3 ms·
Sure, it was all Schröders fault. It had nothing to do with for example chernobyl, where children were not allowed to be outside on the playground for weeks an
by lukan 6mo ago
Sure, it was all Schröders fault.
It had nothing to do with for example chernobyl, where children were not allowed to be outside on the playground for weeks and where you had to pay attention where your food came from and it also has nothing to do that you still have to have the meat of wild boars checked and be careful with eating mushrooms. Totally unrelated.
Seriously, the anti nuclear crowd might have not been rational from the start and still is dogmatic, but it formed exactly, because people did not trust the manufactured state's sentiment of nuclear will provide cheap and clean energy without risk.
Because it is not a clean energy, it is incredibly dirty and dangerous. And those dangers can be handled, if companies and regulators act responsible. But people simply do not trust that they are. And they do have some data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accid...
- retired 6mo ago[flagged]
- rob74 6mo ago> And those dangers can be handled, if companies and regulators act responsible. As further proof of how well that works, Fukushima arrived in 2011: https://www.scribd.com/document/819988755/Examining-Regulatory-Capture-Looking-Back-at-the-Fukushima-Nucle https://www.scribd.com/document/819988755/Examining-Regulato...
- cluckindan 6mo agoWhat makes you think the Chernobyl accident was not embraced to influence European policy?
- shmeeed 6mo agoOccam's razor.
- cluckindan 6mo agoHow does that make sense? Is it not more simple to amplify and reframe current events than it is to manufacture entirely new narratives?
- shmeeed 5mo agoI'm thinking I may have misunderstood you. Who did you refer to that supposedly embraced the accident to influence policy?