Anti-nuclear movement

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (History: "energy/nuclear experts" aren't the only relevant scientists)
m (History: correction, the second ref makes the first statement)
Line 8: Line 8:
 
From the late 1970s onwards, another distinct branch of the movement that opposed the usage of civilian nuclear technology (e.g., energy generation) gathered significant public support in Western Europe and the United States.<ref>Science Encyclopedia: [http://science.jrank.org/pages/48841/antinuclear-movement.html Antinuclear movement]</ref> These activists are mostly concerned about the dangers of [[nuclear power]] production such as the risk of reactor meltdowns, radiation release and the long-term problem of nuclear waste disposal. It received significant international attention and increased support after events like the [[Three Mile Island accident]] in the US in 1979, the [[Chernobyl|Chernobyl disaster]] in 1986, and the [[Fukushima]] reactor problems in 2011.
 
From the late 1970s onwards, another distinct branch of the movement that opposed the usage of civilian nuclear technology (e.g., energy generation) gathered significant public support in Western Europe and the United States.<ref>Science Encyclopedia: [http://science.jrank.org/pages/48841/antinuclear-movement.html Antinuclear movement]</ref> These activists are mostly concerned about the dangers of [[nuclear power]] production such as the risk of reactor meltdowns, radiation release and the long-term problem of nuclear waste disposal. It received significant international attention and increased support after events like the [[Three Mile Island accident]] in the US in 1979, the [[Chernobyl|Chernobyl disaster]] in 1986, and the [[Fukushima]] reactor problems in 2011.
  
Support for the movement's objectives considerably differs between the general public and the scientific community{{fact}}, with energy experts being significantly more pro-nuclear than the public.<ref>http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter4.html - a survey from 1980, just after TMI, shows that 95% of energy experts and 100% of nuclear experts supported the development of nuclear energy.</ref><ref>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-07-09-science-survey_N.htm</ref> However, some scientists do support the movement.<ref>Many members of Union of Concerned Scientists are bona fide scientists.</ref>
+
Support for the movement's objectives considerably differs between the general public and the scientific community,<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-07-09-science-survey_N.htm</ref> with energy experts being significantly more pro-nuclear than the public.<ref>http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter4.html - a survey from 1980, just after TMI, shows that 95% of energy experts and 100% of nuclear experts supported the development of nuclear energy.</ref> However, some scientists do support the movement.<ref>Many members of Union of Concerned Scientists are bona fide scientists.</ref>
  
 
==General tactics and activities==
 
==General tactics and activities==

Revision as of 20:54, 2 April 2011

The mightiest
of them all

Nuclear energy

Icon nuclear.svg
Radioactive pages

The anti-nuclear movement is a loosely connected, international community of organizations and individuals that oppose the use of nuclear technology. Nuclear power, nuclear power-related research, nuclear weaponry, and food irradiation are most frequently targeted.

Contents

History

Scientists involved in the Manhattan Project were the first to raise cautionary notes about the use of nuclear reactions, and their first goal was nuclear disarmament. This version of the movement organized protests against the nuclear arms race conducted during the Cold War, and eventually saw some success in the adoption of arms reduction and test ban treaties.[1] This branch of the movement is still active, but has arguably lost importance after the end of the nuclear standoff and the reduction of active arsenals.

From the late 1970s onwards, another distinct branch of the movement that opposed the usage of civilian nuclear technology (e.g., energy generation) gathered significant public support in Western Europe and the United States.[2] These activists are mostly concerned about the dangers of nuclear power production such as the risk of reactor meltdowns, radiation release and the long-term problem of nuclear waste disposal. It received significant international attention and increased support after events like the Three Mile Island accident in the US in 1979, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, and the Fukushima reactor problems in 2011.

Support for the movement's objectives considerably differs between the general public and the scientific community,[3] with energy experts being significantly more pro-nuclear than the public.[4] However, some scientists do support the movement.[5]

General tactics and activities

The anti-nuclear movement is strong and routinely protests nuclear related activities. Most activity of the movement is peaceful and includes maintaining websites, organizing protest rallies and marches, and publishing books, articles and brochures on the subject.

Some anti-nuclear groups have conducted actions that, while disruptive and illegal, have not compromised nuclear safety. It should be emphasized that such actions are an exception rather than the norm. These actions include:

  • Trespassing on nuclear power plant grounds in order to paint slogans on cooling towers, assaulting security guards in the process[6]
  • Sabotaging railroad tracks used for the transport of nuclear materials[7]
  • In one case, firing rockets at a reactor under construction[8]

Hundreds of thousands have historically attended anti-nuclear protests and demonstrations, such as Bilbao, Spain, 1977, and New York City, 1979. 1,414 people were arrested in Seabrook, NH while protesting the construction of a power plant which now produces some of the most expensive electricity on the planet.

Arguments

There are a number of arguments used by anti-nuclear activists which address the problem of nuclear waste, health effects of radiation, government policies and the financial viability of nuclear power. In the opinion of the activists, they indicate that people should abandon the use of nuclear energy in order to protect the environment, avert major disasters and save money. Some of these points have factual problems. While the more rational arguments should be carefully considered, and the outcome may suggest that a different source of energy should be prioritized in a given country, none of them warrant unconditionally banning nuclear power or phasing it out prematurely.

Effects of the movement

In a number of countries, the movement has attracted enough popular support to stop the further exploration of nuclear energy. Many Western countries stopped building new plants after the Chernobyl desaster, and in places like Germany, where the movement has majority support, nuclear power is to be gradually phased out as the newest plants reach the end of their lifespan. The biggest success of the movement is successful lobbying to impose stiff regulations and additional safety measures on utility outfits and plant constructors. Some would argue this is a symptom of nuclear exceptionalism. Public trust in government and nuclear industry information has also eroded, as antinuclear activists and whistleblowers[citation needed] have called attention to cover-ups.

The larger effect of the trend towards ever stricter control of radioactive materials is that any substantial use of them requires many formalities and in many cases hiring independent inspectors. This acts as an economic deterrent and results in a preference toward non-nuclear technologies, which, coupled with the removal of subsidies, caused the progress of nuclear research to dramatically slow down since the 70s.[citation needed]

While the movement is rarely successful in shutting down existing power plants (though it has happened[9]), it is quite effective in preventing new plants from being built. Nuclear energy proponents argue this exacerbates global warming, because when new baseload demand cannot be provided by nuclear power, new coal and natural gas power plants are built - not wind or solar power as the anti-nuclear groups imagine.

Notable anti-nuclear groups and people

The list is limited to opponents of peaceful uses of nuclear energy. There are many more groups which campaign mainly or exclusively in favor of nuclear disarmament.

Strongly anti-nuclear

These groups and people may utilize scare tactics and pseudoscience to promote anti-nuclear positions, and are sceptical of any science which they find inconvenient.[citation needed]

  • Alec Baldwin
  • Bellona Foundation
  • Greenpeace
  • Friends of Earth
  • Helen Caldicott
  • International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
  • Jan Willem Storm van der Leeuwen
  • Nuclear Information and Resource Service
  • Sierra Club
  • Sortir du nucléaire

Moderately anti-nuclear

These groups are anti-nuclear mostly because that's the traditional position of environmentalists and pacifists since the 70s. They may have some rational arguments, and in some cases grudgingly support nuclear power as a measure to combat global warming.

  • Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
  • European Union[10]
  • Amory Lovins
  • National Resources Defence Council
  • Rocky Mountain Institute
  • Union of Concerned Scientists
  • World Wildlife Fund, aka World Wide Fund for Nature

Notable defectors

These people were high-profile anti-nuclear activists but then changed their mind.

  • Stewart Brand
  • Ben Heard[11]
  • Mark Lynas[12]
  • Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace)
    • The change in his positions is drastic enough that most members of Greenpeace consider him a shill.
  • Stephen Tindale (former director of Greenpeace)[13]

Footnotes

  1. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is not actually in force, but breaking its terms by any country would cause a big fuss.
  2. Science Encyclopedia: Antinuclear movement
  3. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-07-09-science-survey_N.htm
  4. http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter4.html - a survey from 1980, just after TMI, shows that 95% of energy experts and 100% of nuclear experts supported the development of nuclear energy.
  5. Many members of Union of Concerned Scientists are bona fide scientists.
  6. Greenpeace Fanatics Assault Officers at Cofrentes Nuclear Power Plant
  7. RIA Novosti - Greenpeace rips up rails to stop nuclear waste shipment to Russia - note that the shipment did not actually contain nuclear waste (spent fuel), but depleted uranium hexafluoride, which would be reenriched to produce additional nuclear fuel.
  8. Superphenix Unscathed in Rocket Attack, Science, February 1982, 641
  9. e.g. w:Superphénix
  10. EU has a track record of requiring closure of Soviet-built nuclear power plants as a condition of accession. In one high profile case, Bulgaria was forced to close four of its six reactors, even though IAEA specialists determined that there is absolutely no rational reason to close two of them and the public was overwhelmingly in favor of continuing their operation. See: [1]
  11. http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/15/thinkclimate-nuclear/
  12. http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2010/01/nuclear-power-lynas-greens
  13. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/nuclear-power-yes-please-1629327.html
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support