Anti-nuclear movement
2996055
226026691
2008-07-16T14:28:50Z
Fmrauch
7410560
/* International organisations */
<!--This article is written in UK English-->
[[Image:ANTIAKW.jpg|thumb|right|Protests in Bonn on October 14, 1979.]]
[[Image:Anti-EPR demonstration in Toulouse 0166 2007-03-17.jpg|thumb|right|A modern protest of the anti-nuclear movement targeted towards the French [[European Pressurized Reactor]] (EPR).]]
{{Template:Anti-nuclear movement}}
The '''anti-nuclear movement''', a [[new social movements|social movement]], is the international opposition to the use of [[nuclear technology|nuclear technologies]]. The most dominant issue is [[nuclear power]], but some other positions of anti-nuclear groups are:
* opposition to [[nuclear weapon]]s, weapons using [[depleted uranium]], and in favour of [[nuclear disarmament]]
* opposition to the use of [[radioactivity]] and [[food irradiation]]
* opposition to [[radiation]] including [[microwave radiation]]
Historically, this opposition has come from both political organisations and [[grassroots]] movements. Common political targets are new [[List of nuclear reactors|nuclear plants]] (see EPR image to right), [[deep geological repository|waste repository sites]], transport of waste, [[nuclear reprocessing]], or any other nuclear connected technology. Many also see [[uranium mining]] and [[nuclear reprocessing]] as unacceptable, because of perceived and real environmental consequences of these activities.
==Symbols==
A symbol of the anti-nuclear movement is a smiling, traditionally red sun, usually on a yellow background. There are several variations, such as pugnacious raised fist or angry face. It is often accompanied by the slogan "Nuclear power? No thanks!" This symbol has its roots in the Danish anti-nuclear movement in the 1970s and has since gained worldwide usage.
The Free Republic Wendland coat of arms, which is not recognized internationally, shows an orange sun on a dark green background.
A symbol of resistance against nuclear waste transport is a (mostly yellow) X. This symbol is newer than the smiling sun. It originated in the German anti-nuclear movement.
<gallery>
Image:Englishsm.gif|The "Smiling Sun" icon of the anti-nuclear movement. Originated from the Danish Antinuclear Movement (OOA).<ref>[[World Information Service on Energy|WISE]] has badges and stickers in 35 languages. [http://www.antenna.nl/wise WISE].</ref>
Image:Republik Freies Wendland Wappen.jpg|A possible predecessor to the smiling sun logo.
Image:Nuclear hand.gif|Another high profile anti-nuclear symbol, which is a variation on the international radiation symbol. It is used and recognized in at least Australia.
Image:Nuclear power is not healthy poster.jpg|Anti-nuclear poster from the 1970s American movement.
</gallery>
==History==
The roots of the anti-nuclear movement stem mainly from three sources:
*First, within Western culture there is a thread of mistrust of science and technology which dates back to novels written in the early nineteenth century, in which ambitious and over-confident scientists unleashed uncontrollable forces. Beginning in the 1960s, the trend was escalated in the popular media by novels such as ''[[Fail-Safe (novel)|Fail-Safe]]'' and films such as ''[[Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb]]''.
*Second, radioactive materials were misused and carelessly handled in the early twentieth century (see [[Radioactive quackery]]), which led to a general belief that all forms of radiation were dangerous at any level.
*Third, nuclear energy was, and is, associated in the public mind with atomic weapons.
All three of these roots coalesced following the use of atomic weapons on Japan and the subsequent bomb tests, with resultant distribution of radioactive fallout. The anti-nuclear movement grew out of this convergence.<ref name=Weart>Weart, Spencer R. ''Nuclear Fear: a History of Images''. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988</ref>
In the 1960's, the environmental movement grew mainly in reaction to obvious deterioration of the natural and urban environments. Although some environmentalists favoured nuclear energy as a way to reduce pollution, the majority came to the movement with already-formed anti-nuclear attitudes, and at present the anti-nuclear movement and the environmental movement have considerable overlap.<ref name=Weart/>
A common theme among environmentalists is the belief in the need to reduce consumerism. Early anti-nuclear advocates thought that nuclear energy would enable lifestyles which would strain the viability of the natural environment. This belief reinforced their generally anti-nuclear attitudes.
{{Quote|If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won't give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other. |Amory Lovins| ''The Mother Earth - Plowboy Interview, Nov/Dec 1977, p. 22''}}
{{Quote|Giving society cheap, abundant energy ... would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun. |Paul Ehrlich| ''"An Ecologist's Perspective on Nuclear Power", May/June 1978 issue of Federation of American Scientists Public Issue Report''}}
{{Quote|We can and should seize upon the energy crisis as a good excuse and great opportunity for making some very fundamental changes that we should be making anyhow for other reasons.|Russell Train (EPA Administrator at the time, and soon thereafter became head of the World Wildlife Fund)| ''Science 184 p. 1050, 7 June 1974''}}
{{Quote|Let's face it. We don't want safe nuclear power plants. We want NO nuclear power plants.|A spokesman for the Government Accountability Project, an offshoot of the Institute for Policy Studies| ''The American Spectator, Vol 18, No. 11, Nov. 1985''}}
Opponents of nuclear energy used the [[Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty]] of 1968 to reinforce the connections between the international export and development of nuclear power technologies and the [[nuclear proliferation|proliferation of nuclear weapons]].
Finally, because nuclear power has always been a technology which requires and employs specialists, some individuals with little or no scientific training view it as an elitist technology.<ref>[http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/global_environmental_politics/v003/3.1stoett.pdf Toward Renewed Legitimacy? Nuclear Power, Global Warming, and Security] p. 110.</ref> The public view of nuclear power is based on popular political and social perception rather than in-depth knowledge of the technology and scientific specifics of nuclear power.
Much early opposition to nuclear power was expressed in relation to environmental grounds: [[thermal pollution]], known and postulated [[Nuclear accidents|reactor accidents]], potential release of [[radiation]] during shipments, and still-developing means for long term [[radioactive waste]] storage and disposal. The [[environmental movement]] made such concerns well-known, whereas opposition on issues such as concentration of capital in major engineering endeavours rather than decentralised and less productive energy sources, and proliferation of nuclear weapons, did not attract much attention.
By the time of the rise of New England's [[Clamshell Alliance]], California's [[Abalone alliance|Abalone Alliance]], and dozens of similar regional groups dedicated to stopping the growth of nuclear power through [[nonviolent]] [[civil disobedience]] based actions, points of opposition had expanded from concerns about pollution and proliferation to include concerns about [[economic]] viability and terrorist target threats.<ref name=protest>[http://books.google.com/books?id=Kn6YhNtyVigC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=shoreham+nuclear+power+plant+protests&source=web&ots=rmz3LVr6tR&sig=sHGK4uiUQ8KKAynuBqZa7NWqYzo Social Protest and Policy Change: Ecology, Antinuclear, and Peace Movements]</ref>
[[John Gofman]] was called the father of the anti-nuclear movement by some, even though his concerns over nuclear energy began in the 1960's, long after the movement started.<ref name=Gofman>[http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/PlowboyIntrv.html Interview with John Gofman]</ref><ref>LA Times, August 28, 2007 p. B 8</ref><ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/lastword_21sept2007.shtml Dr. John W. Gofman Medical physicist who has died aged 88.]</ref> He claimed that the consequences of exposure to low levels of radiation were much greater than previously thought. His findings were disputed by other analysts,<ref name=osti>[http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=4020019 Review of reports by J.W. Gofman on inhaled plutonium]</ref> but safety standards were strengthened,<ref>[http://academic-senate.berkeley.edu/memoriam/documents/gofman_approved_revd.pdf John W. Gofman: Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, Emeritus, Berkely. 1918-2007]</ref> and in 2005 The National Academies of Science released a report which concluded "that the smallest dose [of radiation] has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans."<ref>[http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11340 NAS BEIR VII] pg. 7 retrieved 14 February 2008</ref> He predicted that [[Chernobyl disaster|Chernobyl]] would cause 1,000,000 cancers and 475,000 deaths, and later, in 1996, estimated that the majority of cancers in the U.S. were caused by medical radiation.<ref>[http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/Chernys10th.html Chernobyl's 10th: Cancer and Nuclear-Age Peace]</ref> These estimates are widely disputed.<ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9903EED9113AF930A15757C0A9659C8B63 Russia and Ukraine Dispute Chernobyl Safety]</ref><ref>[http://www.news24.com/News24/Archive/0,,2-1659_1015389,00.html Chernobyl death count still disputed]</ref><ref>BEIR VII pg. 329</ref><ref>[http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/html/health_news/300104xray.html X-rays and cancer risk from radiation]</ref><ref>[http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/114189735/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 Medical radiation exposure and breast cancer risk: Findings from the Breast Cancer Family Registry]</ref> The National Institutes of Health<ref>[http://www.nih.gov/health/chip/od/radiation/#xfive National Institutes of Health]</ref> and the Health Physics Society<ref>[http://hps.org/documents/risk_ps010-1.pdf Health Physics Society]</ref> in the United States and other professional health organizations internationally<ref name=icrp>[http://www.icrp.org/remissvar/viewcomment.asp?guid=%7B012C4E04-7B2F-4A2E-B010-B7F614B3BEE0%7D ICRP]</ref> reject the hypothesis on which Gofman based his calculations, the "linear-no-threshold" formula. The International Commission on Radiation Protection and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation acknowledge that the concept is unsupported by scientific evidence but recommend the rule be applied in risk calculations in the interest of conservatism, supposing that overstating the risk leads to safer design considerations.<ref name=icrp/> Critics complain that the rule encourages unsafe decisions by driving choices toward other, greater, health risks.<ref>[http://www.health-physics.com/pt/re/healthphys/abstract.00004032-200411002-00004.htm;jsessionid=H0QXDTh6Jn14kpy8JGJyqDWlZ9hZ4nJJv4bhHhhBXpT0PmSTJnQl!-383192544!181195628!8091!-1 Radiation Science and Health]</ref>
Gofman acted as an expert witness in several radiation-exposure legal cases and helped to establish an advocacy group, the [[Committee for Nuclear Responsibility]], based in [[San Francisco]].<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article2477251.ece Obituary in ''The Times'']</ref> Gofman did not play a major organizing role in the movement, and suggested that [[Larry Bogart]] is the movement's true originator.<ref name=Gofman/>
The movement was popularised in part by artists. Popular performers such as [[Bonnie Raitt]] and [[Jackson Browne]] recorded songs about nuclear or alternative power sources.<ref>[http://www.nukefree.org/node/96 “For What It’s Worth,” No Nukes Reunite After Thirty Years]</ref><ref>[http://www.nirs.org/home.htm Musicians Act to Stop New Atomic Reactors]</ref> Along with numerous [[documentary film]] treatments, the Academy Award nominated ''[[The China Syndrome]]'', 1979, and ''[[Silkwood]]'' films dramatised the fears of anti-nuclear activists.
===Events===
{{See also|List of anti-nuclear protests in the United States}}
Anti-nuclear events have seen participation in the tens of thousands on a number of occasions. Exact counts, however, are generally impossible, and estimates may differ by large margins in some cases, making an exact ranking difficult. A likely candidate for the largest anti-nuclear protest was a weapons protest in West Berlin boasting on the order of 600,000 participants in 1983.<ref>[http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/2007/02/edwards_calls_i.html Blogs for Bush: The White House Of The Blogosphere: Edwards Calls Israel a Threat<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> The largest petition was against nuclear weapons and boasted 32 million signatures.<ref>[http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6237 ZNet |Activism | The Power of Protest<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> The largest protest against nuclear power may have been on [[July 13]], [[1976]] in Bilbao, Spain when 200,000 have been estimated to be in attendance, platform was to have public votes on nuclear plants.<ref>[http://www.motherearthnews.com/Nature-and-Environment/1977-11-01/Friends-of-the-Earth.aspx Friends Of The Earth<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
A few injuries during protests have occurred which include a train worker who was hurt when a hook claw sabotage method was used once. No deaths have resulted from violent action, one resulted from non-violent direct action, and one resulted from an attack by right wingers on a protest. Major instances include:
* In 1977 over 10 acts of violence targeted [[EDF]] connected sites. Coined as ''Nuclear's night of terrorism'', acts included explosive charges placed outside the senior management building, a garage, in Toulouse and Talence buildings, and on pylons supporting the [[Bugey Nuclear Power Plant]] and the [[Saint-Maurice Nuclear Power Plant]]. A group called C.A.R.L.O.S. claimed responsibility under the purpose of urgently stopping the building of nuclear plants.
* In 1979 a group called CRANE stole irradiated plates in Lyon and placed them in scattered places throughout the university. 11 out of 14 were found. The group intended to demonstrate what a terrorist group could do.
* On 18 January 1982, five rockets were fired at the [[Superphénix]] under construction, 2 reached the building. Magdalena Kopp, the wife of international terrorist Carlos, claimed to provide support. The objective of the terrorists was to halt construction of the facility.
* In 1990 an anti-nuclear group claimed responsibility for attacks on the EDF dam at the [[Malause Nuclear Power Plant]].
* Also in 1990 two pylons holding high voltage power lines connecting the French and Italian grid were blown up by Italian eco-terrorists, and the attack is believed to be directly against the Superphénix.<ref>WISE Paris. [http://www.wise-paris.org/english/reports/conferences/011210Terrorisme.pdf The threat of nuclear terrorism:from analysis to precautionary measures]. 10 December 2001.</ref>
*In 2004, a 23 year old activist who had tied himself to train tracks in front of a shipment of [[nuclear reprocessing|reprocessed]] nuclear waste was ran over and effectively cut in two by the wheels of the train. The event happened in Avricourt, France and the fuel (totaling 12 containers) was from a German plant, on its way to be reused.<ref>Indymedia UK. [http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/11/300681.html Activist Killed in Anti-nuke Protest].</ref>
*On July 21, 2007, a Russian antinuclear activist was killed in a protest outside a future [[Uranium enrichment]] site. The victim was sleeping in a [[peace camp]], which was part of the protest when it was attacked by unidentified raiders who beat activists who were sleeping, injuring 8 and killing one. The protest group was self identified as [[anarchist]] and the assailants were suspected to be [[right wing]].<ref>Energy Daily. [http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Russian_Anti_Nuclear_Activist_Killed_In_Attack_999.html Russian Anti-Nuclear Activist Killed In Attack]. July 21, 2007.</ref>
==Types of protests==
The movement uses a number of methods to influence policy and gain publicity. Many prominent institutionalized groups advocate [[Non-violent direct action]]. Others, individuals or anti-nuclear groups, have taken violent direct action (such as rocket attacks on the [[Superphénix]] site). Types of actions taken include:
* ''Demonstrations and information desks''. Many nuclear power opponents man information desks and organize demonstrations. These, however, gain little attention from the press and the public if they are not very big. Forms of demonstrations may include:
**'''Concerts'''
:Most actions included supporting concerts. The best known concerts were the No-Nukes concerts by [[Musicians United for Safe Energy|MUSE]] at Madison Square Garden in 1979.
**'''[[Picketing]]'''
**a '''Die-in''' - this has been done by groups such as [[Stop Rokkasho]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKjGQY7eqnM]
* ''Power Exchange''. In [[Deregulation of the Texas electricity market|Texas]] and in Germany, almost every customer chooses electricity providers himself.<ref>[http://www.powertochoose.org/_content/_about/index.asp About Electric Choice]</ref><ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E07E7D91038F93BA15753C1A96F958260 Cheaper Power to the People; In Germany, a Radical Deregulation Benefits Households ] (pg. 3)</ref> By switching to a provider who doesn't use nuclear power, people can be protesting with little effort.
* ''Non-violent direct action''. Similar to a [[Sit-in]], this kind of action is commonly considered [[civil disobedience]].
** '''Blockages'''. Often nuclear transports or nuclear plants blocked by protesters. This leads to large seat blockades with several thousand people, based on the principle of nonviolence, but also smaller demonstrations happen. In Germany, if a blockade states that it is not coercive, there are no severe legal repercussions to the activists. In Austria, a blockade was staged in protest of the [[Temelin Nuclear Power Plant]] across the [[Czech Republic]] border. Critics of the movement see such measures as a nationalistic. In France in November 2004, an activist died on train tracks after chaining himself down.
* ''Direct action''.
** '''Sabotage'''. Another method is sabotage, such as track and signal systems of the railway. Also, damage to overhead lines by hook claws have been a result of this kind of protest. After an engine driver was slightly injured, the method has been labelled as a "severe interference in the rail transport".
** '''Violent demonstrations'''. During Germany's largest demonstration, which took place in 1981 in [[Brokdorf]], West Germany, an estimated 50,000 demonstrators faced 6,000 policemen. Twenty-one policemen were injured by hundreds of demonstrators who were armed with gasoline bombs, sticks, stones and high-powered slingshots. Police arrested seven demonstrators and drove the others back with water cannons.<ref>[http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0F16FA3F5D0C728CDDAA0894D9484D81 WEST GERMANS CLASH AT SITE OF A-PLANT] New York Times March 1, 1981 pg. 17</ref><ref>[http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2306337,00.html Nuclear Power in Germany: A Chronology]</ref><ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E3DC1439F932A35750C0A967948260 Violence Mars West German Protest] New York Times March 1, 1981 pg. 17</ref> In 1986, West German police were confronted by demonstrators armed with slingshots, crowbars and Molotov cocktails at the site of a nuclear reprocessing plant in [[Wackersdorf]].<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,961509-2,00.html Energy and Now, the Political Fallout], TIME, June 2 1986</ref>
* ''Education''
** '''Websites'''. Many anti-nuclear groups maintain websites which include information on nuclear technology.
The results of one study that investigated the relative prevalence of each kind of protests in the [[anti-nuclear movement in Germany]] are shown below.
<center>
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Profile of German anti-nuclear protests from 1988 through 1993.<ref>Dieter Rucht. [[University of Essex]]. [http://www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/events/jointsessions/paperarchive/mannheim/w21/rucht.pdf The Profile of Recent Environmental Protest in Germany].</ref>
|-
! Type of protest !! Entire German <br>Environmental Movement !! Anti-nuclear Movement
|-
| Appeal || 16.1 || 7.2
|-
| Procedural || 8.9 || 7.7
|-
| Demonstrative || 42.3 || 44.5
|-
| Confrontational || 16.9 || 24.6
|-
| Light violence || 5.7 || 2.4
|-
| Heavy violence || 6.2 || 10.9
|-
| Other || 3.8 || 2.6
|-
| Total || 100 || 100
|-
| Sample size || 1,377 || 62
|}</center>
==Impact on public policies==
{{main|Nuclear energy policy}}
By the nations legislation under the ''[[New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987]]'', all territorial sea and land of New Zealand is declared a “[[nuclear free zone]]”.<ref>[http://canterbury.cyberplace.org.nz/peace/nukefree.html New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act]</ref>
In [[Italy]] the use of nuclear power has been barred by a [[referendum]] in [[1987]].<ref>[http://www.icanw.org/italy Italy]</ref> Recently, however, Italy has agreed to export nuclear technology.<ref>[http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/nuclearPolicies/Italy_joins_GNEP_141107.shtml Italy joins GNEP]</ref> [[Ireland]] also has no plans to change its non-nuclear stance and pursue nuclear power in the future.<ref>[http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1999/en/act/pub/0023/sec0018.html Electricity Regulation Act, 1999]</ref>
Touted as a victory by the [[Alliance '90/The Greens]] political party, which positions itself as anti-nuclear, [[Germany]] has set a date of [[2020]] for the permanent shutdown of the last nuclear power plant in the [[Nuclear Exit Law]], although recently there has been some discussion to extend this date.<ref>[http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1760476,00.html German Parties Set to Clash Over Nuclear Power]</ref>
In the [[United States]], the [[Navajo Nation]] forbids uranium mining and processing in its land.<ref>[http://www.wise-uranium.org/uregusa.html#NAVCOUTLAWSU Navajo Nation outlaws uranium mining]</ref>
==Stances==
{{Quote|[Nuclear power] is a very expensive, sophisticated, and dangerous way to boil water.<ref>Caldicott, Helen, ''Nuclear Power is Not the Answer'' 2006 New Press ISBN 1595580670 pg. 4</ref>| Helen Caldicott, ''Nuclear Power is Not the Answer''}}
{{Quote|Where we want only to create temperature differences of tens of
degrees, we should meet the need with sources whose potential is tens or
hundreds of degrees, not with a flame temperature of thousands or a
nuclear temperature of millions—-like cutting butter with a chainsaw.<ref>[http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E77-01_TheRoadNotTaken.pdf The Road Not Taken]</ref>
| Amory Lovins, ''Energy Strategy:The Road Not Taken?''}}
===Safety and nuclear accidents===
[[Nuclear accident]]s are often cited by anti-nuclear groups as evidence of the inherent danger of nuclear power (see [[list of nuclear accidents]]). Most commonly cited is the 1986 [[Chernobyl disaster]], which resulted in large amounts of radio-isotopes being released into the environment.<ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/28/824/ Chernobyl Reminds Us that Nukes are NOT Green]</ref> Also cited is the [[Three Mile Island accident]] which happened in 1979 in the USA, ironically two weeks after the release of the film, ''The China Syndrome''.
Other notable nuclear accidents include [[Mayak]], [[SL-1]], the [[Windscale fire]] and accidents at [[Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station]].
===High level nuclear waste===
According to anti-nuclear organisations, rendering [[nuclear waste]] harmless is not being done satisfactorily and it remains a hazard for anywhere between a few years to many thousands of years, depending on the particular isotopes. The same organisations usually oppose, and lobby against, processing the waste to reduce its radioactivity and longevity, and also oppose isolating the residual waste from the environment.<ref>http://members.greenpeace.org/action/start/87/ Greenpeace Website</ref><ref>http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/pnucpwr.asp NRDC Website</ref><ref>http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/articles.cfm?ID=9997 Public Citizen Website</ref>
The length of time waste has to be stored is controversial because there is a question of whether one should use the original ore or surrounding rock as a reference for safe levels. Anti-nuclear organisations tend to favour using normal soil as a reference, in contrast to pro-nuclear organisations who tend to argue that geologically disposed waste can be considered safe once it is no more radioactive than the uranium ore it was produced from.
===Monetary cost of nuclear power===
Anti-nuclear organisations consider that the [[economics of new nuclear power plants]] are unfavourable because of the initial costs of constructing a nuclear plant (see [[Darlington Nuclear Generating Station]]), the public subsidies and tax expenditures involved in research and security, the cost of [[decommissioning nuclear facilities]], and the undetermined costs of storing [[nuclear waste]].<ref name=nuc>[http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/060306.html Nuclear power is not the answer to tackling climate change or security of supply, according to the Sustainable Development Commission]</ref><ref name=rep>[http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/pdfs/nuclear/nuclear_economics_report.pdf The Economics of Nuclear Power report]</ref>
In 2008 musicians Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne and Graham Nash (see [[No Nukes group]]) announced a new campaign to stop Congress from economically favouring the nuclear industry.<ref>[http://www.nukefree.org/ NukeFree.org]</ref>
===Nuclear proliferation===
Part of the radioactive material produced in some types of [[nuclear reactor]]s has the potential to be used to make [[nuclear weapon]]s by countries equipped with the capability of chemical and isotope separation. Anti-nuclear activists claim that this makes nuclear power undesirable out of concern for [[nuclear proliferation]].<ref name=rev>[http://www.energyblueprint.info/fileadmin/media/documents/energy_revolution.pdf Energy revolution: A sustainable world energy outlook]</ref>
===Nuclear-free alternatives===
{{See|Non-nuclear future}}
Anti-nuclear groups favour the development of [[distributed generation]] of [[renewable energy]], such as [[biomass]] ([[wood fuel]] and [[biofuel]]), [[wind power]] and [[solar power]], and efficiency-enhancing approaches including [[co-generation]].<ref name=rev/> Some favour [[geothermal power]] as well, though it isn't distributed and emits considerable amounts of air pollution and greenhouse gases. About half the world's geothermal heat comes not from the earth's core but from the decay of natural radioactivity in the earth's mantle.<ref>[http://www.dtei.sa.gov.au/energy/renewable_energy/geothermal.html Geothermal]</ref>
[[Greenpeace]] advocates reduction of fossil fuels by 50% by 2050 as well as phasing out nuclear energy, contending that innovative technologies can increase energy efficiency, and suggests that by 2050 the majority of electricity will be generated from renewable sources.<ref>http://www.energyblueprint.info/fileadmin/media/documents/national/usa_report.pdf</ref>
In general, anti-nuclear groups tend to claim that reliance on nuclear energy can be reduced by adopting [[energy conservation]] policies. Some favour changing human lifestyles to allow lower energy consumption that can be supported by renewable energy sources, believing those lifestyles would generate less pollution.
==Criticism of the anti-nuclear movement==
Criticism comes mainly from three sources: nuclear experts with specialised technical knowledge, environmentalists, and businesses that conduct nuclear activities. The principal criticisms are that nuclear opponents overstate the impacts on human health and on the environment from nuclear energy and fail to consider the impacts of alternatives, that they make the same unbalanced comparisons with respect to economic cost, and that they ignore the practical limits of alternatives. Beyond that, critics charge that the more radical nuclear opponents argue points which are frightening but irrelevant, that they misrepresent the facts about nuclear energy and fail to substantiate their statements, and that they contradict independent analyses done by unbiased professionals.
Environmentalists criticise the anti-nuclear movement for under-stating the environmental costs of fossil-fuels and non-nuclear alternatives, and over-stating the environmental costs of nuclear energy.<ref>[http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm James Lovelock: Nuclear power is the only green solution]</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html Going Nuclear]</ref>
Of the numerous nuclear experts who have offered their expertise in addressing controversies, [[Bernard Cohen]], Professor Emeritus of Physics at the [[University of Pittsburgh]], is likely the most frequently cited. In his extensive writings he examines the safety issues in detail. He is best known for comparing nuclear safety to the relative safety of a wide range of other phenomena.<ref>[http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/ Bernard Cohen]</ref><ref>[http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html The Nuclear Energy Option]</ref>
Anti-nuclear activists are sometimes accused of representing the risks of nuclear power in an unfair way. ''The War Against the Atom'' (Basic Books, 1982) Samuel MacCracken of Boston University argued that in 1982, 50,000 deaths per year could be attributed directly to non-nuclear power plants, if fuel production and transportation, as well as pollution, were taken into account. He argued that if non-nuclear plants were judged by the same standards as nuclear ones, each US non-nuclear power plant could be held responsible for about 100 deaths per year. <ref>Samuel MacCracken, ''The War Against the Atom'', 1982, Basic Books, pp. 60-61</ref> Nuclear power, according to MacCracken, even has a better safety record than solar.
The [[Nuclear Energy Institute]]<ref>[http://www.nei.org/ Nuclear Energy Institute] website</ref> (NEI) is the main lobby group for companies doing nuclear work in the USA, while most countries that employ nuclear energy have a national industry group. The [[World Nuclear Association]] is the only global trade body. In seeking to counteract the arguments of nuclear opponents, it points to independent studies that quantify the costs and benefits of nuclear energy and compares them to the costs and benefits of alternatives. NEI sponsors studies of its own, but it also references studies performed for the [[World Health Organisation]]<ref>Fourth Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health: Budapest, Hungary, 23–25 June 2004</ref>, for the [[International Energy Agency]] <ref>[http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/ElecCostSUM.pdf Executive Summary]</ref>, and by university researchers<ref>Ari Rabl and Mona. Dreicer, Health and Environmental Impacts of Energy Systems. ''International Journal of Global Energy Issues'', vol.18(2/3/4), 113-150 (2002)</ref>.
=== Criticism arising from concerns over global warming ===
Some environmentalists, including former opponents of nuclear energy, criticize the movement on the basis of the claim that nuclear energy is necessary for reducing carbon-dioxide emissions. These individuals include [[James Lovelock]],<ref>[http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm James Lovelock: Nuclear power is the only green solution]</ref> originator of the [[Gaia hypothesis]], [[Patrick Moore (environmentalist)|Patrick Moore]]<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html Going Nuclear]</ref>, and [[Stewart Brand]], creator of the [[Whole Earth Catalog]].<ref>[http://www.technologyreview.com/article/16398/ Environmental Heresies]</ref><ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/science/earth/27tier.html?ex=1330405200&en=e561a6494b06049d&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg An Early Environmentalist, Embracing New ‘Heresies’]</ref> Lovelock goes further to refute claims about the danger of nuclear energy and its waste products.<ref>[http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/ James Lovelock]</ref> In a January, 2008 interview, Moore said that "It wasn't until after I'd left Greenpeace and the climate change issue started coming to the forefront that I started rethinking energy policy in general and realized that I had been incorrect in my analysis of nuclear as being some kind of evil plot."[http://www.news.com/From-eco-warrior-to-nuclear-champion/2008-13840_3-6228461.html]
Some anti-nuclear organisations have acknowledged that their positions are subject to review.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-22-nuclear-power_N.htm Some rethinking nuke opposition] USA Today</ref> However, concern for [[global warming]] has not changed the views of some other anti-nuclear organisations toward nuclear energy. These include Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth (FoE). Nuclear opponents counter that capital resources would be spent more productively on renewable energy sources than nuclear plants, arguing further that the problem of intermittancy can be overcome through storage, [[biofuel]]s, and improving the electrical-distribution grid.
But critics of the movement point to independent studies that show the opposite: that the capital resources required for renewable energy sources are higher.<ref>[http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/ElecCostSUM.pdf Executive Summary]</ref> They also point out that storage and long-distance redistribution of electricity, assuming they could be accomplished, would add to the cost and that the inefficiencies of both mitigation methods would raise the costs even more. They also argue that biofuels can't even replace a major part of petroleum-based fuel for vehicles, much less generate electricity.<ref>[http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/2007-10/biofuels/biofuels.html Green Dreams]</ref> Some have gone so far as to claim that incorporating renewable technologies such as wind may increase fuel consumption and carbon emissions, in places such as Denmark.<ref>Spiked Online. [http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4173/ Energy: the answer is not blowing in the wind].</ref>
==Public perception of nuclear power==
[[Image:Spain2006.gif|thumbnail|2007 opinion survey in Spain regarding energy sources. Nuclear obtained a low rating (3.1 on a scale of 10)<ref name=FBBVA>[http://w3.grupobbva.com/TLFB/dat/np_energia.pdf Study FBBVA on Social Attitudes] (Spanish)</ref>]]
[[Image:Nuclear energy poll usa.png|thumbnail|right|Feb 2005 opinion poll regarding nuclear power in the USA.<br />
{{legend|yellow|Respondents opposed to nuclear, many of whom would consider themselves "anti-nuclear"}}
{{legend|gray|undecided}}
{{legend|blue|In favor of nuclear power}}]]
[[Opinion Poll|Approval ratings]] of nuclear energy, which are a reflection of the anti-nuclear movement's position prevalence in the general public, vary from poll to poll. These variations can be due to news coverage of events concerning e.g. nuclear reactors, energy supplies, [[global warming]]. Some polls show that the approval of nuclear power rises with the education level of the respondents<ref>http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_271_en.pdf</ref>.
The results of the polls tend to be variable, depending on the question asked: a CBS News/New York Times poll in 2007 showed that a majority of Americans would not like to have a nuclear plant built in their community, although an increasing percentage would like to see more nuclear power.<ref>[http://www.pollingreport.com/energy.htm Energy]</ref>
A poll in the European Union for Feb-Mar 2005 showed 37% in favour of nuclear energy and 55% opposed, leaving 8% undecided.<ref>[http://www.euractiv.com/en/opinion/majority-europeans-oppose-nuclear-power/article-145003 EurActiv.com - Majority of Europeans oppose nuclear power | EU - European Information on EU Priorities & Opinion<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> The same agency ran another poll in Oct-Nov 2006 that showed 14% favoured building new nuclear plants, 34% favoured maintaining the same number, and 39% favoured reducing the number of operating plants, leaving 13% undecided.<ref>http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_271_en.pdf</ref>
In the United States, the [[Nuclear Energy Institute]] has run polls since the 1980s which had shown a general trend toward favourable attitudes on nuclear energy.<ref>[http://www.csicop.org/scienceandmedia/nuclear/ Going Nuclear: Frames and Public Opinion about Atomic Energy]</ref> A poll in conducted March 30 to April 1, 2007 chose solar as the most likely largest source for electricity in the US in 15 years (27% of those polled) followed by nuclear, 24% and coal, 14%. Those who were favourable of nuclear being used dropped to 63% from a historic high of 70% in 2005 and 68% in September, 2006.<ref>[http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/newsreleases/surveyrevealsgap/ Survey Reveals Gap in Public’s Awareness]</ref>
In Spain in 2007, nuclear energy received a low poll rating at 3.1 on a scale of 10. Solar and wind received the highest rating, at 8.6 and 8.3, respectively.<ref name=FBBVA/>
==Social Construction of nuclear power==
Views on nuclear power have a lot to do with how people socially construct nuclear technologies. (See [[Social construction]]) In places like America, the word "Nuclear" tend to also be related to words like "Nuclear Waste", "Nuclear Radiation" and "Meltdown". In other words, the society has socially constructed the idea of Nuclear power to have a negative connotation.
==Organisations==
===International organisations===
* [[International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons]]
* [[International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War]]
* [[Friends of the Earth]]
* [[Greenpeace]]
* [[Ploughshares Fund]]
* [[Nuclear Information and Resource Service]] - World Information Service on Energy
* [[World Union for Protection of Life]]
===National and local===
* Anti-nuclear movement in [[Africa]]
** [[Earthlife Africa]]
** [[Koeberg Alert]]
* [[Anti-nuclear movement in Australia]]
** [http://www.anawa.org.au/ Anti-Nuclear Alliance of Western Australia]
** [http://www.nukefreeaus.org/ Nuclear Free Australia]
* [[Anti-nuclear movement in Canada]]
** [[Sortir du nucléaire (Canada)|Sortir du nucléaire]]
* Anti-nuclear movement in the [[European Union]]
** [[Sortir du nucléaire (France)|Sortir du nucléaire]] in [[France]]
** [[Anti-nuclear movement in Germany]]
** [[Anti-nuclear movement in the United Kingdom]]
** [http://nonewnukes.ukrivers.net/ No New Nukes!] in the [[United Kingdom]]
* Anti-nuclear movement in [[Japan]]
** [http://cnic.jp/english/ Citizens' Nuclear Information Centre]
* [[Anti-nuclear movement in the United States]]
** [[Anti-nuclear movement in California]]
**[[Council for a Livable World]]
==See also==
{{Portal|Energy}}
{{Portal|Environment}}
* [[Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament]]
* [[External cost]]
* [[John Gofman]]
* [[Gregory Minor]]
* [[Nuclear-Free Future Award]]
* [[Nuclear-free zone]]
* [[Nuclear Power]]
* [[Renewable energy commercialization]]
* [[Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation]] (TREC)
* [[List of anti-nuclear groups]]
==References==
{{reflist}}
==External links==
{{Commonscat|Protests against nuclear energy}}
*[http://www.antenna.nl/wise WISE Antinuclear movement's webiste]
*[http://www.clamshell-tvs.org The History of the Clamshell Alliance and why it matters today.]
*[http://www.million-against-nuclear.net/ European NGOs aim to collect one million signatures against nuclear power in Europe]
*[http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/plants/plants.pdf Natural Resources Defense Council]
*[http://www.tmia.com Three Mile Island Alert]
* [http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-energy/basics/introduction.htm Nuclear Files]
* {{PDFlink|[http://www.boell.de/downloads/oeko/NIP6%20MatthesEndf.pdf Climate Change and Nuclear Energy], [[Heinrich Böll Foundation]]|265 KiB<!-- application/pdf, 271669 bytes -->}}
*[http://prop1.org/prop1/azantink.htm Anti-nuclear websites and related resources]
*[http://osulibrary.oregonstate.edu/specialcollections/coll/pauling/peace/index.html Linus Pauling and the International Peace Movement: A Documentary History]
==Bibliography ==
* Lawrence S. Wittner ''The Struggle Against the Bomb'' Stanford, CA: Stanford University 3 vol. ed I 1993 II 1997 III 2003
[[Category:Nuclear weapons policy]]
[[Category:Anti-nuclear power movement]]
[[Category:Anti-nuclear weapons movement]]
[[de:Anti-Atomkraft-Bewegung]]
[[es:Movimiento antinuclear]]
[[fr:Mouvement antinucléaire]]
[[ko:반핵 운동]]
[[nl:Anti-kernenergiebeweging]]
[[ja:反核運動]]
[[pl:Ruch antynuklearny]]
[[sr:Антинуклеарни покрет]]