From THE LOCAL (Germany):

German writer Charlotte Roche offered in an interview Sunday to spend the night with President Christian Wulff if he votes against government plans to extend the lifetime of Germany's nuclear reactors.

"I am offering to sleep with him if he does not sign," the 32-year-old anti-nuclear activist told the weekly Der Spiegel. "My husband agrees. Now it is up to the First Lady to give her consent. I am also tattooed," she said, referring to Bettina Wulff's much-talked about body adornment.

Roche, British-born author of the sexually explicit 2008 bestseller “Wetlands,” took part in major demonstrations last week against the transport of radioactive waste that underlined unease in Germany over nuclear power.

Wulff has to decide this year if a law prolonging the lifetime of the country's 17 nuclear reactors by up to 14 years should be enacted without the consent of the Bundesrat, the upper chamber of parliament that represents the regions.

COMMENT: Come on, ladies, it's for a good cause. If it's the only way to get the Grand Tufti to vote against the Anglican Covenant, surely it's worth a little sacrifice on your part. I mean, it's only for one night.



  1. Alright then, somebody’s got to do it I suppose. Hah! Gotcha. It is the head of a woman on a platter that the Grand Tufti is looking for. Have you been watching reruns of ‘An Indecent Proposal’?

  2. Careful, Chelliah. You’ll have most male members of General Synod (and quite a few ladies) insisting that they need to be “persuaded” that the covenant is a bad thing.

  3. My question is, if they do not extend the life of the reactors, where do they propose getting the electricity to replace the output of those reactors when they go off line.

    If the world could pool its resources in a huge muti-nation Manhattan Project, they could figure out how to deal safely and effectively with nuclear waste. Perhaps they would even be too busy to think about wars for awhile.

    Energy from reactors is one of the least damaging to the environment, especially on a small scale. The Japanese have created tiny reactors that are super safe that could power an entire town. A handful could power NYC.

    But offering herself to the president is a bit arrogant on her part. Who is to say she is all that good?

  4. Da-vid, there has been an answer for half a century (more, actually). There are nuclear reactors that have none of the major problems of the current type in use around the world. Back in the 1950s, when nuclear power was in its infancy, the US had to choose between two different technologies for their future atomic reactors: uranium-fueled or thorium-fueled. Both are viable approaches – that is, they both work and produce heat which then can be used to generate power. The Atomic Energy Commission decided to let Admiral Hyman Rickover, head of the US Navy’s nuclear propulsion effort, decide on the technology, as the Navy’s plan to power most capital ships would involve the early major use of atomic power. Rickover chose the uranium-fueled cycle, for one significant reason: it would produce plutonium for nuclear weapons.

    Thorium reactors do not produce any significant radioactive waste; in fact, they can consume radioactive waste to maintain their own operation. They cannot explode or meltdown, and are inherently much safer than the uranium-fueled reactors. They could be built in large numbers and supply safe nuclear power. In fact, the US government operated an experimental thorium reactor for years and proved it was fully competitive as to reliability and usefulness.

    So why don’t we look at this? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the thorium reactors and their design perhaps represent smaller profits or inconvenience to nuclear reactor designers and builders and the AEC and other regulatory agencies. Sometimes we never find out WHY some people are opposed to something, they just ARE. It could be as simple as, they’ve been using urnaium reactors for so long, they’ve actually forgotten there ever were thorium ones considered.

  5. Sorry, Luv. Now, if we’re talking Blair Underwood, I may have to change my uniform. You know. Just for the cause. I don’t know what cause Blair Underwood might be representing, but I just might be convinced to . .. oh, let’s just say . . . consider the opportunity.

  6. *I* volunteer . . . to “vote against government plans to extend the lifetime of Germany’s nuclear reactors” (aka “not sign”)!

    Charlotte, luv, I’ll let ya know where you can get your prize. ;-p