FDA says radiation is good for me. And I believe everything they tell me. They would never lie. FUGASHIMA is good for the planet. War is good for the people. Humans are the problem on this planet, not radiation. Geez.
It is amazing, how Fukushima was used by the anti-atomic lobby. Only 2 people died of radiation, but the media only focussed on the atomic issue and ignore that 16000 people died in the earth quake.
PS: Fossil-fuel power stations create a lot more radiation than nuclear power plants. The green propaganda people did not tell you? Maybe you will find the reason...
@AustrianAtheist No one ignored the quake or sunami. Maybe you didn't watch the news? The problem with Fukushima is the near 80,000 people dispossed as a 20km radus of land has become an exclusion zone, and the on going environmental disaster to cope with. Open you eyes and see past the immediate death toll.
You are from the UK, you did not see the German Fukushima media campaign. Look at the current Phillipines floods, 1000s people are struggling to survive, but the media does not really report it, because it is not about atomic energy.
The death toll is 0 and there is actually very little radiation, which already gets cleaned up. In parts of Europe radiation is higher than in fukushima. People are dispossed because the Tsunami destruction
PS: Every week a couple of 100 people die in coal mines.
@AustrianAtheist I watch German and international news chanels all the time bud. The news on anything is there if you look for it - we're discussing nuclear here. Please do some research about the levels of radiation in Japan. They are considering removing top soil from areas OUTSIDE the exclusion zone due to contamination. The exclusion zone and the 80,000 disposessed is due to the radioactivity danger, nothing to do with the Tsunami. watch?v=8vywZ84mixs
I disagree with nuclear plants, because there is no such thing as totally secure. We can learn this in the case of computers. No matter how many AV you have, there will be a virus or a hacker that can breach your security, and that's the same with the safety of nuclear power plants..
Nuclear Power = Green Energy. Why the fuck would you reject that? If you want some fossil fuel shit that produces a shitton of CO2 polluting the hell out of your environment and defile urban areas then be my guest. Bring it to us, we will take it :)
I'm fine with nuclear power, as long as those who own the nuclear plants are totally liable for any damage they may cause. So this means they will have to buy a MASSIVE insurance policy to cover the low probability of the most devastating disaster they might cause... The premiums on this policy will almost certainly render any such project not profitable, so it will not take place. The only reason we have such plants, is that the govt shields them from liability. And govts do not protect us.
@freesk8 son you realize fukushima plant was a soviet era design scheduled for retirement in a few years? Your nuke plants in germany are modern and you truly have nothing to worry about :)
@Melancolia793 Great! Then the new, safer reactors will have to pay lower risk insurance premiums to insure the rest of us against disasters! It may even be economical if the plant are really judged by the insurance underwriters as safe enough. But they should still be required to get and pay for this insurance. I do not trust the government to compensate us in the case of a disaster. Instead, they shield the nuke plant investors from risk and in that way subsidize them.
@freesk8 I just wish you realized the risk of a german nuke plant going bad is next to nothing compared to the risk of an hydroelectric dam to fail and kill thousands, and same goes with fossil fuel power that pollutes the air you breath and kills you slowly. Risk free viable energy source doesnt exist
@Melancolia793 And none of these other sources of power should be subsidized by the govt either. They should each have to buy catastrophic insurance policies to cover the particular risks they pose to the public, and the costs of these policies should be passed through to the consumers who use the power. The govt should not shield any power producer from liability. We can not trust the govt to pay the people for the damage caused. Higher prices yield conservation. Let the free market work.
@Melancolia793 The problem is that when the govt subsidizes the disaster insurance of the power that you buy and it uses my tax dollars to do it, I am already paying part of your bill. I want to stop doing that, but the govt that you support is using force against me to pay for your bill. You are the recipient of stolen money. I want it back. If you are poor and ask me nicely, I will probably help you pay your energy bill. But if you demand it of me, you can take a hike.
@HarunDanyal I agree, but nuke plant owners should still have to pay for an insurance policy that pays all those who are in the case of a disaster. Right now, the govt shields these entrepreneurs from risk, and that is a subsidy to a corporation. I'm just concerned about socializing risk and privatizing rewards. The free market should be allowed to work by eliminating externalities.
@freesk8 There's no way those who own the plants will pay for the waste storage for the next 10,000 years. They get to earn their money and future generations are left with the clean up :-(
If there is say 100 people protesting that there should be 402,500 protesting the the removal of coal waste from a coal power plant if you want to do it purely based on deaths caused per TW produced. I'm fairly sure this doesn't happen I wonder why this is?
@johnnyd101 But if you don't base it on deaths alone, there's the point that coal can't make fish grow a third eye or make earthworms grow to huge sizes.
@johnnyd101 over hyped risk? There was just a major nuclear accident in Fukishima! People died and are going to die from that shit. Not that coal is a viable alternative. It's just appropriate to be at the very least cautious about nukes. Basic probability and logic inform the danger of nuclear power.
@johnnyd101 that's not true. A number of people have died including workers. Not to mention the number who have exceeded exposure to lifetime legal limits. Don't tell me there isn't a human cost to that accident. There was a tremendous one.
Well people of Germany, you can either protest when the nuclear plants that you enjoy power from decide to dispose of waste in the safest way possible, or you can turn a blind eye when your companies dispose of the waste unsafely and illegally in developing nations in Africa, like many European companies currently do.
@Balian49 Germany has a plant to phase out all of their nuclear reactors, exempt the ones for medical and other research so they won't be enjoying it for much longer.
FDA says radiation is good for me. And I believe everything they tell me. They would never lie. FUGASHIMA is good for the planet. War is good for the people. Humans are the problem on this planet, not radiation. Geez.
2012goingNutz 3 months ago
It is amazing, how Fukushima was used by the anti-atomic lobby. Only 2 people died of radiation, but the media only focussed on the atomic issue and ignore that 16000 people died in the earth quake.
PS: Fossil-fuel power stations create a lot more radiation than nuclear power plants. The green propaganda people did not tell you? Maybe you will find the reason...
AustrianAtheist 3 months ago
@AustrianAtheist No one ignored the quake or sunami. Maybe you didn't watch the news? The problem with Fukushima is the near 80,000 people dispossed as a 20km radus of land has become an exclusion zone, and the on going environmental disaster to cope with. Open you eyes and see past the immediate death toll.
22ness0hayden 2 months ago
You are from the UK, you did not see the German Fukushima media campaign. Look at the current Phillipines floods, 1000s people are struggling to survive, but the media does not really report it, because it is not about atomic energy.
The death toll is 0 and there is actually very little radiation, which already gets cleaned up. In parts of Europe radiation is higher than in fukushima. People are dispossed because the Tsunami destruction
PS: Every week a couple of 100 people die in coal mines.
AustrianAtheist 2 months ago
@AustrianAtheist I watch German and international news chanels all the time bud. The news on anything is there if you look for it - we're discussing nuclear here. Please do some research about the levels of radiation in Japan. They are considering removing top soil from areas OUTSIDE the exclusion zone due to contamination. The exclusion zone and the 80,000 disposessed is due to the radioactivity danger, nothing to do with the Tsunami. watch?v=8vywZ84mixs
22ness0hayden 2 months ago
Message from Government : "we don't care if you don't want it, bend over and take it bitches"
MrROTD 3 months ago
so UN does not attack Germany for having nuclear weapons but they attack Iran why
MrWatchmen759 3 months ago
@MrWatchmen759
lol
lumberj23 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I disagree with nuclear plants, because there is no such thing as totally secure. We can learn this in the case of computers. No matter how many AV you have, there will be a virus or a hacker that can breach your security, and that's the same with the safety of nuclear power plants..
MrRyuzaki91 3 months ago
Re-route the train to Merkel's address and send a second train to Sarkozy. I won't say what more I would wish happen with these trains.
Magenta408 3 months ago
Nuclear Power = Green Energy. Why the fuck would you reject that? If you want some fossil fuel shit that produces a shitton of CO2 polluting the hell out of your environment and defile urban areas then be my guest. Bring it to us, we will take it :)
0561661241 3 months ago
wooo, they pluralized 'cannon' correctly.
mbbeattybam 3 months ago
I LOVE HOW THEY MAKE IT SO BLAINT ABOUT WERE IT IS THEY KEEP IT ITS LIKE THEY WANT SOMEONE TO GET IT
thedude44963 3 months ago
you poor, misinformed, opinionated souls.
Melancolia793 3 months ago
Germans are smart. They know Nuclear Power poses a huge liability.
CyberDruidtheModGod 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL COMMENTS AWAITING REVIEW BY AJE ISLAMIC CENSORS.
yourtreat2 3 months ago
These protesters are fucking stupid they should just let them get run over.
The reason Germany sent the trains to begin with was to decrease use of nuclear power which is also dumb.
laxzzzen 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FUCK YOU ALL THIS WORLD IS NOT TO BE KILLED YOU SUCK ASS FUCK !
smpowned 3 months ago
Anyone notice how hot the "Intense Heat" actually was?? Around 30 Degrees Celcius. I piss hotter than that.
11Nosam11 3 months ago
@11Nosam11
Shut up! Knowlege about Physics is the tool of the devil. ;-)
Greenpeace will hate you now....
lumberj23 3 months ago in playlist More videos from AlJazeeraEnglish 3
I'm fine with nuclear power, as long as those who own the nuclear plants are totally liable for any damage they may cause. So this means they will have to buy a MASSIVE insurance policy to cover the low probability of the most devastating disaster they might cause... The premiums on this policy will almost certainly render any such project not profitable, so it will not take place. The only reason we have such plants, is that the govt shields them from liability. And govts do not protect us.
freesk8 3 months ago 14
@freesk8 son you realize fukushima plant was a soviet era design scheduled for retirement in a few years? Your nuke plants in germany are modern and you truly have nothing to worry about :)
Melancolia793 3 months ago
@Melancolia793 Great! Then the new, safer reactors will have to pay lower risk insurance premiums to insure the rest of us against disasters! It may even be economical if the plant are really judged by the insurance underwriters as safe enough. But they should still be required to get and pay for this insurance. I do not trust the government to compensate us in the case of a disaster. Instead, they shield the nuke plant investors from risk and in that way subsidize them.
freesk8 3 months ago
@freesk8 I just wish you realized the risk of a german nuke plant going bad is next to nothing compared to the risk of an hydroelectric dam to fail and kill thousands, and same goes with fossil fuel power that pollutes the air you breath and kills you slowly. Risk free viable energy source doesnt exist
Melancolia793 3 months ago
@Melancolia793 And none of these other sources of power should be subsidized by the govt either. They should each have to buy catastrophic insurance policies to cover the particular risks they pose to the public, and the costs of these policies should be passed through to the consumers who use the power. The govt should not shield any power producer from liability. We can not trust the govt to pay the people for the damage caused. Higher prices yield conservation. Let the free market work.
freesk8 3 months ago
@freesk8 if you wanna pay my bill then go for it!
Melancolia793 3 months ago
@Melancolia793 The problem is that when the govt subsidizes the disaster insurance of the power that you buy and it uses my tax dollars to do it, I am already paying part of your bill. I want to stop doing that, but the govt that you support is using force against me to pay for your bill. You are the recipient of stolen money. I want it back. If you are poor and ask me nicely, I will probably help you pay your energy bill. But if you demand it of me, you can take a hike.
freesk8 3 months ago
@freesk8 The main reason we have nuclear power plants is because they are incredibly efficient, clean and reliable.
HarunDanyal 3 months ago
@HarunDanyal I agree, but nuke plant owners should still have to pay for an insurance policy that pays all those who are in the case of a disaster. Right now, the govt shields these entrepreneurs from risk, and that is a subsidy to a corporation. I'm just concerned about socializing risk and privatizing rewards. The free market should be allowed to work by eliminating externalities.
freesk8 3 months ago
@freesk8 Good points.
HarunDanyal 3 months ago
@freesk8 There's no way those who own the plants will pay for the waste storage for the next 10,000 years. They get to earn their money and future generations are left with the clean up :-(
22ness0hayden 2 months ago
Die sollen über die scheiß Hippies drüberrollen.
Ich würd mich schlapplachen
Tass1701 3 months ago 4
stick this in Merkel's Ass!!
stratosjoebar 3 months ago
nur in Deutschland...
i2406 3 months ago 4
If there is say 100 people protesting that there should be 402,500 protesting the the removal of coal waste from a coal power plant if you want to do it purely based on deaths caused per TW produced. I'm fairly sure this doesn't happen I wonder why this is?
johnnyd101 3 months ago
@johnnyd101 But if you don't base it on deaths alone, there's the point that coal can't make fish grow a third eye or make earthworms grow to huge sizes.
Luminasita 3 months ago
@Luminasita What?
johnnyd101 3 months ago
@johnnyd101 aside from Liminasita's point, it's because of the potential damage any one of those plants would cause.
Demarcoa 3 months ago
@Demarcoa so over hyped risks that never happen are worse than actual effects that are ruining our planet and killing a lot of people every year?
johnnyd101 3 months ago
@johnnyd101 over hyped risk? There was just a major nuclear accident in Fukishima! People died and are going to die from that shit. Not that coal is a viable alternative. It's just appropriate to be at the very least cautious about nukes. Basic probability and logic inform the danger of nuclear power.
Demarcoa 3 months ago
@Demarcoa no one has died from fukishima
johnnyd101 3 months ago
@johnnyd101 that's not true. A number of people have died including workers. Not to mention the number who have exceeded exposure to lifetime legal limits. Don't tell me there isn't a human cost to that accident. There was a tremendous one.
Demarcoa 3 months ago
@Demarcoa give me their names because i know no one died??
johnnyd101 3 months ago
@johnnyd101 wikipedia mentioned them, though not by name.
Demarcoa 3 months ago
@Demarcoa wikipedia says none according to Comparison of Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accidents
johnnyd101 3 months ago
@johnnyd101 that's not what I read. : / Check the casualties section.
Demarcoa 3 months ago
@Demarcoa it says 2 died from the injuries caused by the earthquake. but no one from radiation
johnnyd101 3 months ago
Ohh and dont forget if they dont reprocess it and deposit it somewhere, it stays at the plant in the cooling pools. Well thats safe.........
shintsu01 3 months ago
Heading for the coast of somalia
surfboardhacker 3 months ago
@surfboardhacker yep!!
ministry75 3 months ago
Well people of Germany, you can either protest when the nuclear plants that you enjoy power from decide to dispose of waste in the safest way possible, or you can turn a blind eye when your companies dispose of the waste unsafely and illegally in developing nations in Africa, like many European companies currently do.
Balian49 3 months ago
@Balian49 Germany has a plant to phase out all of their nuclear reactors, exempt the ones for medical and other research so they won't be enjoying it for much longer.
ManTheBush 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh, please! Spare us the Islamophobia.
And we are talking about nuclear power plants, not nuclear weapons.
R3dp055um 3 months ago 2
You have to admire the German Progressive community. They turn out and protest with such vigor and enthusiasm! :)
R3dp055um 3 months ago 12
@R3dp055um its best germany gets rid of its nukes before muslims take over
bloodyhawk989 3 months ago
@bloodyhawk989 what has it to do with muslims??
CanZu7 3 months ago
@R3dp055um i agree!!!
dinavienna 3 months ago
@dinavienna (in the vigor of the progressive German community)
dinavienna 3 months ago