Anti-nuclear protesters clash with police in northern Germany

[RedZero]

http://wireupdate.com/anti-nuclear-protesters-clash-with-police-in-northern-germany.html

BERLIN (BNO NEWS) -- Anti-nuclear protesters clashed with police in Germany on Friday as a train carrying nuclear waste edged its way across the country, the dpa news agency reported on Saturday.

Protesters tried to stop the train on early Friday morning after it crossed the border into Germany from France. The so-called Castor transport, with a cargo of 11 tightly-sealed casks containing the hazardous material, was being shipped to temporary waste storage facilities in the northern German town of Gorleben.

About 20,000 police officers were deployed to oversee the train's journey to the controversial storage site. Police had attempted to disperse demonstrators with water cannons and pepper spray, but protesters still managed to set two police cars on fire.

Around 800 to 1,000 demonstrators blocked a main street near the Gorleben facilities and pelted police with bottles, stones, eggs and paint bombs. Police moved to clear the street, leaving many protesters and eight police officers injured. Five protesters were arrested, police said.

"Police violence is not a legitimate means to suppress public protests against the illegal cargo," said the anti-nuclear transport group Citizens' Initiative in Luechow and Dannenberg - two towns near the Gorleben site.

The protests in Germany followed violent clashes between police and demonstrators on the French side of the border, according to dpa.

The shipment is the last in a series of nuclear waste transports to be made from France to Germany. The waste was produced in Germany and treated at a nuclear reprocessing plant in northern France.

Germany previously decided to phase out nuclear energy by 2022 after an accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan earlier this year. However, the German government has not yet found a permanent solution to storing nuclear waste.

[RedZero]

Great pictures of the event: http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/11/protesters-disrupt-german-nuclear-waste-shipment/100196/

[tir1944]

Laughable.Don't they have anything better to protest about?
Hippies...

[His Dudeness]

Laughable.Don't they have anything better to protest about?
Hippies...

Are you serious? Demonstrating against nuclear waste is a thing that every leftist should support.

[tir1944]

No,it's bullshit.
Why aren't they protesting agaist their (and other EU) country dumping "regular" ( and toxic/rad) waste on African beaches by tons?
Nuclear waste is a normal byproduct of nuclear energy.When it's safely stored it's not a problem.

[Smyg]

Tir... for fuck's sake. :rolleyes:

[tir1944]

What i said is true.
Fighting against nuclear energy is stupid because it's a fight against progress.
Environmentalists,again,should focus on their countries dumping waste in Africa and elsewhere instead of protesting against nuclear waste regularly disposed of.

[Sasha]

A. its not regularly disposed of, do some research before you stick your foot in your mouth
b. this is the biggest radical grassroots anti-government movement in western europe, if only for that radical leftist should be involved.

[Sasha]

Besides, these are anything but hippies, its a whole county in uprising including hundreds of farmers supplemented by thousands of autonomist Marxists and anarchists

[Smyg]

The movement is damn impressive, by European standards.

[tir1944]

its not regularly disposed of, do some research before you stick your foot in your mouth
Is that so? Source?


b. this is the biggest radical grassroots anti-government movement in western europe, if only for that radical leftist should be involved.
Bigger than the movement in Greece?
Also yeah,you maybe have a point,i'm not sure however.


Besides, these are anything but hippies, its a whole county in uprising including hundreds of farmers supplemented by thousands of autonomist Marxists and anarchists

Why,do these "Marxists" want the nuclear PPs closed down?

[Ocean Seal]

A. its not regularly disposed of, do some research before you stick your foot in your mouth
b. this is the biggest radical grassroots anti-government movement in western europe, if only for that radical leftist should be involved.
That doesn't make it reason for us to get involved. Nuclear energy is for the most part a better alternative to what we have now, and a more realistic alternative than the others that are proposed. It's not even a question of environmentalism here. Should we fight against the nuclear industry; only as a greater part of capitalism as a whole. I see no reason to focus our efforts on this false demon of nuclear power. Should we demand high regulations and proper procedures for taking care of nuclear byproducts within borders and abroad? Absolutely, but I don't understand the point of getting all willy nilly over nuclear power.

[Smyg]

this is the biggest radical grassroots anti-government movement in western europe


Bigger than the movement in Greece?



Hm.

[Sasha]

The movement is damn impressive, by European standards.

Damn right, you should only check their ticker http://castorticker.de to see how fucking well organized the movement is.
Def something we could al learn from.

Previous thread with more info: http://www.revleft.com/vb/castor-train-nuclear-t164964/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/heavy-protests-clashes-t144552/index.html?t=144552

[tir1944]

Good point Smyg,i stand corrected.
However i still see no reason why should leftists support this.
There's a bunch of much more relevant envir. issues right now...

[IndependentCitizen]

No,it's bullshit.
Why aren't they protesting agaist their (and other EU) country dumping "regular" ( and toxic/rad) waste on African beaches by tons?
Nuclear waste is a normal byproduct of nuclear energy.When it's safely stored it's not a problem.

I'm sure they would, but can you afford to travel back and forth to protest?

[Smyg]

There's a bunch of much more relevant envir. issues right now...


True, but this is an actual, living, breathing movement that exists right now.



Good point Smyg,i stand corrected.



:thumbup1:

[Sasha]

It's not only environmental, its in a big way about federal government, in the pocket of big company leeching on bilions of public money, refusing to listen to the will of the people.

[Ocean Seal]

It's not only environmental, its in a big way about federal government, in the pocket of big company leeching on bilions of public money, refusing to listen to the will of the people.
In many ways yes, that is the base and material reason for this. But we shouldn't endorse the anti-nuclear sentiment on the basis that it is being coupled with an anti-capitalist sentiment. In fact that's how anti-capitalist sentiments get co-opted. What we should be doing is focusing on the aspects that you are promoting while still understanding that the nuclear industry isn't a specific evil of capitalism as many opportunistic third way politics promoters might have us believe.

[Per Levy]

Why,do these "Marxists" want the nuclear PPs closed down?

because the nuclear pp are owned by capitalists companies that have super tight ties with the german state. also there ia a strong antinuclear sentiment in the german public, going back to the 70s and 80s.


Fighting against nuclear energy is stupid because it's a fight against progress.

well progress, its not like many of the nuclear pp are old and new technology isnt really invested in because that doesnt make as much money as keeping the old plants running.


Laughable.Don't they have anything better to protest about?
Hippies...

again, its not like the nuclear waste is dumped under the firlds, farms, cities of that region. this movement is that strong because almost the entire public of that region is against dumpng nuclear waste under their houses and so on. would you like that and not go on and protest it?

and about the "hippie" part, that is actually laughable, since this is one of the biggest violent protests every year in germany, with an entire region being against state forces. there are 20000 police troops deployed there.

[Princess Luna]

Are you serious? Demonstrating against nuclear waste is a thing that every leftist should support.
Demonstrating against Nuclear power makes sense (even if I disagree with it), demonstrating against nuclear waste makes no fucking sense, what are the goals? The nuclear waste already exists, you can't wish it away. So isn't more reasonable to let the government dispose of it and focus on keeping more waste from being created? But the epitome of stupidity, is actually attacking a train transporting nuclear waste, how much more moronic could they get...

[Sasha]

The goal isn't to stop this train, its to make this one so expensive that they cant afford future ones.
And with a estimated 36 + million in one weekend they seem to be pretty right on track.

[tir1944]

Wow,great! If they actually suceed in making the proper disposal impossible this waste will end up in Somalia as numerous previous examples of such behavior tell us (because radwaste has to end up somewhere)!
Good job activists!
:thumbup1:

[Sasha]

No more nuclear power would also mean no more nuclear waste in Africa, on both ends of the chain...
Because don't forget this "clean" energy is only clean in the rich countries where the electricity is used, the places where it gets mined face pollution maybe only seccond to open asbestos mines.
Even only from an anti-imperialist perspective we should oppose uranium based nuclear energy.

[Nox]

No more nuclear power would also mean no more nuclear waste in Africa, on both ends of the chain...
Because don't forget this "clean" energy is only clean in the rich countries where the electricity is used, the places where it gets mined face pollution maybe only seccond to open asbestos mines.
Even only from an anti-imperialist perspective we should oppose uranium based nuclear energy.

FFS I can't wait until we can do fusion, that would totally solve this problem.

[tir1944]

No more nuclear power would also mean no more nuclear waste in Africa, on both ends of the chain...Yes,it means more coal and oil stolen from the Third World,not to mention the pollution.Since it obviously still can't be replaced with sun/wind energy yet.

[Sasha]

Yes,it means more coal and oil stolen from the Third World,not to mention the pollution.Since it obviously still can't be replaced with sun/wind energy yet.


Coal production has grown fastest in Asia, while Europe has declined. The top coal mining nations (figures in brackets are 2009 estimate of total coal production in millions of tons)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining#cite_note-bpCoal-11) are:


China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China) (3,050 Mt)
US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) (973 Mt)
India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) (557 Mt)
Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia) (409 Mt)
South Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa) (250 Mt)
Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia) (298 Mt)
Indonesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia) (252 Mt)
Poland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland) (135 Mt)
Kazakhstan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan) (101 Mt)
Colombia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia) (72 Mt)

Most coal production is used in the country of origin, with around 16 percent of hard coal production being exported.



as to the oil, the only mayor oil producing country that could be considered "3th world" and who faces significant "pollution" from the extraction method is nigeria.

uranium mining killed hundreds of natives in the US and kills hundreds of people in niger (the french uranium mining company doesnt even inform its african workers about the health risks, see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_debate), kazachstan, south africa etc etc

also during the extraction and processing so much fossil fuel is used that every nuclear powerplants carbon footprint exceeds that of a natural gas burning one in a significant way (see: http://www.greatchange.org/bb-thermochemical-nuclear_sustainability_rev.pdf PDF!.

now dont get me wrong, i'm not against nuclear energy in principle and completely supportive of nuclear research.

but contrary to the industry lobby lies you seem to have fallen for current nuclear power is neither "cheap" (it needs huge amounts of public money we will never get back, the nuclear industry is the biggest welfare baby we have) nor "safe" (not at the begin point in the mines, not during production and certainly not the waste product) nor "inexhaustible" (uranium reserves are now already poised to run out before the oil does, a mass switch to nuclear energy in the first world would deplete it even in less than two decades), the current nuclear industry is not a innovation, let alone a solution, it's a sham.

so long as we dont have enough sustainable clean energy from either sun/wind/water or nuclear fusion the best alternative is next generation natural gas plants, not nuclear energy

[The Douche]

tir1994, under no circumstances does an individual have to support nuclear power in order to be a communist, and I really, really resent the implication.

Nuclear power and nuclear waste are dangerous, for the environment and the individuals working in those fields. I am not saying that nuclear technology is inherently dangerous (though it may be, I'm not nuclear scientist), but under capitalism it is never going to be safe enough to justify its use.

[tir1944]

so long as we dont have enough sustainable clean energy from either sun/wind/water or nuclear fusion the best alternative is next generation natural gas plants, not nuclear energy Gas is expensive and not that efficient.


tir1994, under no circumstances does an individual have to support nuclear power in order to be a communist, and I really, really resent the implication.No one ever said this."Supporting" nuclear energy is a question of common sense,not a question of ideology.


Nuclear power and nuclear waste are dangerous, for the environment and the individuals working in those fields. Sure,so are oil and coal power plants.
In fact,oil and coal power plants likely cause even MORE health & environmental problems than nuclear ones do,according to this study:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste


I am not saying that nuclear technology is inherently dangerous (though it may be, I'm not nuclear scientist)It is inherently dangerous,just like pretty much everything in industry.


but under capitalism it is never going to be safe enough to justify its use. But under socialism it will somehow become safe enough? How and why?
Didn't Kyshtym and Chernobyl happen in a socialist state (please,FFS,don't pull off the "state capitalism" manouever :laugh:) ?

[blah]

Ahh... This kind of people give leftists a bad name. Nuclear energy, even in its current inefficient once-through form, is far better than the only real alternative - fossil energy. It must be clear to those who at least researched the topic a bit.


also during the extraction and processing so much fossil fuel is used that every nuclear powerplants carbon footprint exceeds that of a natural gas burning one in a significant way

I dont know how they arrived at such conclusion but its wrong. To suggest that extraction and enrichment of uranium makes so much CO2 that it is not offset many times over its lifetime in a reactor compared to fossil powerplants that continuously release large amounts of CO2 (and in addition ALSO require CO2-intensive extraction of natural gas or coal) is absurd.
Nuclear energy is a very low-carbon energy source, even of we take into account full life cycle and use of very low uranium ores.

Also, in your link they claimed seawater uranium extraction is "ridiculously expensive". Thats not true, the cost of uranium mined now is 130 usd/kg, and the cost of uranium produced by experimental seawater uranium extraction in Japan was 300 usd/kg. The enriched fuel rods make only 9% of the nuclear plant operation cost - therefore even significant increase of uranium ore cost wont change the cost of electricity very much.

Not even talking about that because of these antinuclear sentiments building of new modern nuclear plants and research in new nuclear technology (such as IFR or thorium) which will have the disadvantages significantly reduced, is very unpopular.

[The Douche]

No one ever said this."Supporting" nuclear energy is a question of common sense,not a question of ideology.


Actually, you did say that communists should not protest nuclear energy, which implies that communists should support it.


Sure,so are oil and coal power plants.
In fact,oil and coal power plants likely cause even MORE health & environmental problems than nuclear ones do,according to this study:


I agree, capitalism has developed a civilization which is unsustainable, dangerous, and detrimental to human life and non-human life.


It is inherently dangerous,just like pretty much everything in industry.

If you don't want to be treated like a troll, don't act like one.


But under socialism it will somehow become safe enough? How and why?


This is really, quite elementary. When the profit motive does not guide our economic options then more time/energy/resources can easily be devoted to developing alternatives that are safe. Right now, because of capitalism, there is no option but to use nuclear energy, because that is what the people with the money and the power have decided they will use.


Didn't Kyshtym and Chernobyl happen in a socialist state (please,FFS,don't pull off the "state capitalism" manouever :laugh:) ?

Again, don't act like a troll, you're just trying to set up a secterian flame war here.

[tir1944]

Actually, you did say that communists should not protest nuclear energy, which implies that communists should support it.
I assumed that communists have to have what i saw as "common sense".;)


If you don't want to be treated like a troll, don't act like one.
What? Every industry is INHERENTLY dangerous,more or less.Ever heard of Bhopal?
Coal and oil power plants are likely to me MORE dangerous than nuclear power plants,i have provided the relevant study.


When the profit motive does not guide our economic options then more time/energy/resources can easily be devoted to developing alternatives that are safe. Right now, because of capitalism, there is no option but to use nuclear energy, because that is what the people with the money and the power have decided they will use.
No,it's because it's still technically impossible to replace nuclear (and fossile) power with wind/solar one.And guess who spends the most money on renevable energy research anyway? The richest countries,that's right.
Shit,the first nuclear PP was built in the USSR,not the US...


Again, don't act like a troll, you're just trying to set up a secterian flame war here.
No,you're being ridiculous.
Saying that we don't have alternatives to nuclear energy "because of capitalism" simply doesn't make sense.

[Sasha]

Gas is expensive and not that efficient.



seriously, thats all you could muster as a reply?
A. do you have any idea what building a remotely "safe" nuclear powerplant costs?
B. care to address the points i raised about the depletion of uranium reserves making mass nuclear energy completely unsustainable, the pollution during the extraction (often in 3th world countries) and the waste problem (that will, lets be honest, since no'one rightly wants the shit around them will end up dumped not where it was used but where it is most likely where they will get away with it, anyone can guess where that will be)

[tir1944]

A. do you have any idea what building a remotely "safe" nuclear powerplant costs?Sure i do,billions.Oil and coal power plants aren't that cheap either.


care to address the points i raised about the depletion of uranium reserves making mass nuclear energy completely unsustainable,
Nope.http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last


the pollution during the extraction (often in 3th world countries) and the waste problem (that will, lets be honest, since no'one rightly wants the shit around them will end up dumped not where it was used but where it is most likely where they will get away with it, anyone can guess where that will be
Except that the top uranium producers aren't in the 3rd world.Less than 20% are 3rd world countries.
Also uranium mining probably causes LESS pollution than oil and coal extraction.With proper measures the env. degradation and health risks associated with it can be properly adressed.BTW,ever heard of uranium oil platform breaking down? Do you know what a coal-mining town often looks like? Do you know how many coal miners develop lung diseases?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b1/2007Uranium.PNG

[Sasha]

Keep banging the oil and coal strawman drum, where did I ever say they where the alternatives?
In amsterdam all the public buildings, public transport, a reasonable ammount of the local industry and all the heating of the big housing estates get their electricity from the next gen trash incinerator we have builded, not only is the plant not even running yet on half efficiency its also still on half cappacity. The trash incinerator is so clean you can stick your head straight in the exhaust chimney and only get heat burns.
Between real innovations like these, true sustainable clean green energy and temporary natural gas plants (until we develop fusion or something similair) western countries can supply in their own energy demand without exploiting and poluting the rest of the world and without sticking our grandchildrens grandchildrens grandchildren with deadly nuclear waste.
Imagine the romans had nuclear powerplant, you think the trash would have made it safely through the dark ages, let alone two worldwars? Humans can't even organise 4 years ahead let alone millennia....

[The Douche]

I assumed that communists have to have what i saw as "common sense"

I'm not laughing. And neither are thousands of irradiated Japanese workers.


What? Every industry is INHERENTLY dangerous,more or less.Ever heard of Bhopal?
Coal and oil power plants are likely to me MORE dangerous than nuclear power plants,i have provided the relevant study.

No shit, sherlock. But the absurd thing is, you're pretending that I said we should use coal and oil instead of nuclear power. But all I actually said was that nuclear power is not safe.


No,you're being ridiculous.
Saying that we don't have alternatives to nuclear energy "because of capitalism" simply doesn't make sense.

No, it makes perfect sense. Why don't we have an alternative to fossil fuels, either?

Capitalism means that the bosses are going to create the system which generates the most profit for the least amount of labor/investment, they don't care if it harms workers, they don't care if it harms the environment, they don't care if its sustainable, they don't care if its effective. And so they do not focus their resources on creating sustainable, safe, effective alternatives to nuclear power or fossil fuels, or anything else. However, once production is organized socially we will be able to direct our resources toward real solutions.

And also, in a socialist economy nobody can be forced to mine coal or extract uranium, or destroy the earth through natural gas fracking.

[Lord Testicles]

I have no idea why this debate keeps cropping up, opposing nuclear power has about as much to do with defeating capitalism as opposing watermills has to with defeating feudalism.

[Per Levy]

I assumed that communists have to have what i saw as "common sense".;)

common sense is the weakest argument ever, everyone can go back and claim that their view of things is "common sense" so your common sense is not the common sense of your neighbour. just as an advice.

[blah]

Fast reactors or thermal thorium reactors do not produce any long-lived waste (it is safe after 300 years), can transmutate current nuclear waste into such shortlived waste (ther goes your "waste problem"), and use uranium/thorium so efficiently it will last millions of years. We dont even need fusion with LFTR or IFR.

While these protesters may have some good points against current once-through light water reactors, they do not oppose only them. They broadly oppose the whole field of nuclear energy. Thats just luddite and stupid.