The survey is completely useless. Just let me vote on pairs of designs which I like more, then aggregate the data. It's not that hard to program and a hundred times more accurate and useful.
I stand partly corrected, the last fracking was done 2011, and I cannot find any information if the site is still active today. There have been more than 300 active sites. New ones have not been opened, but NOT due to laws, or lack of economical or technical feasibility, but due to local NIMBYism, which furthers the point I made: fearmongering, supported in relevant parts by foreign assets, is the strongest force. I'm still positive that Ukrainian blood spills our drinking water a hundred times more than conventional fracking ever has and ever would.
> Are you implying that 1986 was a Russian propaganda plot?
Two things can be true at the same time. Something can be objectively bad, but the magnitude of consequences can still depend on how bad actors exploit their opportunity. Ignoring that is what I refer to as "low-resolution thinking". You see Chernobyl or Fukushima and you have emotions about them and think that those emotions are shared by everyone around you, including policy makers, which must have ultimately caused the policies, because they align well with your emotions. But you completely ignore the Zeitgeist and who's been invested heavily into shaping it in their interest. (I think this is much more relevant with regard to Fukushima than Chernobyl - with the latter, Russian interests were much more focussed on deception and deflection, especially towards their satellites. Also, the ability to manipulate the West was strongly diminished by that time, especially compared with their influence on Schröder and Merkel in the 2000s/10s.)
> you are not even able to (...) even address the (...) single point I was making.
Your "single point" was actually two points, that's why you've used a numbered list... but jokes aside, I've addressed them very well:
1. the "the Fukushima disaster" was a huge wave killing >20.000, but contrary to the rest of the world, we've cared much more about the hand full of people killed by radiation (and ~2000 killed by the combination of tsunami and the incident at the NPP) - the greens even declared the 20.000 killed purely by the wave as killed by the NPP, and they do so every year on social media since. You cannot reasonably explain why Germany reacted so distinctively different than other nations without pointing to the history of the movements since the 1960s/70s, and to the interest that Russia traditionally holds in German energy policy.
2. I've also addressed your lie about fracking. Fracking is being used in Germany today and it has been in use since the 1960s. There are new regulations about which types of fracking can be performed where, using which kind of fracking agents, which are generally good regulations. Everything else is fear mongering by interested parties, such as the lobbyists for solar and wind (which I am a HUGE fan of - the technologies, not the lobbyists), and Russian assets.
So at least we can agree that Germany’s reliance on Russian gas has been far deadlier than all nuclear and fracking accidents combined.
Regarding your arguments:
ad 1: This happened only because public opinion had been shaped by the movements mentioned in my previous comment for the last 40 to 50 years. Otherwise, how would you explain the fact that Fukushima did not have the same effect on policy or public opinion in any of the roughly 30 other countries using nuclear power — not even in Japan? Are Germans that much more intelligent than the French, Japanese, or Finns?
ad 2: That is somewhat ironic, considering that fracking has been taking place in Germany since the 1960s.
You should stop relying on such low-resolution thinking when discussing a complex issue like German energy policy.
In the mean time, we've sponsored the Russian war of aggression, flooding Europe with violence that led to the death of over a hundred thousand, disabled half a million, displaced 10 million, and destroyed houses and infrastructure worth hundreds of billions.
Feel free to create your own university where you can do this sort of research in a discriminatory way. Have fun with the litigation afterwards. Also, explain to the peer reviewers that they just need to get over the hangup, too, when you try to publish your research.
There are people saying all the Jews were still alive in Germany. For a matter of fact, I've recently been to a jewish restaurant. The owners seemed fine.
Duh, I work in tech in Europe myself. Look at the stock market, look at exit returns, look at employment rates, look at salaries, look at dividends, look at the number of startups. EU tech sector sucks compared with the US. It's not even close in terms of economical breadth, depth of integration, speed, size, capex, value created domestically and/or abroad, and overall trajectory.
I really haven’t written anything about Uyghurs specifically. I only corrected your mistaken assumption that genocide must necessarily involve the killing or physical extermination of people. It doesn't even require to be successful at its mission - it's the intent when taking any of the specified actions that counts, such as causing serious bodily or mental harm, imposing destructive conditions of life, preventing births, or forcibly transferring children. If those acts are committed with intent to destroy a protected group in whole or in part, it might be considered a genocide.
So “Uyghur restaurants still exist” or “Uyghur people still exist” does not answer the legal question. The relevant question is whether the group’s cultural, religious, familial, or biological continuity is being targeted as a group. It's enough to do this in a single village.
This may sound like a grammar nitpick, but I think it points to the actual issue: “the people still exist and are fine” does not answer the genocide question.
Genocide is not simply about whether “the people” — individual members of a group — still exist. It is about whether a people — a protected group as such — is being targeted for destruction, in whole or in part.
So the relevant question is not merely whether “the people still exist and are fine,” but whether a people still exists as a people, and whether it is fine culturally, religiously, socially, biologically, and institutionally.
In this particular case, I don’t claim to have enough information to make a final judgment. But the fact that so little independent journalism and investigation is possible must be blamed on the CCP and cannot be treated as counterevidence. Unlike individual human beings in a court of law, governments that suppress a free press and block independent investigations should not receive the benefit of the doubt in the court of public opinion.