this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2025
673 points (96.0% liked)

World News

45455 readers
3236 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

A new Innofact poll shows 55% of Germans support returning to nuclear power, a divisive issue influencing coalition talks between the CDU/CSU and SPD.

While 36% oppose the shift, support is strongest among men and in southern and eastern Germany.

About 22% favor restarting recently closed reactors; 32% support building new ones.

Despite nuclear support, 57% still back investment in renewables. The CDU/CSU is exploring feasibility, but the SPD and Greens remain firmly against reversing the nuclear phase-out, citing stability and past policy shifts.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] relic_@lemm.ee 17 points 1 day ago (3 children)

This is just straight up fear mongering. Say what you will about the economics, but the idea that there's no safe amount of radiation is ridiculous (we don't know, but presumably it's okay in some amounts since you're getting radiation doses every day even not living near anything nuclear).

The idea that NPPs are some unsafe technology just waiting to explode is dramatic and untrue.

[–] friendlymessage@feddit.org 7 points 1 day ago

it's okay in some amounts since you're getting radiation doses every day even not living near anything nuclear).

And people get cancer every day. I don't share their argument that NPPs in normal operation are a risk, but OP is somewhat right, there's no safe radiation dose, just one we deem safe enough mainly because it doesn't significantly raise our risk of cancer compared to the natural exposure. And NPPs in normal operation emit less radiation than for example coal fire plants.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The idea that NPPs are some unsafe technology just waiting to explode is dramatic and untrue.

You're the first person to mention exploding here. GP was saying that they make for a good target in war time to turn into a dirty bomb, either intentionally or not.

...but the idea that there's no safe amount of radiation is ridiculous (we don't know, but presumably it's okay in some amounts since you're getting radiation doses every day even not living near anything nuclear).

"We don't know"??? Sorry, but we do know.

There's no 100% safe level because any level carries some risk. Higher levels means higher risk.

Background radiation has some risk, but it's a risk we accept. X-rays, plane flights, etc all have increased risk (hence people exposed to lots of x-rays wearing leads) but we accept them. Material from decommissioned nuclear plants is way higher on this scale.

Nuclear power has downsides as well as positives. Depending on your perspective (e.g. do you work cleaning up the aftermath, or just benefitting from the energy) one will outweigh the other.

[–] relic_@lemm.ee 5 points 23 hours ago

Okay I didn't understand OPs point I suppose. Worth nothing that they are designed to withstand airplane hits.

There's no 100% safe level because any level carries some risk.

Actually we don't know that and there's no valid empirical evidence to support that claim. We only have data at moderate to high levels. There's a big gap between walked passed a container of level waste and got impacted by a nuclear destination.

[–] Asetru@feddit.org -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

the idea that there's no safe amount of radiation is ridiculous

Except that's literally the current model used by scientific organisations: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model

[–] relic_@lemm.ee 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The model assumes a linear relationship between dose and health effects, even for very low doses where biological effects are more difficult to observe. The LNT model implies that all exposure to ionizing radiation is harmful, regardless of how low the dose is, and that the effect is cumulative over lifetime.

Emphasis mine. Sure that's a valid model, but not backed up by concrete empirical evidence.

[–] Asetru@feddit.org -2 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

Emphasis is misleading. If you think that an "assumption" is called an assumption because there's no evidence, you don't know how words are used in science. Also, it's supposed to be the other way round... If radiation damages cells (which I guess you don't seriously doubt) there needs to be evidence for a threshold, not for there not being one. Also:

Many expert scientific panels have been convened on the risks of ionizing radiation. Most explicitly support the LNT model and none have concluded that evidence exists for a threshold, with the exception of the French Academy of Sciences in a 2005 report.

The "controversy" chapter on that page is worth a read, but the point there is still pretty clear: most scientists do not see any indication for the existence of a threshold.

/edit

Also notice which country the scientists are from that don't agree on the lnt model... The one country that went all in on nuclear power. No shit, Sherlock.