As is obvious, I was anti-nuclear myself (and still am, to a degree, but not related to fear of radiation). Looking back, it's clear to me, that there was little scientific understanding, but much fear, of the danger of radiation in the anti-nuclear movement. The books catastrophizing nuclear meltdowns and nuclear war certainly didn't help. The interesting aspect, to me, is, that the effects of radiation are correctly and quite graphically described in the books, but overly exaggerated in proportion and scale.
Being against nuclear power provides a shared identity, a sense of righteousness and there are other strong groupthink effects. Putting things into context gets really hard when everybody is either constantly reinforcing your biases or, alternatively, obviously shilling for the nuclear industry (which I also did see a lot of!).
It seems to me that the anti-nuclear movement is currently dying off. The recent protests against transports of used-up nuclear fuel have been rather small. Since Germany decided to phase out nuclear energy, there hasn't been much of a reason to protest against it and attention has shifted to other matters.
Obviously the Anti-nuclear movement has been extremely strong in Germany following Chernobyl, but this thing must have been somehow confined to certain circles. Or maybe it became more popular later - the Wikipedia page says it had been sold 50k times by 1988, but 1.5M times by 2006, and by then read in school.
I have never come across it outside of school either though, even until today, and I still spend a lot of time reading and in libraries and book stores. Which makes me think it only circulated within these 2 groups - political anti-nuclear readership, and then from there into school readings.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany [1] https://www.smard.de/home/marktdaten?marketDataAttributes=%7...
The nuclear share (red) is reducing during the 200Os. The wind and solar (light blue and yellow) went over the max nuclear share at the end of the period — it seems there is much more wind than sun in Germany ;-). The fossil fuels (dark colors below red) are still very high.
In summary, we still need fossil fuels, and we have high prices, and we need to pay other countries to get rid of the waste electricity. This is just an utter failure from any economic or climate perspective. Just think of all the clean energy we could export - when it is needed - with nuclear plants still intact. We could have helped austria and poland to reduce their fossil footprint as well!
Hand-in-hand with the whole "Atomkraft ? Nein Danke" campaign. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Power%3F_No_Thanks)
That being said, the first few pages of "The Ministry for the future" will make a great first episode for an HBO show, someday... (or whatever network is not own by an oil company, eventually.)
This is in part to blame on that book, but also on the socioeconomic class that is omnipresent in our publisher‘s editing boards. As study after study has shown German journalists are 4 times as likely to vote for the Greens as the normal population.
Of course I agree with you though. This fear based approach doesn’t matter when France, Switzerland and Belgium have tens of reactors on the border.
It’s not an exaggeration to say our nuclear energy industries were retarded by her campaign about fifty years or so.
Without her campaign, protests and anti nuclear movement we’d be in a much better place from an energy generation standpoint.
It’s amazing sometimes how people at the periphery with very little subject matter expertise can affect society at large.