Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kraftwerk's radical 1976 track

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 222 posts

Re: Kraftwerk's radical 1976 track

#31

Post by 01100011 »

colechristensen wrote: post #29
01100011 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like most backward looking judgements these days, such things require understanding the culture and zeitgeist of the mid 70s. I'm pro-nuclear as well, but understand that for many decades the "smart" thing to do was to oppose it. I wouldn't expect a musical artist to have a more nuanced opinion than most of their contemporaries.

It was largely our own governments wanting to scare us of nukes so we'd be scared of the Soviets, like in America with the schoolchildren doing duck and cover drills. Having enemies the population is afraid of is good for politicians and they'll take any enemies they can find, and they'll do so indiscriminately regardless of the real nuance of the issues. Immigrants, abortion, this religion or that, rock music, jazz…

I think it came from peaceniks and hippies mostly. You're talking about the equivalent of modern anti-vax liberals. Anti-science and given to conspiracies and mysticism.

There was a pretty good reason to be scared of nukes when these folks were children in the 50s. The world was quite a different place back then. The US was lagging behind the Soviets, militarily speaking, and Communism was much more expansionary.

Re: Kraftwerk's radical 1976 track

#32

Post by cma »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #27
rectang wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And perhaps meaningfully contributed to a reduction in the quantity of radioactive waste products requiring custodianship on a timescale that humans can barely conceive of let alone commit to or execute responsibly.

I always find this sentiment curious for 2 reasons: 1. Radioactive waste gets less toxic over time unlike many toxins like mercury, lead, and cyanide. People seem to emphasize the duration of toxicity for radiation while apparently giving 'forever toxins' a total pass. 2. Short-lived radiation is what's really dangerous. When atoms are decaying fast, they're shooting out energy that can cause real damage fast. Longer…

There were also big proliferation concerns out of 70s era designs.

Re: Kraftwerk's radical 1976 track

#33

Post by rectang »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #27
rectang wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And perhaps meaningfully contributed to a reduction in the quantity of radioactive waste products requiring custodianship on a timescale that humans can barely conceive of let alone commit to or execute responsibly.

I always find this sentiment curious for 2 reasons: 1. Radioactive waste gets less toxic over time unlike many toxins like mercury, lead, and cyanide. People seem to emphasize the duration of toxicity for radiation while apparently giving 'forever toxins' a total pass. 2. Short-lived radiation is what's really dangerous. When atoms are decaying fast, they're shooting out energy that can cause real damage fast. Longer…

I don't trust the coal industry to manage forever chemicals over the long term, and I don't trust the nuclear industry to manage spent nuclear fuel over the long term.

The question that matters for both industries is what bad things happen when their stewardship inevitably lapses and the happy path dead-ends.

I don't like either answer, so that heightens the urgency of pursuing alternatives with fewer long-lived hazardous byproducts. Neither coal nor nuclear is an acceptable long term solution.

Re: Kraftwerk's radical 1976 track

#34

Post by TurdF3rguson »

colechristensen wrote: post #29
01100011 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like most backward looking judgements these days, such things require understanding the culture and zeitgeist of the mid 70s. I'm pro-nuclear as well, but understand that for many decades the "smart" thing to do was to oppose it. I wouldn't expect a musical artist to have a more nuanced opinion than most of their contemporaries.

It was largely our own governments wanting to scare us of nukes so we'd be scared of the Soviets, like in America with the schoolchildren doing duck and cover drills. Having enemies the population is afraid of is good for politicians and they'll take any enemies they can find, and they'll do so indiscriminately regardless of the real nuance of the issues. Immigrants, abortion, this religion or that, rock music, jazz…

The Soviets were parking nukes in Cuba in striking distance of the White House. If that's not legitimately terrifying to you, I just don't know.

Re: Kraftwerk's radical 1976 track

#36

Post by erickhill »

Saw them last year in Seattle. One of those bands I never thought I'd get the chance to see (I'm 54), but thanks to them they are still touring and making great music.

It was an amazing show, and incredible night.

Re: Kraftwerk's radical 1976 track

#37

Post by zorked »

TurdF3rguson wrote: post #34
colechristensen wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was largely our own governments wanting to scare us of nukes so we'd be scared of the Soviets, like in America with the schoolchildren doing duck and cover drills. Having enemies the population is afraid of is good for politicians and they'll take any enemies they can find, and they'll do so indiscriminately regardless of the real nuance of the issues. Immigrants, abortion, this religion or that, rock music, jazz…

The Soviets were parking nukes in Cuba in striking distance of the White House. If that's not legitimately terrifying to you, I just don't know.

Not anymore than the US being able to strike worldwide to this very moment. They are the only country that has used nuclear bombs against civilians.

The big problem is having one country be able to do it without deterrents and with impunity. MAD is a good thing, if anyone will have those things at all.

Re: Kraftwerk's radical 1976 track

#38

Post by AngryData »

rectang wrote: post #28
mgfist wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coal power produces more radiation waste into the environment than nuclear power. That's because nuclear power has this amazing quality where all the waste is neatly packaged whereas burning coal just releases it into the air. > requiring custodianship on a timescale that humans can barely conceive of let alone commit to or execute responsibly. This is fearmongering. Casing waste in big concrete casks is enough. It's…

I distrust techno-optimist promises to manage ever-growing collections of spent nuclear fuel over millennia. We can hardly trust plant operators to manage it safely over decades. Will it actually get encased successfully, will it be stored onsite in environmentally sensitive areas because it’s too much trouble to move, will your children’s children uphold the commitments you foisted on them through the political and…

Because of anti-nuclear sentiments we are right now currently storing used nuclear waste in its most dangerous form in the most open and uncontained and open storage lots. Worrying about expanding nuclear and ending up putting the waste in a hole deep in the ground is such a nonissue to me. If humans blast themselves back to the neolithic era and 5,000 years from now some dudes die from walking into some old facility die, who cares? There are masses of people dieing right now because we are still relying on fossil fuels, many of them from cancer from breathing the radioactive fallout that is downstream of every coal plant.

Re: Kraftwerk's radical 1976 track

#39

Post by emptybits »

If you like Kraftwerk and you're not aware of this book, I recommend it:

"Kraftwerk: Future Music from Germany", by Uwe Schütte. It's packed with details of albums, songs, tours, equipment, and people.

The anti-nuclear message in "Radio-Activity" certainly came later and was repeatedly updated, right into the Fukushima era [2011], but this was not the original sentiment [1976]. From the book:

"At the time, Billboard magazine featured the most-played singles by the large network of radio stations under the heading 'Radio Action'. The band seemed to have misread or misremembered this as 'Radio-Activity'. 'Suddenly,' remembers Wolfgang Flür, 'there was a theme in the air, the activity of radio stations, and the title of 'Radioactivity is in the Air for You and Me' was born. All we needed was the music to go with it. ... The ambiguity of the theme didn't come until later.' Radio-Activity was intended to celebrate radio broadcasting as a convenient, easy and democratic means to listen to music and news."

Re: Kraftwerk's radical 1976 track

#40

Post by TurdF3rguson »

zorked wrote: post #37
TurdF3rguson wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Soviets were parking nukes in Cuba in striking distance of the White House. If that's not legitimately terrifying to you, I just don't know.

Not anymore than the US being able to strike worldwide to this very moment. They are the only country that has used nuclear bombs against civilians. The big problem is having one country be able to do it without deterrents and with impunity. MAD is a good thing, if anyone will have those things at all.

One of those things is scarier to American school children and their teachers than the other.
Post reply on HN