At the moment it is about the nuclear power plant in Ukraine with the unpronounceable Slavic name Zaproschja, which is located on the eastern front and the fights over it have now grown far beyond the question of who owns this electricity and who controls it. The alleged and official fear on all sides is that there could be a super meltdown that could threaten Europe and the world. Be it through shelling, be it through failure of the electricity supply of the cooling systems and whatever. In any case, Russia and Ukraine are using this worst-case scenario to persuade the international world and the UN to see the other side as the possible cause of such a catastrophe and to take sides accordingly. For now, the UN and IAEA will send an observer group to the nuclear power plant, which is under Russian control, but strangely Ukraine is still powered and now 2 of the 6 reactors are back on line. Not enough and the UN should act faster, says Selensky and fears a worst-case scenario. Putin, in turn, explains alleged Ukrainian attacks on the nuclear power plant as a possible trigger if the world community does not side with him. Doesn’t matter. Apparently the A-word or N(uclear) -word is so Pavlovian that it triggers primal fears. But to ask a rational question: What would be so bad about such a “super meltdown”?
And how international would it be if Japan started up its nuclear power plants again after Fukushima and CSU Scheurer called for the construction of new nuclear power plants in Germany, and Bill Gates wanted to bring the Small Modular Reactors into play? Would this be a super disaster like Chernobyl? But then ask specifically: How many East and West Europeans actually died because of Chernobyl? Well, we heard nothing. Also from the Greens no specific or concrete numbers. It was more doomsday-saxying! But to ask a rational question: What would be so bad about such a “super meltdown”? And how international would it be if Japan started up its nuclear power plants again after Fukushima and CSU Scheurer called for the construction of new nuclear power plants in Germany and Bill Gates wanted to bring the Small Modular Reactors into play? Would this be a super disaster like Chernobyl, but then ask specifically: How many East and West Europeans actually died from Chernobyl? You heard nothing from the Greens as the good and ecological side of the coin. One was glad that after Three Land Island and the film „The China Syndrome“ there was such a meltdown that apparently confirmed one*n, but since the conservative nuclear power advocates of the CDU/CSU/FDP/SPD were on the defensive, one never felt the need to carry out a clear analysis and to prove or verify one’s own claims. There have been enough rumors about mega-growing mushrooms that, like the Simpsons in the Springfied nuclear power plant village, only have four fingers and googly eyes due to increased radiation exposure, as well as slightly increased radioactivity levels in mushrooms and the flesh of deers. The Greens were not interested in this either, as they seemed to be right given the panic and anxiety. After that, a steel coffin was simply put over Chernobyl and that was it. Since then it has been quiet, until now until the alleged next „super meltdown“. As an alternative, one could still make a political career with nuclear weapon-free shared toilets and allotments. But Chernobyl was never processed in an analytical sense, hence this polemic.
Or even internationally, if Japan now drains its Fukushima sewage, with only South Korea and China protesting a little bit, but really don´t care or make a big issue out of it? Let´s say: much less than about the Yasukuni shrine or the forced prostitutes in World War II. In any case, the Chernobyl disaster did not kill or even annihilate hundreds of thousands or even millions of people in Ukraine or in Europe and of long-term damage such as cancer or hair loss as in the film „Black Rain“ about Hiroshima or the German novel and film „The Cloud“ and NGOs and ecologists never mentoned anything similar to these films. So why should a super meltdown at the current Ukrainian nuclear power plant turn out differently? Perhaps citizens of Novorussia and Ukraine would be affected, but why all of Europe or even the world? What is „international“ and „global“ about it, especially since many countries around the world have a very positive attitude towards nuclear power and thus also towards radioactivity? Chernobyl is therefore also negligible, since it promoted the fall of communism and brought Gorbi to it, but it did not produce the feared mass death and megadeath and a meltdown in the current nuclear power plant would also not be an international catastrophe like Selensky or Putin and the UNO claim, probably not even a European one. Of course, such a meltdown would bring deaths and cancer, but not in the apocalyptic dimensions, as the Ukrainian and Russian or other interested parties want us to believe, but would be more effective on their own territory, perhaps also spread somewhat by means of west and east winds , but then also be diluted again. Rather a problem for Novorussia and a rebuilding Ukraine and not even there everywhere. As Reagan’s chief negotiator Paul Nitze once said: „Today Hiroshima is a thriving city again, what’s the problem?“. This applies above all to all those Germans who were socialized in their youth through the novel and film “The Cloud”, “The Day after”, “Where the wind blows” or “Black Rain” or „The China syndrome“( Michael Douglas, Jack Lemmon and „Hanoi“ Jane Fonda). As a informed former KGB- spy in Germany, Putins knows too well that when he only has to use the A or N (nuclear) word that he will have an effect, be it in zhe form of a threat of a nuclear war or a nuclear meltdown. But: The Ukrainians know that as well. That’s why the A word is used again and again in mutual propaganda, since for Germans it is perceived as Apocalypse – not only in Christian groups, but also in esoteric groups and even beyond. So stay calm. Supermeltdown in Ukraine-so what? And nuclear war – so what? At least: Don´t panic!