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 :-)
"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.
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.
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.
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.
I feel almost infinitely more threatened by a lack of electric power than a nuclear plant accident (the nearest one is about 35 km from here, for the record). And that is much more likely to happen; from some perspective, it even seems inevitable.
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.
Any production of electricity is going to result in deaths. It is simply the nature of the immense scale modern society operates on. Coal power plants release pollutants that shorten the lives of tens of thousands of people a year. Coal mining kills thousands and devastates environments. Have you seen the picture of mountains that were leveled for coal in West Virginia?
Most of the mercury in fish originates from coal-burning power plants. [1]
Do you fly? A single airliner accident can kill hundreds at a time, but cars kill many more people a year. Somehow it's more acceptable for people to die one or two at a time in great numbers.
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.
No matter how you compute statistics, a nuclear meltdown is a big downside risk. It can happen, and if it happens it's extremely destructive. It's an event with a small chance of occurence but with great consequences.
That's qualitatively different from something like traffic accidents. The chances of those happening are much higher, but if they happen, they affect at most a few people, They won't turn your city into a 'wildlife reserve' for years to come.
Even though the total amount of people that die of traffic accidents is higher, to me it's less scary. The risks are more manageable: you have some degree of control over it (drive safely) and the consequences are visible.
It's not a personal attack and now you're using a strawman argument to deflect my response (I'm not saying you don't have a right to voice a personal opinion, simply that you aren't looking at this objectively). If you read the link I posted you'll see that what you think is a "large downside risk" only seems that way because of a perception fallacy - we believe incidents like nuclear explosions and airplane crashes are much riskier than everyday risks like lung cancer deaths and car accidents.
