> Opposition to nuclear power isn't a political

Sorry, I don't get this. Of course your opposition on something can be based on ideology. That is the case if your opposition is more based on your history and tradition than on current facts.

I personally think that there are enough facts to say that nuclear is not really a great option, but I also think that the Green's opposition is based more on ideology (i.e. because they have been historically against it) than on facts. For me, that is evident when they talk more about nuclear risks in general than about financial considerations.

The distinction of "history and tradition" and "current facts", as well as "nuclear risks" and "financial considerations" is entirely arbitrary. You assume people are against nuclear power not because they are convinced because of the facts (as they see it). Or are you confusing your opinion with "facts"? That may explain why you think that a different tolerance for risk is not fact-based, because it is counter to your opinion what a reasonable risk tolerance is.

Most of the Germans who would vote against nuclear power have nothing to do with any combination of "Greens", "Socialists", "Hippies" or whatever other pejorative you can come up with. Individuals largely decide this on their own and the consensus was reached.

If you think Greens are opposed to nuclear power because "they always been against it", you just never heard them out and just assume that. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

If you don't think anti-nuclear is political (or propaganda), I have a bridge to sell you.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-f...

You prove my point. Most people who are against nuclear have and want nothing to do with political activists of the sort.

There may indeed a counterargument in that right-wingers and Neonazis are pro-nuclear because they hate those who rationally say no to the risks.

Of course it's political. Schroeder went with Greens for various reasons - some of them include his voters being coal miners on verge of protests. Others may be connected to him being on board of the Gazprom.

Something can become a topic of political decision without being a political ideology. The broad majority of Germans who where anti-nuclear are just not ideologically uniform and don't behave that way. We don't dislike nuclear power because we hate the proponents of nuclear power and vice versa. Of course there are exceptions.

> We don't dislike nuclear power because we hate the proponents of nuclear power and vice versa.

You're right. We need to go one level deeper on that.

Germans hate nuclear power, because they were subject to well constructed propaganda, that very well exploited Chernobyl events.

This propaganda was result of political plays, but did not called to any political views by itself. Thus the current situation, where most Germans think it's reasonable stance, while living surrounded by harmless nuclear reactors everywhere in Europe and burying thousands of people dying due to coal pollution.

Your labeling of "political plays" and "propaganda" is entirely arbitrary. You neglect that those who did what you say is "propaganda" were just as worried about the technology.

The fact is there are lots of legitimate concerns about the risks around nuclear technology, with and without nuclear weapons in the mix. Opposition to nuclear power is driven by a different tolerance of such risk and especially a lower trust in what some scientists say about the risks, after they had been wrong a few times. Not all scientists, because quite a few don't see nuclear power as a risk worth taking. To me, what you are doing is itself dishonest and ignorant, by broadly calling all of this "propaganda".

Dear Western Freunde, please tell me what should happen for you to think my reasons are legitimate?

Let me tell you some facts: * Current number of nuclear plants in the world:440 (103 in EU) * Current number of high profile nuclear plant failures in the world: 2 * Direct victims of the nuclear plants failures: less,than 300(direct), less than 19k (indirect, non confirmed) * Coal victims:800k PER YEAR. This x40 as much. * Just for the comparison - wind power death tool is similar to nuclear plants.

Enshuldigung, aber, if anyone is on arbitrary side it's you(in my opinion). No hard feelings. My country had bias for the miners also, which pushed us for many shitty decisions.

It's a fallacy to assume future risks can be calculated from past data. In the case of nuclear power this is is especially dangerous.

You are simply lying and dishonest. Coal is not the only alternative to nuclear power. Nor can you stop climate change with the level of nuclear power (and thus risk thereof) we have right now. There would need to be a nuclear industry in virtually every country, including the less trustworthy ones.

You think the situation around nuclear weapons right now is contained? Wait until most of Asia and Africa have nuclear plants and can think about weaponization. Dirty bombs with stolen nuclear waste within a few decades are almost guaranteed.

> Wait until most of Asia and Africa have nuclear plants and can think about weaponization.

Good thing, that decisions in Europe will stop Asia and Africa :) /s

> You are simply lying and dishonest.

Where exactly?

> Coal is not the only alternative to nuclear power.

What is? Assuming you need this in "virtually every country", and some of the richest (such as Germany) fail to implement alternatives, you expect "less thrustworthy" to somehow manage it?

> Dirty bombs with stolen nuclear waste within a few decades are almost guaranteed.

And again, how exactly blocking nuclear plants in Germany changes anything here?