Wolfram König, the President of the Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management, wrote a reader’s letter, which was published in abbreviated form in SPIEGEL magazine (53/2019) on 27 December 2019; it commented on the article entitled “Radioactively Green”, which had appeared in the 51st issue:

“I was told in Karlsruhe that all the nuclear waste, which will exist in Germany by the year 2000, would fit into a box that would measure about 20 cubic metres.” This much-quoted sentence was expressed by the physicist, Carl Friedrich Weizsäcker, in 1969. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, the sentence is strikingly similar to a statement in your article entitled “Radioactively green”: “The highly radioactive nuclear waste, which Germany will have to dispose of in future (…), (would) fit into a large furniture market.”

The article allegedly celebrates new, future technologies and, to my amazement, makes use of old, traditional tools used by supporters of nuclear energy: i.e. making huge promises as comfortable and welcome answers to urgent environmental issues of our day. The distinct and more uncomfortable truth was naturally hard to present. Most of the people quoted in the article have a well-known interest in the new reactor types described there.

The really important questions remain unanswered, for example:

• How are we to believe promises of safety that continue the tradition of Harrisburg, Chernobyl and Fukushima?
• How can the highly dangerous radioactive waste, which already exists and will continue to do so through using this technology, be stored safely?
• Who is dealing with the follow-up costs related to health and the environment, which are incurred when obtaining this fuel and processing it?
• Are our societies careful and stable enough for technologies, which can also form the basis for nuclear weapons?

Guaranteeing safety also involves honestly mentioning all the risks and looking for alternatives. We should not allow ourselves to be guided by technical euphoria or resistance to technology, but maintain scientific, sober objectivity. The article published on the business page is clearly motivated by a different interest and disregards crucial aspects. Let me just mention one example: abandoning the use of nuclear power was a prerequisite for searching for a safe place to dispose of the legacy of nuclear technology and this has been taking place since 2017. The amounts of nuclear waste are limited. Disposal is no longer viewed as a guarantee for continuing to use a technology that has created a deep split in society. Opening up these old wounds, however, is hindering the search for urgent answers to safety questions in our day, instead of promoting it.

Wolfram König, President of the Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management