Anti-nuclear
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. |
To be anti-nuclear mean to be opposed to the use of nuclear energy. This opposition can take various shapes:
- opposition to nuclear weapons and weapons using depleted uranium but in favour of nuclear disarmament
- opposition to nuclear power and generation of electricity with nuclear energy, typically combined with promotion of renewable energy energy sources as an alternative.
- opposition to the use of radioactivity and food irradiation
Many Anti-nuclear people are against the use of nuclear power for electricity generation, since they think nuclear power is inherently dangerous. First of all, they consider the risk of nuclear accident high and unacceptable, and that radioactive waste cannot be safely disposed of. Many anti-nuclear people claim also the dangers of uranium mining, nuclear reprocessing.
'The Anti-nuclear movement' is an ecological movement in favour of nuclear disarmament and safe and affordable renewable energy. The antagonist movement to the anti-nuclear movement is the pro-nuclear movement, which typically considers the risks of nuclear power small and acceptable, and also view it as more affordable than the renewables.
Contents |
[edit] History
The coming of environmentalist awareness meant that the impacts of a complex technology became open to challenge. Nuclear power was a target for opposition in the 1970s somehow because it was expanding but not yet entrenched. In addition, it was linked to nuclear weapons both technologically and conceptually. The connections between International export and development of nuclear power technologies and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction became more known as a negative factor in the 1970s after the signing of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Finally, nuclear power has always been a technology which necessarily depends on experts and has thus become categorised as an elitist technology. The public perception of nuclear power is based on general political and social knowledge 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 (which any thermal power source can produce, and which impact depends on energy efficiency), known and potential reactor accidents, release of radiation during shipments, long term radioactive waste storage and disposal. The environmental movement had made such concerns socially legitimate, whereas opposition on issues such as concentration of capital in huge engineering endeavours rather than decentralised small business and proliferation of nuclear weapons did not invoke the same mainstream social resonance.
By the time of the rise of New England's Clamshell Alliance, California's 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 pollution and proliferation to include economic and terrorist target critiques. Small-scale alternative technologies, solar panels, conservation, bicycle transit and other suggestions were mainstays of the movement.
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, and many were arrested in mass protests. Along with numerous documentary film treatments, the Academy Award nominated The China Syndrome, 1979, and Silkwood movies addressed primary concerns of anti-nuclear activists.
Some observers claimed to see a considerable overlap between opponents of nuclear power and supporters of unilateral disarmament during the Cold War. Others link the anti-nuclear movement to currents within the environmentalist movement who want the West (particularly the U.S.) to stop using so much energy and get back to simpler things.
[edit] Nuclear accidents
Nuclear accidents are often cited by anti-nuclear groups as evidence of the inherent danger of nuclear power (see list of nuclear accidents). Most commonly cited by anti-nuclear people is the Chernobyl disaster, which resulted in massive amounts of radio-isotopes being released into the environment. A nuclear accident like Chernobyl, which anti-nuclear activists believe leaves vast tracts of land uninhabitable for thousands of years.
[edit] Nuclear waste
According to anti-nuclear organisations, extremely difficult to render nuclear waste harmless and it remains a hazard for anywhere between a few years to million of years, depending on the particular isotopes. The time waste has to be stored is highly 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 that the uranium ore it was produced from.
[edit] Monetary cost of nuclear power
Anti-nuclear organisations consider that nuclear power is not cost-effective because of the huge costs of constructing a nuclear plant (see Darlington Nuclear Generating Station), the public subsidies and tax expenditures involved in research and security, and the undetermined costs of storing nuclear waste. They also declare that the real cost of nuclear power is very high if all the expenses are honestly taken into account : public scientific research, decommissioning nuclear facilities, long term management of nuclear waste.
[edit] Nuclear proliferation
Part of the radioactive material produced in some types of nuclear reactors has the potential to be used to make Nuclear Weapons. Anti nuclear activists claim that this makes nuclear power undesirable out of concern for nuclear proliferation.
[edit] Anti-nuclear alternatives
Anti-nuclear groups suggest to develop a distributed generation of renewable energy, such as hydroelectricity, biomass (wood fuel and biofuel), geothermal power, co-generation, wind power and solar power. Some anti-nuclear proponents also consider that a nuclear power phase-out imply a sustainable transition period rely on clean coal-fired or gas-powered plants.
Anti-nuclear groups also tend to claim that reliance on nuclear energy can be reduced by adopting energy conservation and energy efficiency policies.
Anti-nuclear groups normally favour changing human lifestyles to allow for a lower energy consumption met by renewable energy sources.
[edit] Anti-Nuclear organisations
[edit] International organisations
- 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
[edit] Local organisations
- [1] The history of the Clamshell Alliance and why it matters today.
- Abalone Alliance, California, USA
- Clamshell Alliance, New Hampshire, USA
- Sortir du nucléaire in France
- Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Maryland, USA
- Anti-Nuclear Alliance of Western Australia
- Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout in Canada
- The Low Level Radiation Campaign in United Kingdom See page on The Low Level Radiation Campaign
- Plutonium Investigation - WISE-Paris in France
- Citizens' Nuclear Information Center in Japan
- Robin Wood in Germany
[edit] See also
- Nuclear Power
- Nuclear power phase-out
- Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
- Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (TREC)
- Nuclear-Free Future Award
- Earthlife Africa
- Koeberg Alert
- The China Syndrome
- Nuclear-free zone
[edit] External links
- [2] The History of the Clamshell Alliance and why it matters today.
- La France Nucléaire Nuclear energy in France: Materials and Sites (online book in English and French)
- European NGOs aim to collect one million signatures against nuclear power in Europe
[edit] Bibliography
- Lawrence S. Wittner The Struggle Against the Bomb Stanford, CA: Stanford University 3 vol. ed I 1993 II 1997 III 2003
