Talk:Anti-nuclear movement

Nuclear proliferation

Anon 199.125.109.* added

"Governments and the United Nations have joined the anti-nuclear movement in preventing nuclear developments in North Korea, Iraq, Iran and Syria because of concerns of nuclear proliferation."

What, if anything, did the anti-nuclear movement do to prevent nuclear developments in those four countries?
—WWoods (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point that there are more people than the anti-nuclear movement who oppose nuclear development, and in the case of Israel, twice bombed nuclear power plants to prevent them from being built, once in Iraq and once in Syria. It isn't a tactic favored by the anti-nuclear movement, but it certainly had an effect.[1][2] Add to that the UN sanctions on North Korea and Iran. All of these actions by governments and organizations are a part of the broader anti-nuclear movement, and need to be included in the article. 199.125.109.83 (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow your reasoning. You say that Israel bombed reactors to remove the threat of proliferation and that Israel is outside the anti-nuclear movement. That seems reasonable enough, but by your own argument it's irrelevant to the a-n movement and, therefore, to this article. If you could show that Israel's actions or the UN's sanctions against Iran were due to some action by the a-n movement then we'd have something.--Cde3 (talk) 05:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This is just ridiculous. Israel did not bomb Syria's reactor because Syria tried to use nuclear power. They bombed it because it was a plutonium production reactor. FYI, while it is theoretically possible to produce weapons-grade material in a power reactor, no country ever bothered with the untold hassle of doing this. It's just easier and immensely cheaper to construct a dedicated reactor than wrestle with power reactors. --Tweenk (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Bias

I'm amazed at the lack of balance in this article. Also, I'm concerned that we have a large debate section in nuclear power and a competing one here. This is going to take quite a bit of work, and I'm not at all sure we don't want to break out the debates in the two articles back into one unified debate article. I'll post in Nuclear Power about this as well. Simesa (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger of Stances section with Nuclear Power's Debate section

Back in 2005, it was decided not to have a nuclear power controversy or debate on nuclear power article. Instead, that debate is now in an extensive section in Nuclear power#Debate on nuclear power. It seems more appropriate to have that debate complete in that article, and reference it everywhere else, rather than have three separate articles with their own debates (Energy development is the third article involved). I plan to eventually merge the three sections, but wanted everyone to have a chance to comment first - give it, say, a week? Simesa (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the anti-nuclear movement is a different subject from nuclear energy. The reason there is so much debate included in this article is that nuclear opponents inserted anti-nuclear arguments which led to pro-nuclear rebuttals. Instead of merging the subjects, I'd rather see all the arguments deleted and leave the article just about the movement.--Cde3 (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

agreed. CyrilleDunant (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a consensus, I trimmed the section and will merge the text into Nuclear power#Debate on nuclear power (reached via Nuclear debate). I also have to fix a ref error I made. Simesa (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Environmentalism

The paragraph on environmentalism is clearly american-based when it says: 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. In most of europe and within large environmentalist groups such as Greenpeace, an anti-nuclear stance is considered an environmentalist position. On the other hand, that whole section seems biased 90.128.67.167 (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input into this article. Patrick Moore is Canadian, James Lovelock is British (as was the late Hugh Montefiore), and Bruno Comby is French. It's true that many American environmentalists favor nuclear energy, but I have the impression that many European, Asian, and African environmentalists do as well. The United Nations Environmental Programme has no concerns over nuclear energy. Possibly, there could be an issue over who is or isn't an environmentalist. Greenpeace is a political group; not everyone would agree that it is an environmentalist group. On the internet there is a growing tendency to distinguish between political and scientific environmentalists. The politicals generally are distinctly anti-nuclear. The scientifics tend to favor it, though some do so conditionally. At one end, some people argue that political environmentalists aren't environmentalists at all, just political activists looking for a cause or seeking to use anti-nuclearism for their own political ends; Greenpeace would be an example and Friends of the Earth would be another. Whether or not you believe the article is biased, the environmentalist criticism of the anti-nuclear movement is a referenced fact. A denial of it would be hard to justify.--Cde3 (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• No significant environmental group in the US is supporting an expansion of nuclear power. The costs don't make sense when it displaces real renewables. --Paxuscalta (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Being anti-nuclear is equal to being anti-environment and pro-coal. It is a documented fact that when utilities must replace nuclear plants, they build coal plants rather than renewables. See for example [3]. This just makes me sad. --Tweenk (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

With all respect Paxuscalta, that's an assertion. The likes of Helen Caldicott (who is absolutely hysterical on this issue, and this really stems from her reading a work of FICTION, On the Beach) are fond of going on about how "greenhouses gases" are released by the vehicles used in Uranium mining, and transport, etc. They don't acknowledge the "greenhouse gases" used in fabricating wind turbines, transporting them to their often remote locations and maintenance. It's pure political spin. I do like it when economic imperitives, which are totally dismissed when it comes to the viability of things like solar energy or wind farms, suddenly become vitally important when it comes to nuclear energy. A sure case of moving the goal posts. The real reason is that opposition to nuclear power, for many, if reflexive, politically based, and indeed based around the name "nuclear". Even DU munitions are represented as "nuclear weapons" by many activists.

"Anti-nuclear renaissance"

This contribution [4] is unacceptable: it uses a peacock term as the title of a section in which two particular events are mentionned, without explaining why they would have a specific signification compared to other demonstrations. To make the matter worse, the events are only one month old, which make it impossible to assess objectively their impact. As such, this contribution looks like nothing more than an anecdote sexed up with journalistic-like emphasis techniques. Rama (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"mentionned", "signification"? C'mon do you really expect people to take you seriously? Johnfos (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Your reply contains no element of answer to the points I raised whatsoever. This confirms my impression that your paragraph is merely journalistic windtalk. Rama (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, Rama, I'm genuinely sorry but you are using words that are not in my English dictionary. "Windtalk"? Johnfos (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I mean a sort of discourse which flows only to carry occurrences of loaded terms, but not any actual meaning. Like what you find in advertisement. Rama (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, some re-wording is necessary. Please see section below. Johnfos (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding POV tag

I really have contributed little to this article, and have been mainly watching from a distance. I've watched as several pro-nuclear editors have essentially shaped the article so that the Criticism section is now eight paragraphs long -- one of the longest sections in the article.

And then there is the following persistent section which I have removed twice, and has needed citations since July. Why is unsourced material being held onto? Because it is pro-nuclear?

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.

It is actually quite difficult to get any sensible, well sourced, up to date, anti-nuclear material added to the article. I've twice added this but have been reverted:

Anti-nuclear renaissance

During a weekend in October 2008, over 15,000 people turned out to disrupt the transport of radioactive nuclear waste from France to a dump in Germany. This was one of the largest such protests in many years and it signals a revival of the anti-nuclear movement in Germany. Also in 2008, there have been protests about, and criticism of, several new nuclear reactor proposals in the United States.

I can't remember the last time I added a POV tag to an article. Certainly it would be many months ago. But a POV tag is certainly needed here because the article has a strong pro-nuclear bias. Johnfos (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph "Social Construction of nuclear power", which arguably constitutes Original Research, and was not sourced properly. Since this is the only concern that you have raised regarding about the article, I also removed the POV tag.

As to "strong pro-nuclear bias", you feature this common trait among anti-nuclear militants of regarding anything that is insufficiently favourable to your views as supporting what you fight. This "You are either with me or against me" attitude is childish. Rama (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's late, and I will reply tomorrow. And perhaps others will want to enter the discussion too? Johnfos (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that some original research has been removed from the article, and think this is a good start to improving article quality.

As I've said I'm not one to use POV tags wantonly, and can't remember the last time I said an article was biased. But there has been a steady erosion of anti-nuclear material from this article. I can provide more details if required, but what I would really like to do is re-word my recent contribution more carefully. Johnfos (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but this paragraph is impossible to save. You are merely listing recent events, in a blog-like fashion. What is particular about these protests? A few thousand people is by no means a particularly large demonstration; no new development in their ideology is cited; why do you report them? Same thing about the US protests about new reactors, what distinguishes these protests from the background noise? In short, what that could not be summarised with "business as usual"? Wikipedia is not a list of random recent anecdotes.

As for the "erosion", in itself it is not necessarily a bad thing: an "Anti-nuclear movement" Wikipedia article is not an article to be written by antinuclears, it is an article about them. Rama (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of things significant about these protestors. The German police dispatched 17,000 police to counter the protest, i believe the largest number that they ever had. The cost of the protest exceeds US$50 million by some sources. Public unrest over the failed radwaste storage facility at Asse is a major motivation for this largest in years protest.--Paxuscalta (talk) 05:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The 33rd G8 also had 17000 law enforcement personnel (16000 police and 1000 military); at the G8, 100 000 protesters were expected, while far fewer people turned up at the antinuclear protests, but in this case nuclear material was involved (it is ambiguous whether antinuclears should not, in good logic, rejoice in the heavy deployment, which demonstrates that authorities take nuclear security seriously). Rama (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Never in my time on WP have I been called anti-nuclear like that. What about WP:AGF? I have said on my User page that "My interest in the anti-nuclear movement is a scholarly one. There are many books and papers available on this topic and I have tried to read what I can. I have never been to an anti-nuclear protest nor been a member of an anti-nuclear group."

What I have written may not be perfect, but it is a start, and it is well sourced. I have tried to compromise with wording as far as is reasonably possible, and do what I can to bring some balance to this article. But it is clear that this is not possible. So I am adding the POV tag again, and an update tag too, as this article is in sore need of information about recent developments.

A copy of the revised section which has been rejected is here:

Recent developments

During a weekend in October 2008, some 15,000 people disrupted the transport of radioactive nuclear waste from France to a dump in Germany. This was one of the largest such protests in many years and, according to Der Spiegel, it signals a revival of the anti-nuclear movement in Germany. Also in 2008, there have been protests about, and criticism of, several new nuclear reactor proposals in the United States.

-- Johnfos (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not call you an antinuclear. I only said that the Wikipedia article should not be an antinuclear pamphlet.

What can be sourced is facts, not journalistic techniques of emphasis.

Discussing "recent developments" does not amount to enumerating anecdotes. A general change in thematics, for instance, is a development; policies drafted at a summit are a development; one proeminent figure significantly altering course is a development; a few thousand people gathering in the streets is background noise. Rama (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

As a third opinion, unfamiliar with the history of this article, I tend to agree with Rama on this one. It has been improved significantly, but the original text sounded like a POV call to arms. I still feel the text is in appropriate as per WP:SPECULATION. You effectively deferred the speculation to a handy source, but they are no more qualified to predict the future than you or I, and can't be sourced as authoritative of such. I would say to end that sentence at "largest such protests in many years." -Freqsh0 (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Another 3rd opinion; I'd go further and say that the October news is WP:RECENTISM, and should be viewed with caution until scholarly sources report on it. URLs to "chicagobreakingnews.com" are a symptom of recentism. It may be better to not report on these events at all, until we get more-reliable sources on them. It's not Wikipedia's job to report on current events in general. Eubulides (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel that there has been a scramble here to find any sort of wikipedia policy that could possibly preclude a short mention of a reported "anti-nuclear renaissance" (supported by many reliable references) within the context of a (mainly historical) article on the Anti-nuclear movement.

WP:RECENTISM says: "It is widely regarded as one of Wikipedia's strengths that it is able to collate and sift through vast amounts of reporting on current events, producing encyclopedia-quality articles in real time about ongoing events or developing stories: natural disasters, political campaigns and elections, wars, product releases, assassinations. It would greatly weaken the encyclopedia project if article development about ongoing events were discouraged in a campaign against so-called "recentism"."

WP:SPECULATION says: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."

As far as I'm aware there is no WP policy that suggests scholarly sources are obligatory. Reliable sources are enough. Johnfos (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the events in question here are demonstrating some kind of surge in the anti-nuclear movement in response to renewed interest in nuclear power in the world, then that does have some overreaching significance. You used the term Anti-nuclear renaissance above, and while I find it unlikely that the term is well sourceable, I see what your intent is. The event you were trying to add seems like it would make sense in the content, but I'm not sure if that was entirely clear. If it were me, I would first start out trying to establishing a part of the article that deals with the anti-nuclear movement in the face of many proposed new nuclear builds around the world, and then work from there. I agree with you that the addition is entirely allowable, I would just focus on working it into some kind of point about the anti-nuclear movement, otherwise Wikipedia is not news. /2 cents -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No scramble here. These things stuck out to me immediately as inappropriate, I have no interest in finding loopholes to undermine the legitimacy of the article. I don't know anything about this article, or the editors involved. I would also dismiss chicagobreakingnews.com as illegitimate, didn't notice that before. Honestly, with all due respect, it seems like the one with the agenda here is you. You seem eager to promote the ideas and the "movement." -Freqsh0 (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget that all articles are, technically, works in progress and that information can be adjusted or removed to improve the text. Considering how the geopolitical climate is changing, this article will obviously require updating as the movement waxes or wanes. And I would echo Johnfos' comments on the appropriateness of sources in relation to this and related articles. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The John Gofman controversy

This material has had two tags on it for a long time. I've removed it from the article because it clearly doesn't fit in there. Johnfos (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

John Gofman was called the father of the anti-nuclear movement by some, even though his concerns over nuclear energy began in the 1960s, long after the movement started. He was, in fact, a weapons researcher and never apologised for his work on atomic bombs. 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, but safety standards were strengthened, 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."

The National Institutes of Health and the Health Physics Society in the United States and other professional health organisations internationally 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. Critics complain that the rule encourages unsafe decisions by driving choices toward other, greater, health risks.

Gofman predicted that 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. These estimates are widely disputed, and in 2005 a report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organisation (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people; thus disputing Gofman's hypothesis.

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.

Gofman did not play a major organising role in the movement, and suggested that Larry Bogart is the movement's true originator. In 1966, Bogart founded the Citizens Energy Council, a coalition of environmental groups that published the newsletters "Radiation Perils," "Watch on the A.E.C." and "Nuclear Opponents". These publications argued that "nuclear power plants were too complex, too expensive and so inherently unsafe they would one day prove to be a financial disaster and a health hazard".

Anti-consumerist philosophy

I've moved this section from the article, as it just doesn't hang together. For example, none of the quotes actually mention the word "consumer". In any case lists of quotes should go in Wikiquote. Johnfos (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

---

A common theme in the movement 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.

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

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

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

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

I think this section was intended to provide some quotes that highlight that anti-nuclear movement's opposition to nuclear plants is in some cases motivated not only by their perceived risks, but also by a larger agenda of anti-industrialism. This information is valuable. The quotes could be moved to references and the lead paragraph integrated into some other section. --Tweenk (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Aside from any relevance to the article discussion, that's a really useful collection of quotes. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Anti-consumerism was, and is, an important driving force behind the anti-nuclear movement. The argument always has been, "We don't need all that energy anyway---people need to live more simply." I re-worded the text, but the idea should be included in some form.--Cde3 (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

When is this relevant material going to be integrated into the article? It is clearly important for readers to be aware of the fundamental reasons why the Ant-Nuclear movement do not like Nuclear power.

Boundarylayer (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Public perception

Feb 2005 opinion poll regarding nuclear power in the USA.

  Respondents opposed to nuclear, many of whom would consider themselves "anti-nuclear"

  undecided

  In favour of nuclear power

2007 opinion survey in Spain regarding energy sources. Nuclear obtained a low rating (3.1 on a scale of 10)

I've removed these images from the article because neither has a verifiable source for the information provided. Johnfos (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

They have sources provided on their description pages. --Tweenk (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Selection bias and minor factual problems

Johnfos, I see you are frequently editing this article, so can you address the following problems?

• 1. A few instances of misleading wording.
  • Lead: "most countries in the world have no nuclear power stations and no plans to develop nuclear power." This might be true but is very misleading. See Nuclear power by country - the map conveys that almost every country that can is building new plants, with the only exceptions being a few European nations where anti-nuclear sentiments are the strongest. Disclaimer, I made this map (based on WNA data).
  • "Anti-nuclear activity has increased correspondingly" - probably, but the wording of lead suggests that this activity was successful in preventing new nuclear power projects, whereas the nuclear power by country map indicates it was not.
  • "Other serious nuclear and radiation accidents include the Mayak disaster, Soviet submarine K-431 accident, Soviet submarine K-19 accident, Chalk River accidents, Windscale fire, Costa Rica radiotherapy accident, Zaragoza radiotherapy accident, Goiania accident, Church Rock Uranium Mill Spill and the SL-1 accident." Anti-nuclear groups rarely attack nuclear medicine, so Goiana and the radiotherapy incidents are irrelevant here. They appear to be inserted into the list to artificially inflate the number of serious nuclear power-related accidents that have occured in the past.

Agree that wording could be improved in each of these three cases. Would be grateful if you could make a start on this when you have time. Johnfos (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Have made some improvements now. Johnfos (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• 2. Claims of anti-nuclear groups are presented as fact, even when they are rather easily refuted.
  • "More recently, however, following public relations activities by the nuclear industry..." - I don't believe this is the main reason for the renewed interest in nuclear power. Claim about increased PR activities of the nuclear industry is unsourced, except from statements made by anti-nuclear organizations.
    • Have now cited two sources: [5] [6] Johnfos (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
      • The first is essentially a blog post that reads like something an anti-nuclear activist would write and is not neutral in any way. The underlying tone is that the nuclear industry is some kind of a monolithic sinister group that wants to purposefully harm the general public to their benefit, even though there's absolutely no evidence to support of this. The second is obviously from an anti-nuclear organization. --Tweenk (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
        • There is nothing wrong with these sources. UCS is not against nuclear power. And here is another source, from Bloomberg Businessweek: Nuclear group spent $460,000 lobbying in 4Q. Johnfos (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• • Anti-nuclear concerns: "Since international controls on nuclear proliferation began, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea have all obtained nuclear weapons, demonstrating the link with nuclear power programs". The claim is clearly false as these countries did not reuse any civil infrastructure for weapons programs. Israel and North Korea do not have any power reactors. India used a Canadian-supplied research reactor and then a purpose-built plutonium production reactor. Pakistan used highly enriched uranium from a purpose-built military enrichment plant. (source - WNA country briefings)
    • Removed disputed statement. Johnfos (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "babies are still being born with genetic abnormalities in towns and villages around Semipalatinsk." News reports of claims by Kazakh anti-nuclear group, which include pictures of children with hydrocephalus. Hydrocephalus is not caused by radiation. This was confirmed in 1994 in UK when Greenpeace was forced to retract its anti-nuclear advertisement containing hydrocephalus-afflicted children misrepresented as radiation victims. [7] There is no measurable excess of birth deformities either among Chernobyl victims or Japanese A-bomb survivors, so the available scientific evidence suggests that radiation exposure does not increase birth defects even in larger doses, except when the child is directly irradiated before birth. [8] In essence the reports about birth deformities appear to be fabricated.
    • Removed disputed statement. Johnfos (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Energy efficiency can reduce the consumption of energy". Since the 1950 the energy intensity of the world economy dropped from 19000 BTU/$GDP to 9000 BTU/$GDP and yet the total energy use doubled. Chart about 2/3 down the page here: [9] I don't want to remove this sentence altogether, since many anti-nuclear groups say this, but it should be more clearly presented as a claim, rather than a fact.
    • Happy for you to modify this statement. Johnfos (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• 3. Selection bias. This is the biggest problem. The article mentions some facts that are favorable to the anti-nuclear movement while neglecting other related facts that are not favorable.
  • "During Barack Obama's successful U.S. presidential election campaign, he advocated the abolition of nuclear weapons." He also advocated an expansion of nuclear power, but this is not mentioned. This misleadingly invokes the authority of a man that is anti-nuclear-weapons as support for anti-nuclear-power groups; in general the distinction between those two angles is not apparent in the article. I think the proper way to solve this might be to separate out a new article called "Nuclear disarmament movement", and then the "Anti-nuclear movement" article can focus solely on anti-nuclear-power groups.
    • I notice that anti-nuclear movement categorization is split into Category:Anti-nuclear weapons movement and Category:Anti-nuclear power movement, and thought these could eventually could be good titles for sub-articles, as we get more material. Please mention that Obama has advocated an expansion of nuclear power if you wish. Johnfos (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Mention of rocket attacks on Superphenix was removed, only a vague note about "violence" was left which to a casual reader might suggest wrestling with the police rather than armed sabotage. I think this incident is significant, since it's one of the rare instances where anti-nuclear protesters attempted to directly damage a nuclear installation.
    • Mention of this incident was probably my deed. It think that Tweenk is very accurate in his assessment that this sort of attacks is uncharacteristic of the anti-nuclear movement. On one side, it is difficult to mention it without attracting undue attention to it; on the other it deserves mention was spectacular, a high point in anti-nuclearism, and indicative of the ideological historical connection between the anti-nuclear movement and some far-left-wing terrorist organisations. Rama (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Suggest add a sourced paragraph on this in the Other events section. Johnfos (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Those who were favourable of nuclear being used dropped to 63% from a historic high of 70% in 2005 and 68% in September, 2006." This focuses on a variation that might or might not be statistically significant, and ignores the indisputable growth in support since the 70s which can be gleaned for example from studies referenced in this paper: [10]
    • Please add sourced material on this. Johnfos (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• 4. Some citations come from controversial sources or their content doesn't support what is said in the article.
  • "There is an "international consensus on the advisability of storing nuclear waste in deep underground repositories"" - quote is from Al Gore's book. A more reputable source could be found for this.
    • Would be happy for a another source to be found and used. Johnfos (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I found a WNA page that says the same. [11] --Tweenk (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "renewable energy technologies ... reduce dependency on fossil fuels". I can't find any direct sentences in the referenced IAEA paper that would allow one to machieve this conclusion. To the contrary, page 7 has: "With the exception of large hydropower, combustible biomass (for heat) and larger geothermal projects (>30 MWe), the average costs of renewable energy are generally not competitive with wholesale electricity and fossil fuel prices". The closest it gets is this on page 15: "Properly managed, hydropower could help restrain the growth in emissions from burning fossil fuels." However this refers to large hydro, which most anti-nuclear groups do not support.
    • Have removed the "reduce dependency on fossil fuels" statement. Johnfos (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• 5. The short reference I added to a news report about Greenepace not making any openly anti-nuclear statements in their recent UK activities from World Nuclear News was removed. I don't understand the reasoning behind this. The official policy might remain anti-nuclear, but the change is still significant - they decided that closing nuclear power plants was less important than fighting climate change. The manifesto specifically avoided mentioning nuclear power, using terms like "low-carbon power".

Could you just remind me of the WNN article we are referring to please. Johnfos (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Link: [12]. We shouldn't overestimate the weight of this event, but it can be mentioned. --Tweenk (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you in advance for considering those points. --Tweenk (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tweenk, for taking the time to review the article. I was hoping someone would do this. I do some WP editing each day, so will gradually work through your points over several days, if that is ok... Johnfos (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for all changes to date. --Tweenk (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Environmentalists who favor nuclear energy

The Criticism section begins with the introductory statement that some environmentalists favor nuclear energy and criticize opponents. The body of the section lists examples, such as James Lovelock, Patrick Moore, and Stewart Brand. An editor has questioned whether they are really environmentalists. This is a fair question, since many people call themselves environmentalists with no apparent qualifications. These three individuals, in contrast, have spent their lives researching environmental problems and educating the public about them. If the term environmentalist doesn't apply to them then it doesn't apply to anyone.--Cde3 (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent addition

I've moved this paragraph here for discussion:

In Trafalgar Square London in 1958 in an act of civil disobedience 60,000-100,000 peace loving protesters made up of students and pacifists converged in what was to become the “ban the Bomb” demonstrations out of which emerged one of the first anti-nuclear groups. It is from this British protest group organised by CNDthat the Peace symbol was designed and remains to this day the most recognized symbol of peace, freedom and hippiedom.

I feel this detailed info would be better presented in the Anti-nuclear movement in the United Kingdom article or the Aldermaston March article. Our lead section is already quite long and we shouldn't have a whole para in the lead on just one group of demonstrations. Johnfos (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Good points all. Also, the sentence you deleted, "It is from this British protest group organised by CND that the Peace symbol was designed and remains to this day the most recognized symbol of peace, freedom and hippiedom." isn't in the reference and isn't encyclopedic-sounding, true though it may be. --Cde3 (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Reword it if you wish however this is the first anti nuclear resistance of any significance in the west and it belongs right here and in the history of the anti nuclear movement. It is from this group and its unprecedented resistance to nuclear technology in England that the anti nuclear movement itself was fashioned- everything else pales in comparison!Mombas (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Mombas, rewording isn't enough. We need a reference.--Cde3 (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Mombas, you are over-rating these CND demonstrations and implying that they were larger than what they actually were. As the History of the anti-nuclear movement article explains, peace movements emerged in Japan in 1954. It was the 1954 Lucky Dragon incident which caused widespread anti-nuclear concern around the world and "provided a decisive impetus for the emergence of the anti-nuclear weapons movement in many countries".[6] As a result, the anti-nuclear weapons movement grew rapidly... [15] Johnfos (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would also add that the Aldermaston Marches already receive much coverage on WP, see [13] Johnfos (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Problematic mix of anti nuclear weapons and anti nuclear power movement

I just came accross this article now, and find it problematic. By mixing the events of anti-nuclear weapon and anti-nuclear power protests, it gets very confusing. While these two movements are linked, it is difficult to describe them as one anti nuclear movement. Activists and organisations of one movement are not necessarily involved in the other, and the campaigns, mobilisations, successes and failures of the different movements are quite distinct.

It also just lists single events, often taking them out of context. The 2008 anti-nuclear waste protests in Germany which are mentioned in the text have a history of mobilisation going back to the early or mid-1990s (or even to the late 1970s), and there has been a nonviolent blockade with 9,000 participants in 1997 (and 30,000 police were deployed), and other large-scale protests in 1998, and 2001, and almost annually on a smaller scale.

If the article wants to give an overview, than rather than just listing large scale events, it would make more sense to describe some campaigns/mobilisations often spanning several years/decades as examples, which would give the reader a better idea of the movement as a random list of large protests. Andreas Speck 11:51, 11 June 2011 (GMT)

I agree that the list of individual protests is too long and fragmented. Maybe an "Anti-nuclear movement by country" section might give better general coverage, with each of the main countries having a sub-section. Whatever happens, links to the various country sub-articles should be made more prominent, as this would help to show readers where to find context and broader discussion.

Because nuclear power is a dual use technology, nuclear weapons and nuclear power can never be entirely separated. And the anti-nuclear movements associated with both can never be entirely separate. Greenpeace and many other groups oppose both nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Even Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which has a long history of opposition to nuclear weapons, also campaigns against nuclear power. There is a lot of overlap between the anti-nuclear weapons movement and the anti-nuclear power movement, and I think trying to spit the two movements into two separate articles would actually cause unnecessary duplication and confusion. Johnfos (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Johnfos, your bias is showing. Only certain items, such as the RBMK reactor, are dual use technology. Light water reactors cannot be used to make bombs, neither can the IFR. The anti-weapons movement is supported by many scientists and political leaders, while the anti-power movement is basically a carbon copy of the anti-vaccine movement. They have their own "experts" such as Chris Busby, who recently came out as a quack, they publish their own fantasy reports such as Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment and Storm&Smith, they don't listen to real scientists, and they see shills, collusion and conspiracy everywhere. Oddly, they see no conspiracy when the Sierra Club takes money from Chesapeake Energy and then launches a campaign promoting natural gas as a 'bridge fuel'.

I support splitting "Anti-nuclear movement" and "Nuclear disarmament movement" into separate articles. --Tweenk (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Especially since the Fukushima nuclear disaster, many nuclear disarmament groups have taken a stance against nuclear power too. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is an example. It seems that the majority of anti-nuclear groups now oppose nuclear weapons and nuclear power too. So it would be impossible to separate these, and counterproductive to try. Johnfos (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

AGREE. I agree with the user Tweenk, not all Nuclear power is created equal. For example the Sun is a giant Nuclear Fusion fireball, and no reasonable anti-Nuclear movement is against the sun shining, or are they?

Furthemore, not all Nuclear Fission reactors can be used for making weapons grade Fissile material. Just look at LFTR, which is proliferation resistant.

By the way, you seem hung up on that fact Nuclear technology is dual use technology, yes it is, but so is just about everything if you know how to swing it right. Nuclear technology is actually not limited by the designation 'Dual use', it's probably more correctly termed 'multi use, as it's used to save lives with Nuclear medicine - Radiopharmacology e.g with the breeding of Yttrium-90 in reactors to produce the life saving drug Ibritumomab tiuxetan etc, it's also used to produce electricity and some reactor designs(not civilian operated) are used to produce weapons grade Pu-239(although most nations generally now prefer the cheaper route of using Ultra Centrifuge technology to produce U-235).

By the way, I've often wondered, is the 'Anti-Nuclear movement' opposed to radiopharmacology? It would appear to me that they are, as they are opposed to 'Nuclear reactors' outright, and without reactors, there would be no isotopes available for radiopharmaceuticals to save lives. That's sad, and the comparison between them and the anti-vaccination movement, as mentioned before, is therefore valid.

and by the way, if you think about it, everything is 'dual use'. You can use a common kitchen knife to peal potatoes to feed starving children, or you could use it to stab them all in the face, so Knives are also 'dual use'.

Another common example, relevant to this discussion is, Coal, for example Toluene essential for TNT is derived from coal and most people are opposed to making chemical explosives for use in anything but the mining industry. However pretty much no environmental group dislikes coal because it is used to make explosives, instead(and rightly so) they mainly do not like it because coal pollution kills thousands of people each year from respiratory illness, it produces far more radioactive waste than the Nuclear industry, we've only got ~300 years of it left, and finally it is the main source of the world's pressing CO2 problem.

So I think you should now understand that just like the wiki article on Environmental effects of coal use, if Coal derived Explosives was included in that article, it would be logical to seperate the article into two parts to reflect this direct and indirect environmental effects of coal.Boundarylayer

By Johnfos' rationale, every anti-war march would also indirectly be an anti-Coal march, as conventional explosives, used in just about every war, are derived from Coal. Although technically correct, I think this is Reaching Johnfos. (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Quite a rambling rant really. It seems to be often off-topic to me; even kitchen knives get a mention. Please consider writing a simple, relevant, one paragraph summary of what you want to say, with a few supporting references, as this might entice more editors to respond to you. Assuming good faith would also help. Johnfos (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Quite a passive aggressive attitude you have their Johnfos. You reverted my edits due to your false understanding of reality, therefore I reinstated my edit. You do understand you have to be factual and neutral, and present the facts when writing an encylcopedia, right?

These are the bizarre and incorrect reasons you gave for removing my edits -

(1) you wrote - 'there is considerable opposition to fusion research as it diverts funds from practical energy technologies.' That may be your personal anti-nuclear opinion, but the reality of affairs is that most rational countries are in fact funding the development of Fusion, for an example see ITER.

(2)You then suggested that - 'solar and geothermal power are regarded as renewable energy' and that's fine, but where exactly did I say that solar and geothermal weren't regarded as renewable? I think you'll find I didn't, all I made readers aware of is the fact that both are energy sources derived from nuclear energy: The Solar Sun being a Nuclear Fusion fireball, and the Earth containing natural Uranium, Thorium and Potassium-40 which due to Nuclear decay, is the source of geothermal energy.

See- http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/how-geothermal-energy-works.html 'Below the Earth's crust, there is a layer of hot and molten rock called magma. Heat is continually produced there, mostly from the decay of naturally radioactive materials such as uranium and potassium.' &

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/07/18/nuclear-fission-confirmed-as-source-of-more-than-half-of-earths-heat/ 'Nuclear decay Confirmed as Source of More than Half of Earth’s Heat'

So the anti-nuclear movement isn't really 'anti-Nuclear' after all, if indeed they want more geothermal energy plants and solar panels. Both these sources of Energy are both Nuclear & considered 'Renewable', you see, those terms aren't mutually exclusive.

As a side note, regarding the 'renewable' term, who exactly said that Fission Nuclear power is never going to be renewable? see - Nuclear power proposed as renewable energy. Right now Nuclear tech is regarded non-renewable, but it will be in the next ~30 years.

And finally, the greatest lie of all (3) you wrote 'cyclotrons produce radioisotopes and no nuclear reactor is needed'. No, that's entirely false John. Cyclotrons may be used to purify radioisotopes, but they aren't used to produce the radioisotopes used in the vast majority of radiopharmaceuticals, Nuclear reactors are, contrary to your opinion, the sole producer. See the National Research Universal reactor & Chalk River Reactor the sole producer of most of the worlds life saving Technetium 99m which is used for common imaging procedures to diagnose and detect heart disease, cancer and other conditions. More than 16 million procedures are conducted annually in the U.S. alone using that isotope. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100708111326.htm

You take away Nuclear reactors, and you take away all the life saving drugs produced by them, is this what the anti-Nuclear movement want?

Bizarre.

They're the facts John, your 'anti-nuclear' attempts at spin are down right misinformation and frankly despicable. Boundarylayer (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Nuclear power is not healthy poster.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nuclear power is not healthy poster.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Unilateral split of polling info into separate article

Recently, an editor split out a large block of text into a new article without any discussion. Was there ever a {{SPLIT TO}} tag placed on this article, to afford interested parties the chance to discuss this bold edit, or is this just a single editors unvetted idea? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I felt that this split was fairly straightforward, since the article had become too long and the Public opinion section was not really on the topic of the Anti-nuclear movement. I used WP:SummaryStyle in the usual way, splitting material to the new article, but leaving a summary and link here. Johnfos (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You did leave leave a nice summary, it does seem reasonable, in good faith, and in compliance with the split guidelines. I happen to think they should always get tagged and discussed first. Anyone have other comments about the merits of the split itself? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)