Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

As long as the supply is NOT cut off, it matters quite a lot what Germany is paying for it. If the choice (for a set period of energy supply) is to pay either 100 billion euros for natural gas, or 20 billion euroes for uranium, the difference is 80 billion euroes less that Russia could spend to keep their war machine running. That's as much as their peacetime yearly military budget.

As for Russia's enrichment capacity, that is something any advanced country could set up, just as several countries have deposites they could start mining. Ones mining and enrichment has started, it could be kept running for as long as needed.

For natural gas, on the other hand, there are fewer good sources. By far the cheapest source is from wherever it can be transported in pipes. Other countries can convert their gas to LNG for transport to Germany, but that also requires expansion of LNG facilities in both ends, and perhaps construction of more LNG ships.

I don't know which take longer, between LNG from other sources or uranium from other sources.

And even when the transfer has been made, natural gas is a more limited resource than uranium, so even if it is purchased from, say, Saudi Arabia, the global supply and demand situation isn't changed much, so Russia will still be able to find buyers for their gas. (For instance, Germany may start to buy up gas that would otherwise be exported to China. If so, China can just buy from Russia.)

This doesn't even start to go into having dependencies on fundamentalist islamic monarchies in the middle east. I would think it would be preferrable for Germany to import their energy from Canada and Australia, countries they that share most of Germany's values.

Finally, with nuclear there is always the option of setting up strategic fuel reserves. This would be analogous to strategic oil reserves, except with massively lower storage costs. Nuclear fuel is stable for 100s of years, and so dense that reserves able to last a few years could probably be fit in a single warehouse (or several small ones):

[1] http://lnsp.mit.edu/strategic-fuel-reserves

> We hear that radioactive ceasum is still a problem with mushrooms and wild boars from the Bavarian Forest. The concept of its accumulation in the food chain is common knowledge.

I did a quick google of this, and found this article:

https://www.bfs.de/EN/topics/ion/environment/foodstuffs/mush...

According to the article (or rather one of the linked papers), the mean radiation level for some sample of meat was 4340 Bq/kg = 0.05mSv/kg. (EDIT, mSv, not mv)

Accoring to this overview, cancer risk is not measureable below 100mSv, and gradually increasing from there:

https://www.radiationanswers.org/radiation-and-me/effects-of....

Taken together, that means that in order to have any measureable increased risk of radiation, you need to heat 2000 kg of that kind of meat.

The maximum radiation level of meat to be sold, seems to be 600Bq/kg. At this level, you have to eat 10000kg before there is any increased risk.

By comparison, massive amounts of air polution from coal and gas plants, as well as transportation is allowed. According to this article, in Germany alone, there are 62300 yearly deaths from air polution:

https://epha.org/eu-air-quality-laws-protect-our-health-germ....

Most "normies" that I know, if presented with the first article, would get the impression that eating boar would be quite risky, and many would stop eating boar because of it. If they read the last one, they would just shrug. Pollution is not nice, but it is far less scary than those becquerels.

While in in fact, if every person in Berlin would eat 5 big fat boars (200kg meat each) from the contaminated area, the risk (not counting risk from obesity) would be insignificant compared to the air they breathe every day.

When presented this way, I definitely would count this as disinformation.

> The tale of a general public that had been mislead with propaganda is a pattern of argument that is typically used by anti-democratic movements.

When I claim that the general public is being mislead, it is because I crunch the numbers (hopefully without miscalculating). Air polution very measurably increases risk of death from cancer and a number of other diseases, while the case provided for Boars, for normal intakes of Boar meat, is extremely unlikely to be measurable.

Obviously (I hope) I do not suggest that we set democracy aside. But it wouldn't hurt if educated people were more active in spreading more accurate information, to counteract what I see as fear-mongering.

The crazy bit is climate change -- they intentionally moved backwards to more coal.