German poll: Majority for return to nuclear energy – DW – 04/04/2025
www.dw.com
Some 55% of Germans favor a reversal of nuclear policy according to a marketing poll. The issue has been a point of contention between parties seeking to form a coalition government.

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.

  • relic_@lemm.eeEnglish
    28·
    3 months ago

    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.orgEnglish
      8·
      3 months 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.

      • relic_@lemm.eeEnglish
        5·
        3 months ago

        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.orgEnglish
          2·
          3 months 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.