y ago
    In the same way I wouldn't feel entirely safe driving around in a car from the 60s, nuclear reactor design has come a long way since then. And considering how absolutely ancient the Japanese reactors are, they came incredibly close to not failing. Anything modern simply wouldn't have.
    - 3y ago
tcfhgj 3y ago
maybe there is a way to sell the pigs to you instead of disposing them? This would certainly reduce carbon emissions due to life stock farming
captainmuon 3y ago
The trade-off Germany chose is not between using nuclear vs. producing more CO2. It is between using nuclear vs. reducing economic activity (and the latter is IMHO very dubious - despite many warnings, Germany is able to procure enough energy just fine). It's not like we need a fixed amount of energy X, and have to choose how to get it. Rather, we say we want to discontinue fossil at a certain fixed pace, and say, OK what is the effect of turning off nuclear on the power price? And what is the effect on the economy? And given that nuclear energy in Germany is not actually that cheap, and hugely unpopular, it was an easy decision.
- alexey-salmin 3y ago
  That is simply false, both short-term and long-term. Short-term they explicitly chose produce more co2 emissions in 2022, not to decrease economic activity. They "procure enough energy just fine" by burning coal. Long-term Germany's co2 emissions are more than 2-2.5x of France, both annual and cumulative. That is THE result of their anti-nuclear strategy.

by boxed 3y ago

PaulHoule 3y ago

They are definitely not saying it comes from German NPP. Makes me wonder though if wild pigs have the flavor of truffles. (You better believe the taste of chicken eggs depends on what they eat or that the complex flavor of venison has to with the random stuff wild animals eat. Turns out truffles really love Cesium.)

fullspectrumdev 3y ago
Wild pig has a certainly different taste to even farm pigs given a lot of space. I wouldn’t say it’s a taste of truffle though, it’s just a different, stronger flavour (that I quite like).

ceejayoz 3y ago

Nothing in "be careful eating wild boar" and "don't blow up nuclear bombs in the atmosphere" is going to affect Germany's CO2 emissions.

hedora 3y ago
The original article says that a surprising amount of the radiation comes from WWII munitions. A better conclusion would be “stabilize your energy production before shortages and rolling environmental catastrophes lead to a rise in fascism and a third world war”.
- akolbe 3y ago
  I can't find any reference to WWII munitions in the original article. What they are talking about are atmospheric nuclear tests carried out primarily in the period after WWII: "For weapons-137Cs, the cessation of atmospheric tests resulted in no noteworthy new weapons-137Cs fallout after the last test in 1980 ... this study illustrates that strategic decisions to conduct atmospheric nuclear tests 60–80 years ago still impact remote natural environments, wildlife, and a human food source today."

mschuster91 3y ago

[dead]

pgeorgi 3y ago

The source for Germany's CO2 emissions is a pro-coal-miner stance, not an anti-nuclear position: Germany happily threw away a 120k workers strong photovoltaics industry while protecting a 40k workers strong coal mining industry. The anti-nuclear position comes from radioactive boars and even more-so from the fuck up that is the Jülich experimental reactor, a "safe by design" system that by now took 40 years of maintenance while taking another 80 before it can be dismantled. Politics and industry have demonstrated that they can't ensure safe nuclear operation in Germany. USSR (1986) and Japan (2011) just drove the point home that it's not a specific German failing. (Case in point: the anti-nuclear movement in Germany started in the 1970s. Unless you believe in time travel, those big incidents at most fueled the flames)

badpun 3y ago
> (Case in point: the anti-nuclear movement in Germany started in the 1970s. Unless you believe in time travel, those big incidents at most fueled the flames) The whole green movement in the Germany was co-created by KGB, in order to hamper West Germany's economic development.
alexey-salmin 3y ago
> Politics and industry have demonstrated that they can't ensure safe nuclear operation in Germany. USSR (1986) and Japan (2011) just drove the point home that it's not a specific German failing. Politics and industry have repeatedly demonstrated that nuclear power generation is one of safest industries in the history of humanity. One terawatt-hour of nuclear causes on average one premature death in 33 years, even safer than wind and hydro.
- Incipient 3y ago
  In the same way I wouldn't feel entirely safe driving around in a car from the 60s, nuclear reactor design has come a long way since then. And considering how absolutely ancient the Japanese reactors are, they came incredibly close to not failing. Anything modern simply wouldn't have.
  - 3y ago

tcfhgj 3y ago

maybe there is a way to sell the pigs to you instead of disposing them? This would certainly reduce carbon emissions due to life stock farming

captainmuon 3y ago

The trade-off Germany chose is not between using nuclear vs. producing more CO2. It is between using nuclear vs. reducing economic activity (and the latter is IMHO very dubious - despite many warnings, Germany is able to procure enough energy just fine). It's not like we need a fixed amount of energy X, and have to choose how to get it. Rather, we say we want to discontinue fossil at a certain fixed pace, and say, OK what is the effect of turning off nuclear on the power price? And what is the effect on the economy? And given that nuclear energy in Germany is not actually that cheap, and hugely unpopular, it was an easy decision.

alexey-salmin 3y ago
That is simply false, both short-term and long-term. Short-term they explicitly chose produce more co2 emissions in 2022, not to decrease economic activity. They "procure enough energy just fine" by burning coal. Long-term Germany's co2 emissions are more than 2-2.5x of France, both annual and cumulative. That is THE result of their anti-nuclear strategy.