Talk:Anti-nuclear movement/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Should not be a redirect

I don't really see what possible justification there is for redirecting this to Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, an article about a UK-based group opposing one aspect of nuclear technology, rather than to anti-nuclear, (which isn't but should be) about the more general international movement.

I can see one obvious reason: To promote the organisation in question. But perhaps that's unkind.

As a (generous IMO) peace (;-> offer, let's try a disambig. Andrewa 16:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

In theory, "anti-nuclear" could mean a number of things.

• It could mean opposition to nuclear power, as the current introduction suggests: The anti-nuclear movement holds that nuclear power is inherently dangerous and thus ought to be "replaced with safe and affordable renewable energy". See also the external link currently in the introduction.

• It could mean those opposed to nuclear weapons, that is the disarmament movement. This is presumably the sense in which those who redirected anti-nuclear movement to Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament took the term. As its name suggests, the CND website concerns itself primarily with nuclear weapons.

• It could mean those opposed to both nuclear weapons and nuclear power. In practice, groups (including CND) opposed to one have traditionally opposed the other.

The distinction has become more relevant with several prominent environmentalists recently suggesting that nuclear power may be preferable to fossil fuel. Pro-nuclear environmentalism has been an insignificant minority view (to which I admit to subscribing) up until now, but may be becoming more politically viable. Andrewa 01:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

See [1] for some links to all sorts of "anti-nuclear" organisations. Andrewa 03:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

antinuclear means a number of things, andthe present definition is too short to be right : The anti-nuclear movement holds that nuclear power is inherently dangerous and thus ought to be "replaced with safe and affordable renewable energy. my english is not perfect, but i will put it right if nobody else do it.--82.122.47.240 20:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Accidents and costs

Added in sections regarding anti-nuclear (nuclear power) arguments based on the cost of nuclear power and the safety of nuclear power. Needs more sources...based on many articles I've read but I'm having a hard time finding them again. Burtonpe 17:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Pro Nuclear Arguments

The lack of Pro (for) Nuclear Power Arguments while Anti Nuclear Arguments are being presented seems to be in clear violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I am proposing a "arguments for nuclear power " section. Revengeofthynerd 04:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Why don't you try making a "pro-nuclear" page.aceslead 02:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• AGREE--aceslead 17:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• The pro-nuclear stance is already made clear in the main nuclear entry; the anti-nuclear position is not. Giachen 02:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• I agree that the articles subject is ANTI nuclear and so not a policy violation. Given the consensus I am removing the POV tag forthwith.Mombas 07:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Considering that we're not going to get a pro-nuclear article, why not move this to "Nuclear power debate" and expand it from there? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Opinions, Encyclopedic form and references.

I noticed many parts of this article actually said very little about what anti nuclear groups believe, and seemed to be written as to present the arguments against nuclear power. As Wikipedia is intended to be Encyclopedic, I tried to rewrite it in the form "Anti-nuclear groups believe" or "Anti-nuclear groups claim" as this is more descriptive and encyclopedic. In particular, the part on energy conservation said a lot about what energy conservation was, which I believe is material which belongs in the article's on energy conservation rather than here. I think it would be better if this article focused on what anti nuclear groups believe and how they tend to differ from their opponents. Thus "Energy conservation can replace nuclear power" is POV and unsuitable, whereas "anti-nuclear groups consider energy conservation a preferable and realistic alternative to nuclear power" is much more NPOV and more encyclopedic. Also, the referencing could need some work. Wikipedia has a great referencing system and seeing that there already is a lot of articles on the subject in the external links section it should be possible to utilise it better. J.Ring 01:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're working for, but this is still an uphill battle. Whenever you say "It is widely thought that..." then you get into problems of weasel words, trying to put some opinion in instead of putting someone's opinion in. Wikipedia's best approach is to say "Greenpeace claims that..." and such. Saying "Anti-nuclear groups believe..." is somewhere in the middle of those two examples, but uncomfortably close to saying "It is widely believed...". This article is built upon classifying groups into the anti-nuclear category and necessarily requires beliefs and arguments thought to common be common for that group - this is inherently a problem, and I would say, makes it encyclopedic. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

:History of the Anti-Nuclear Movement

I think it's true that opposition to nuclear power is rooted in the ban-the-bomb movement of the 1950s, but it didn't get started until the 1970s. In between, the same people concentrated on the Vietnam War, even in Europe. In the US, this movement was sympathetic to, but competed with, the civil-rights and free-speech movements.

Along with those political movements was a second stream, a counterculture one, that rejected materialism and middle-class conventions. To a large extent, this second group's membership overlapped the first's.

In the 1970s, many people became aware that large-scale industry and agrichemistry were threatening the environment, so a third, broader stream became highly vocal, though distinctly more middle-class.

These three streams, as well as the anti-war and free-speech movements, joined together to form what is commonly called the environmental movement. The Green Party and new political-activist groups started, such as Friends of the Earth and Union of Concerned Scientists, as well as numberless smaller groups. The Sierra Club changed from a conservation club to another political organization.

In all these groups, anti-nuclear concepts were combined with malthusian beliefs, anti-materialistic principles, anti-government prejudice, anti-business convictions, and faith in renewable energy. The combination worked for adherents because it was internally consistent but failed for the general public because the parts were inseparable. The movement was never successful politically, but was able to attract minor celebrities and promote its doctrines, helped by scientifically untrained journalists whose primary goal was to obtain watchable film footage. Its success did not depend on justifying its beliefs, but only on creating doubt in the public mind about the safety of nuclear energy.

There never has been a pro-nuclear movement. The only people who advocate nuclear energy are scientists, engineers, and the people who've worked in the field. They've never organized. Cde3 06:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

While the rest of the above entry is arguable--many self-identified anti-nuclear activists are scientists, and are not "anti-materialist"--and some got their start as a result of being affected by an accident (for example, the people working against Three Mile Island to this day)--this last sentence ("There never has been a pro-nuclear movement.") is patently false. The pro-nuclear movement is massively well-financed and well-staffed; the utilities have billions at stake and therefore hire lobbyists at will. For example, check out the Nuclear Enterprise Institute, self-described as "the policy organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industry."

Giachen 02:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Giachen, thanks for commenting. I don't follow your first point, since no one was affected by the TMI accident. Certainly many people were affected by sensationalist reporting, though. I think your second point is simply wrong. Not only is there no pro-nuclear movement, there's no sign of money washing around. There are no advertising campaigns, and no propagandistic films are being underwritten. A small lobby group with a web site can hardly be called a political movement, and clearly it isn't massively financed. The utilities don't have billions at stake; they're content to install whatever equipment the regulatory agencies will allow: nuclear, fossil, or renewable. Because of litigation delays in nuclear licensing, and since renewables are unreliable as well as uneconomical, utilities have resorted almost exclusively to fossil fuels, with disastrous environmental consequences. Therein lies the difference between antinukes and environmentalists. The utilities face only the possibility that public sentiment could force regulators to shut down all nuclear plants. In view of the plants' safety record and the marginal capacity reserves in the US, that risk is remote at worst.

cde3Cde3 19:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Cde3, for the response to my response. But I suspect you don't live in the vicinity of TMI, since if you did, it's unlikely you'd claim “no one was affected” by the partial meltdown that occurred there, and which results in the continued release of radiation into the Susquehanna River. (Since the 1979 accident, no one’s been able to go inside TMI’s Unit 2, as it’s so “hot.”) In terms of a pro-nuclear lobby, we just don’t agree on what “small” is. Two hundred sixty companies comprise the Nuclear Energy Institute, which exists solely to lobby Congress “on key legislative and regulatory issues affecting the industry.” The utility industry is currently looking for $20-25 billion in Congressional subventions. That all adds up to “massive” to me, not small--but perhaps it's fair to say there's no "political movement," since the lobbying push stems from the industry. Finally, usually anti-nukes and environmentalists are one and the same: I refer you to the Sierra Club and the NRDC, two examples of established environmental organizations which continue to oppose nuclear power.Giachen 16:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Giachen, this is an interesting dialog, which I think is consistent with the purpose of the page. No, I think where our views differ is that you see a well-financed publicity campaign driven by an industry lobby. I don't see any publicity campaign at all. A political movement, paid for or not, would feature rallies and concerts. One-sided TV documentaries. In contrast, NEI sends a spokesperson whenever someone sponsors a debate and needs somebody from that other side.

As a matter of fact, I was in Pittsburgh when TMI occurred. I remember very clearly that it all was a reporters' riot. Hundreds of reporters converged, each trying to make a story where none existed. Every detail was reported in ominous terms as if a disaster were imminent and then the same reporters related in detail the panicked reactions of the residents.

Not one person was injured. Not one person was killed, crippled, or even made sick. Compare that with an ordinary coal mine accident or oil refinery fire. Compare that with the thousands of Americans killed every month by pollution from coal-fired power plants. I would say reporters lost respect during that incident, but I don't actually think that could be possible.

It seems like some people confuse radioactivity with virus; there seems not be much awareness that the world is naturally radioactive, and that the level of radioactivity varies widely. The small increment of radiation release at TMI is negligible and, not to put too fine a point on it, is smaller than the radioactive releases from coal-burning plants.

The NRDC and the Sierra Club gave up any claim to legitimacy as environmentalists when they aimed their most hysterical declamations against nuclear energy, which has a perfect safety record, and offered only token opposition to fossil fuels, which are proven to spread death and illness on a terrifying scale. It's all political. The NRDC lies for pay. The Sierra Club does more to promote gambling on Indian reservations than it does to protect human health.

I don't have a rejoinder on the money handouts. It's become customary for free-enterprise businessmen to angle for government subsidies (and tax credits and free loans, etc.). I don't suppose there's any reason to expect utility executives to be different.(Cde3)66.114.133.10 04:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I edited the text slightly. The article is supposed to describe the views of nuclear opponents, not to state them as facts. Also, some of the language (using adjectives like "huge" and "extremely") didn't represent the views of most nuclear opponents.Cde3 06:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I added some quotations to document the motives of early antinukes.Cde3 17:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Cde3, your referring to Sierra Club and NRDC as making "hysterical declamations" is not in line with the facts. You may disagree, but their position papers are anything but hysterical, and available for all to see with a minimum of effort on-line. To suggest the NRDC "lies for pay" and "the Sierra Club does more for gambling..." etc. are pure ad hominem attacks, reveal your own hysteria on this subject, and have no place on Wikipedia. A perfect safety record is also contrary to the facts: no industry has that, and nuclear energy certainly doesn't break that trend. Furthermore, there is plenty of disagreement about the number of people subjected to radiation poisoning at TMI; I refer you to Columbia University's 1991 Susser-Hatch study, which I suspect you are already aware of. The nuclear industry has a well-financed and extensive lobby, as noted above, spending many, many millions to promote its interests. In the view of many mainstream environmentalists, those interests often do not align with the public good.Giachen 19:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Giachen, I've been following the anti-nuke movement for a long time, and I can assure you that, when it mattered, NRDC and the Sierra Club were attacking nuclear energy with no sense of proportion. At present, the Sierra Club is only complaining about nuclear waste, which includes medical and nondestructive-testing waste. But even today, the Sierra Club has the following remark on its web site: "Nuclear waste accumulation is accelerating, and no plan for its permanent isolation has been developed anywhere in the world." This remark is so totally false that it proves the Sierra Club has no interest whatsoever in reality. Here's a quote from NRDC's "Nuclear Facts" brochure: "All stages of the nuclear fuel cycle involve potentially harmful, or in some cases disastrous environmental impacts (e.g., Chernobyl), requiring continuous and vigorous regulation, with signiicant financial penalties exacted for poor environmental and safety performance to ensure compliance." Not having any real basis for attacking nuclear energy, NRDC instead equates western reactors, which have a perfect record, with Chernobyl, an unsafely-built and unsafely-operated Soviet plant with essentially no operating safety systems.

In contrast, I don't think I'm hysterical at all. You cited NRDC and the Sierra Club as established environmental organizations; I reject that description and instead am arguing that they only are political organizations with compromising alliances and conflicts of interest.

I can't guess what standard you set, but for most people a record of no deaths or injuries to the public qualifies as a perfect one.

Check your source on the Susser-Hatch study. Here's a quotation from the report I found at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYP/is_14_111/ai_111357438/pg_5:

---

Pending a demonstration that very low dose gamma radiation can act as a tumor promoter or the identification of another late-stage carcinogen in the effluent stream, an effect of plant emissions in producing the unusual patterns of lung cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma appears unlikely, and alternative explanations need to be considered.

---

The problem as described is that both dosage and effect were so low that no relationship could be established. In a later study, they suggested that the slight effect either resulted from statistical noise or could have been caused by stress. If it's the second possibility, then irresponsible news coverage did more harm than the accident did.Cde3 16:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(likely unpopular) Question

If other people can make an article titled Anti-nuclear noting organizations like the Clamshell Alliance, then does that mean I can make an Anti-wind article noting organizations like the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound?

I'm not kidding here, I'll do it. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact is this article should be named anti-nuclear movement. As for anti-wind, well, that would be an example of WP:POINT, so no, you can't (well, you can, but will likely face consequences). If no one complains, I'll do the rename soon.CyrilleDunant 08:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If I made it right now, then yes, but according to the policy, it wouldn't be against WP:POINT if we all agreed here to do it. So what do ya say, eh? eh? (ok I'm just joking now)

But yes, I agree that anti-nuclear movement would be a better title. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, in the French WP, some guy actually did the anti-wind thing. As a joke. Unfortunately, humour is not as widespread as he hoped and those articles have been a battleground ever since (sad but true)... CyrilleDunant 05:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. fr:Débat sur l'énergie éolienne I believe? As strong of a desire to translate that article is, I'll lay off for the moment. It's funny that they have "Advertisement" tags on the wind power article too. In another niche though, I plan to start an article on both Stop Temelin and Start Zwentendorf (just google for background). In terms of the idiots who argue that all electricity production should be replace by nuclear though, I just want them to look at Zwentendorf, which honestly shows that they're full of it. Anti-nuclear = pro-coal. There's no way around that. Anyway, I digress. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Antinuclear wiki

Is there any antinuclear wiki?. --HybridBoy 13:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If by anti-nuclear, you mean a wiki centered around the environmental dangers of the anti-nuclear movement, then I do know of one. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This page is pro-nuclear. And anti-democratic because don´t accept democratic result of phase-out nuclear power plant. --Nopetro 23:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you even understand what I wrote? Do you even speak English? Your above response above not relevant or coherent. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The wiki says in the Main Page (you have to register to read) :

"It's start-up was blocked in November 1978 by thin majority of 50.47% in popular vote. Citizens movement START ZWENTENDORF organizes Austrian-Czech border blockades and demonstrations to start-up the nuclear power station in Zwentendorf in Austria". Really antidemocratic.--Nopetro 08:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You really don't understand what they did there do you (I'll give you a hint: Start Zwentendorf doesn't organize border blockades and demonstrations)? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding More sources tag

I'm adding a More sources tag to this article because there are many unsourced statements. There are also quite a few blog sources (eg., blogspot.com) which are cited and which are unacceptable on WP. These should be removed. The other thing is that at the very least the title of the source document, not just the URL, should be given in the reference list.

Adding POV tag

I've been watching this article for some time and it's ironic that an article with the title Anti-nuclear movement has now become one of the most pro-nuclear on WP. This is mainly due to contributions from Cde3.

Reading the criticism section one gets the opinion that all the nuclear experts are pro-nuclear. This is clearly not the case as physicists such as Amory Lovins and Ian Lowe have "specialist technical knowledge" and are anti-nuclear. As far as pro-nuclear environmentalists go, Lovelock and others have their critics, yet this seems to be overlooked in the article.

Various disparaging comments are made about renewable energy technologies, yet the reality is that many renewables are being rapidly commercialized as part of The Clean Tech Revolution.

There is much more that could be said. In short the article needs a more balanced perspective. Johnfos 06:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Johnfos, I'll admit to favoring nuclear energy as a solution to the problems of pollution and climate change. My intent, though, was to remove a lot of anti-nuclear bias. The article included many anti-nuclear contentions as though they were facts. I can't account for what impressions you got. It's a fact that some critics of anti-nukes have specialized knowledge in the area of nuclear energy. For whatever scientific training they have, neither Lovins or Lowe every worked in that field. Actually, Lovins has never done scientific work since he left college and Lowe has always been an educator. In any event, references to them would belong somewhere other than in the Criticism section.

Part of the anti-nuclear argument is that renewables can render nuclear energy unnecessary. I don't see how the article could be complete with only that position described and no description of the opposing position. Your own position is that renewables are being rapidly commercialized; that's a viewpoint open to challenge, and doesn't address their limitations.

Your basic point is probably right. The subject is contentious, with different contributors adding their own perspectives. Even if a final authority existed, advocates of different viewpoints would still dispute his version. It doesn't hurt to post a disclaimer tag at the top, although most people would approach the article aware of its controversial nature. Actually, a lot of articles deserve that tag, including the ones you referenced. Cde3 17:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree this page is pro-nuclear. So lacks NPOV. HybridBoy 17:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

So, I re-added the NPOV because there is no consensus. Images are deleted, citations are deleted, Einstein´s reference in history is deleted. This is not a neutral article. --HybridBoy 08:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This article contains a chart that shows over half of Europeans favored nuclear energy in 2002. Checking the source shows that is not the result of the poll. This chart has been deleted numerous times by different editors but keeps being restored even though the information is false.

Furthermore, the article contains a quotation from former US VP Gore which is irrelevant to the subject of the article, and is apparently included only to persuade readers to a particular opinion.--Cde3 18:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My take on the article direction

Yeah, we've had people go in trying to just put pro-nuclear stuff in at every place they can wedge it, we've also had people do that in the other direction. In order for this to actually be a good article, we need better history and attribution. Like, instead of expanding on the technical information that should be covered elsewhere, include that there are some radicals out there who complete reject the life cycle analysis that shows how much CO2 is emitted. Also, include specific people and what they argue instead of having a "Stances" section.

I think Johnfos has pretty good ideas for it. I'll try to contribute more of the specific ones that I've dealt with. I was trying to do a little of this with the Storm and Smith reference on nuclear power, but I want to have that covered well in this article. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Further reflection

I have to admit that I don't know a lot about the Anti-nuclear movement, just what I've picked up in passing on WP. But I would have thought that it was important to mention something about actual groups such as the Abalone Alliance and the Clamshell Alliance, their attempt at a non-violent approach, and the impact they had. And, yes, it is important that we don't reinvent the wheel and end up simply doing another nuclear pros and cons article. We need to focus on the people issues here.

I think its good that editors are coming to the Talk page to discuss these sorts of things. I don't have a lot of time to put in to the article right now but appreciate that you have some ideas Anphibian and would encourage you to make some gradual improvements and discuss things further as needed.

And, as the article progresses, we just need to remember that the WP principle of WP:NPOV requires that we describe competing views without endorsing any one in particular. Johnfos 06:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh oh, the one in particular I was thinking of before was Helen Caldicott. In my opinion, a IRL troll. Her claims are Ah-mazing. example video. She is fregin' crazy. People like her definitely need a good amount of space in this article.

For another example, she mentions in that video "there's only one decent study to look at the whole nuclear fuel chain from beginning to end." I haven't read the book, but I'm pretty sure she's talking about the one I was referencing in the nuclear power article. Anyway, I know this is going to show my pro-nuclear stance, but this kind of lie spinning of "all scientific articles except for mine are wrong" is seriously used heavily today and convinces many people this "green anti-nuclear" approach under false pretenses. If you're going to be against something, do it for the right reasons :)

But yeah, I think we have a good discussion going. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Images

I really don't have a problem with the images myself. Protests and stuff are illustrative. What does bother me are the ones that we don't know where they're from. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

they are (were) also located at bizarre places in the article. Also, they are only an illustration of a part of this movement. Not of the lobbying efforts and political activism, frequently financed by other industrial lobbies but give the impression of a more sympathetic "young idealists defending the planet" thing. In that, they are not illustrative, but rather misleading. CyrilleDunant 09:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

eh, I think all articles still have a little bit of a right to pretty itself up, and we do have all of this as free media. I'd say allow pictures for a protest is there's some text corresponding to it. The EPR protests are the only ones I can see this working for. If people want to sing songs and act like it's an anti-nuclear protest, then whatever, let 'em. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is you don´t like antinuclear logos and pictures (you deleted a logo and a picture about an anti-nuclear manifestation). But, I and more peoplereally LOVE them. Because of you delete what is nuclear opposing, you got the NPOV tag. On the other hand, the Smiling Sun Logo apperas in http://plarmy.org/zwentendorf/en/index.php/START_ZWENTENDORF , http://www.nuclearpowernothanks.org/, http://nonewnukes.ukrivers.net/index.html , http://www.foe.ie/campaigns/nuclear.html, http://sustainablefuture.mysite.orange.co.uk/smilingsuns.html... --193.145.201.53 09:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't deleted any of them. Check it. Do it. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:CyrilleDunant has deleted one. I restore it. And we would include a section about antinuclear logos. --HybridBoy 08:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[2] probably has iffy legal status. Can't we have pictures not violating WP policy?CyrilleDunant 08:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You are not right. One can upload fair use image. But before delete, one discuss it in the talk page. --Mac 07:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore and Nuclear Energy

This isn't an article about global warming, or about Al Gore, or even about nuclear energy. It's about the anti-nuclear movement. Mr. Gore's opinions are irrelevant. Moreover, if a nuclear opponent made the argument, the counter-argument would also be appropriate, since the denial of panacea status to nuclear energy would be a straw-man argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cde3 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This is non-controvertible. The section is "The Anti-Nuclear Movement and Global Warming" main "Global warming", and has in it a quote from Al Gore about nuclear power and global warming. 199.125.109.46 19:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. I'll edit the section slightly; see if you approve.Cde3 19:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The original was better. I'm out of reverts for the day but tell your sockpuppeteer that this article is written in commonwealth english, not in American english and to revert this.[3] I see that this still needs to be fixed. They complain about using commonwealth english in a messed up edit that changes the title of the page and uses American english in multiple places? 199.125.109.46 22:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess we can keep reverting each other's changes, but we ought to be able to come to an agreement. Even if this is a section about global warming, the article is about the movement. This is simply an argument against nuclear energy and should be described as such and put in a context that relates to the subject, and it belongs in the Stances section. On top of that, there should be references to show that anti-nuclear groups agree with Mr. Gore's view.

I think you're saying that anything that relates to global warming can be included here. By that reasoning, we should also include the viewpoints of global-warming skeptics and all the possible ways nuclear energy can reduce greenhouse gases.Cde3 23:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please try to keep to commonwealth English. It is -ise, and not ize, and favour and not favor (amongst other). Your edits can be reverted for this sole reason.CyrilleDunant 05:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Am I hearing an echo? I'm the one using commonwealth English. 199.125.109.46 21:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Popularity Polls and Pie Charts.

First, polls about the popularity of nuclear energy aren't history. Maybe a new section should be added, possibly about the effectiveness of the movement; otherwise, poll results aren't relevant to the movement, as far as I can tell. Second, the fact that most people don't want a nuclear plant near their homes isn't significant by itself. Most people don't want to live near a coal plant, or a wind farm, or a meat-packing plant, or a wastewater-treatment plant, or just about anything that isn't a home, church, school, or small business. Third, the reference gives conflicting results. The New York poll shows most people oppose nuclear energy but the Los Angeles poll shows the opposite. If poll results are to be presented, there ought to be something more comprehensive than one or two small samples.

In a day or two, I'd like to delete both the remark about a single poll presently in the History section and the pie chart that's been in and out of the article for a couple of weeks. If anyone objects, please comment here. Thanks.Cde3 05:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It illustrates the point that this movement is a minority point of view. Which is important for the argument. CyrilleDunant 11:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

But the article isn't supposed to argue for or against nuclear energy. It's supposed to describe the anti-nuclear movement. If antinuclearism is a minority viewpoint, that information needs more support than one or two polls, and doesn't belong in the History section.Cde3 16:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to my point of view. I have displaced the poll results to a possibly more adequate position. As for the representativity of polls, you may provide additional contradictory sources demonstrating the non-representativity of this specific instance. CyrilleDunant 20:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I just googled "nuclear energy polls europe." Here are some hits:

• http://www.euractiv.com/en/opinion/majority-europeans-oppose-nuclear-power/article-145003: negative on nuclear
• http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0106/p06s02-woeu.html: negative on nuclear but becoming more positive
• http://www.foratom.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=1095: positive on nuclear

It seems to me that one poll result is inadequate, and maybe misleading, and a collection of them is confusing. From looking around on the net, it looks as though anti-nukes are spinning the results one way and pro-nukes the other way. Besides, the results depend on the questions asked. For example, if a person says he'd rather get electricity from windpower than nuclear, does that consider the difference in reliability and cost, or is the respondent assuming that everything is equal? If he says there ought to be more nuclear plants, does he mean in addition to renewables and conservation, or instead of them? Or is he comparing nuclear plants to coal-fired ones? In many cases, the answers depend on the questions that came before, and often the results are shown without that information.

I don't want to pick a fight, but I think the article would be better for now without any attempt at showing poll results. If someone could present a thorough exposition of polls along with their historical trends, then it could make sense to include them in an Effectiveness section. On Wednesday, if no one objects strenuously, I'll take them out.--Cde3 00:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You have allready done that, and there allready were objections. So stop removing sourced data.CyrilleDunant 05:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You do know that this entire thing was prompted by me just inserting a lonely image from the commons right? My problem with what you're linking to here is that they're all just articles and not real... data. If you go through multiple reports of multiple opinion polls on nuclear power, you should find that all comprehensive studies agree on trends over time, by country, and to some extent the general number. example of multiple studies. High in the 70s and 2000s, but lowest around 1990. Also, high in South Korea, Sweden, France, Indonesia, and others generally while the opinion in countries like the US or the UK are highly contestable. There's also a commonly used IAEA report that finds that educated men are the demographic that supports nuclear power the most and that South Korea and Japan are the most informed while France is not well informed - just in case you were curious.

I'm not making this up. There are things that data out there does support, and there should be no problem covering that information in this (or related) articles. And like I said, the chart fit in well until the picture nazis went through. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as for the other pictures, obviously copyright violations were not going to stay online long...CyrilleDunant 05:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

True, but the consensus with the poll stuff seems to be that we don't have comprehensive enough of information, no? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not get your point. I believe this poll to be very well as it is. Of course, a more comprehensive history of the popular view of nuclear power would be excellent, but I don't see the point in removing sourced (and relevant) information. CyrilleDunant 13:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a new section on Poll Results. Anphibian, there was a discrepancy in the chart. The label showed 2005 but the reference showed 2002. I changed the chart since it differed from Eurobarometer's 2005 results. If I did wrong, please correct it as needed and accept my regrets.--Cde3 19:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing Notes: "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. " This isn't grammatical, and it's not clear what you're trying to say.

It is perfectly "grammatical". It also exhibits correct grammar: (object), (incised qualification), (verb) (complement). CyrilleDunant 05:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"The general image of nuclear power is to be distinguished from the perception of the risks" True though this may be, the polling results that follow don't support the conclusion. The results only have significance if their context is described. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cde3 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it wasn't me who wrote those, but good luck getting them cleared up. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Note on pie chart that's been in and out and moved around: The poll does not show that European sentiments were 2:1 in favor of nuclear energy. The question asked was, " if all the waste is managed safely, nuclear power should remain an option for electricity production in the European Union" --agree or disagree? The results were: Strongly agree 14.9% Tend to agree 35.6% Tend to disagree 15.1% Strongly disagree 10.4% Average 2.72% Don’t know 24.2%

To leave out the qualifier misrepresents the results. Elsewhere in the same reference, 68.6% of the respondents said they were at least fairly worried about nuclear wastes at the national level and 70.1% were at least fairly worried about waste handling in other EU countries.--Cde3 01:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Very well, then change the legend, do not remove the chart... Not also that the chart illustrates then the point I was making and which you edited out.CyrilleDunant 05:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason for you liking the chart. It is quite misleading to have only one chart. Somewhere I saw a set of about 10 charts showing varying views toward nuclear power around Europe. Even that is too limited. What about the rest of the world? This article is about a movement, not about the success of that movement, which is only tangential to the article. 199.125.109.58 23:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

this is what we currently have, made by hard working wikipedians like yourself. Feel free to create more media or use these to your hearts content. Any other problems? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Images

Greetings, a word from a bored Wikimedia Commons admin:

I see that an awful lot of images in violation of copyright are uploaded on Commons, apparently in order to illustrate this article. So let me explain: Reproducing a poster, image or logo by trivial photography does not constitute an original work. If you go around and start taking photographs of promotional posters in the street, the copyright of the poster holds, and you are not entitled to licence your photograph as you please. The very same applies to antinuclear posters.

In order to have something of the sort on Wikimedia Commons, I suggest that someone contacts the makers of a proeminent logo or poster and require that the author licence their work under the CC-by-sa, CC-by, Public Domain or GFDL (Tip: terms like "licenced under XXX for Wikipedia" is not acceptable on Commons and will get erased, so word your request appropriately so that someone ignorant of licencing matters does not void his own licence by mistake, and make certain that he understands what he is signing for). After recieving the mail, forward it to the OTRS at permissions@wikimedia.org

I am sorry to have to say that unless you prove that the images are not in violation of copyright, they will be deleted on sight. If you have questions, you can ask them on Commons Village pump, on my talk page, or on IRC, among other things. Thank you for your understanding. Rama 09:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That shouldn't have been uploaded to the commons as it is a political poster. It has been reduced in resolution and uploaded as a fair-use image for this article. I wouldn't call one image "an awful lot of images". Cheapthrill 19:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither would I. Sixteen, on the other hand, is clearly too many. Rama 19:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Don´t worry. You only have one. Other reasons was these images were irrelevant. There are a lot of excuses to truncate plurality. By the way, Spaniards don´t like nuclear power plants. --Mac 06:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There were about 16 images uploaded on Commons in disregard or ignorance of legality, which is the only thing I care about in this framework. Your insinuations and political exaggerations are irrelevant and an insult to your intelligence. Rama 10:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV removed

The article was reviewed and determined to be neutrally presented. I am surprised that you wish to add the NPOV tag and add the POV statement about Gore. What's up? There is no reason for having the NPOV tag. The article accurately presents the anti-nuclear movement, and includes a large section on criticism of the movement (recently renamed to avoid the confusion that it was criticism about nuclear power instead of criticism about the movement). The goal of WP is to write NPOV articles, even about controversial subjects, which this is not. Nuclear technology is controversial, but not the anti-nuclear movement. You may or may not like them, I may or may not like them, but that doesn't mean that we can't write about them in a neutral manner. This article needs to be just a factual representation of the subject. Two months ago this article was written as though it was written by the pro-nuclear movement and was totally NPOV. That has been corrected, with the exception of the questionable graph showing European support for nuclear, which has been marked as dubious, which is fine, and does not make the article NPOV.

What, specifically remains in the article that is NPOV? Please remove it or edit it to correct it. Since you put up the tag, Cde3, it is your obligation to explain why you think the article is NPOV, and if you can not do that, it will be removed. Saying that "Omitting it distorts the history of the movement" is just poppy-cock. What are the most contentious subjects on Wikipedia? Abortion? Nuclear power? Intelligent design? Global warming? None of them have NPOV tags. Why? Because we don't write articles that are NPOV. This article is no exception. 199.125.109.46 (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have repeatedly explained what's wrong with this article, and repeatedly corrected it, and Cyrilledunnant simply, repeatedly, and peremptorily reverted my corrections. I would gladly ask for mediation, but the rules say that two or more people have to complain. Since I'm the only complainant, all I can do is keep the NPOV tag in place.

The anti-nuclear movement is indeed a controversial subject. Nuclear opponents think they can walk on water and are incapable of error. Nuclear advocates think opponents are both misinformed and devious. By my reckoning, nuclear technology is not controversial at all; it simply is misrepresented in the popular media because of the irresponsible conduct of the opponents. There are many articles in Wikipedia that deserve the NPOV tag; its absence in them does not qualify this article as neutral.

I can accept that some pro-nuclear information was added before that could show bias in the article. Since I'm pro-nuclear I would just consider it to be objective, but I haven't protested when it was altered. But now irrelevant material is being added for the purpose of persuading readers for or against nuclear energy. That is blatantly against the neutral-POV principle. Gore's quotation doesn't belong in the article because he's not part of the anti-nuclear movement, and pointing out his monetary motivation is only a feeble effort to put the quotation in context. I don't think putting a Dubious tag on the pie chart is nearly adequate. The chart isn't dubious, it's demonstrably false. I tried to remove it before and you-know-who just reverted it. Is there a False tag? Anyway, ordinary readers will see the chart and conclude that Europeans are wild for nuclear and won't take the trouble to look it up in the discussion, and it would be hard to find there anyway. Note that the chart is pro-nuclear, but I object to it anyway.

Omitting the part about some environmentalists favoring nuclear energy leaves the reader with the impression that all environmentalists oppose nuclear energy; in the context of history it would mean that it was a founding principle of environmentalism, even though in reality it was smuggled in by ideologues who had their own agenda and has been a point of contention ever since. Poppycock is in the eye of the beholder.Cde3 (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You may need to review the information on editing articles that you have a personal interest in at WP:COI. This article should not have anything to do with persuading readers either for nuclear or against, but simply factual statements about the movement. I do not see anywhere in the article that they think that they can walk on water and are incapable of error. It would be unlikely for anyone to be able to find a WP:RS that made either of those statements. The article does indicate that nuclear advocates think opponents are misinformed, which is how we create an NPOV article, by presenting both sides of the subject. As to devious, feel free to look for a reliable source. I doubt that you will find one. The NPOV tag does not mean that someone disagrees with the point of view of the group that the article is about, it means that the article is a piece of junk that needs to be re-written in an encyclopedic manner. "The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." As I said before, if you can't remove or edit the parts that are poorly written, I'm removing the tag. By the way, why would there be an "anti-nuclear movement" if no one thought that nuclear technology was controversial? 199.125.109.46 (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the COI rules and I'm clear: no conflicts. I have a strong POV but not a COI. The RS rules are a little tricker; they require:

• The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.
• Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are preferred.
• Items that are signed are more reliable than unsigned articles because it tells whether an expert wrote it and took responsibility for it.

Very little of the article complies with these rules. From what I can tell, it started simply enough but then anti-nuclear premises were added by nuclear opponents. Some others, including me, made some corrections. It's possible that in trying to make the article objective I added biased information in favor of nuclear energy. So I would agree that there are many RS problems with the article, but they've been there for a long time.

Whether or not water-walking claims are presented in the article, the subject of the article is controversial. Self-adulation has always been a defining feature of anti-nuclear groups. Here are quotes from some of the majors' websites:

Sierra Club: "We use law, science and the support of 1.2 million members and online activists to protect the planet's wildlife and wild places and to ensure a safe and healthy environment for all living things."

Friends of the Earth: "Friends of the Earth defends the environment and champions a healthy and just world."

Natural Resources Defense Council: "We use law, science and the support of 1.2 million members and online activists to protect the planet's wildlife and wild places and to ensure a safe and healthy environment for all living things."

Public Citizen: "We fight for openness and democratic accountability in government, for the right of consumers to seek redress in the courts; for clean, safe and sustainable energy sources; for social and economic justice in trade policies; for strong health, safety and environmental protections; and for safe, effective and affordable prescription drugs and health care."

See? Nothing about back-room deals and nest-feathering by executives. I don't see any difference between their self-praise and believing they can walk on water. To know what really happens in the big environmental groups that oppose nuclear energy, read Losing Ground: American Environmentalism at the Close of the Twentieth Century by Mark Dowie.

When nuclear advocates talk, the startling dishonesty of nuclear opponents is a frequent topic. Here's an example from Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy's website: "It is difficult to attribute the anti-nuclear position of the greens to ignorance. We have spoken briefly with one of their principal science advisors following his public statement that "we must reduce the emission of carbon dioxide by all means possible"; We asked him whether that included nuclear energy, and he quietly said 'We're not all stupid.' His smile was almost audible over the telephone wire." The point here isn't that nuclear opponents lie (they do, but that's not the point). The point is that nuclear advocates claim they do. That makes the anti-nuclear movement controversial.

No, it doesn't make it controversial. It's like if I have a fight with someone over something, the fight is the controversy, the fact that I am having a fight is non-controversial. In the same manner, the controversy is between the pro-nukes and the anti-nukes about nukes, meaning that the nuke article is controversial, not the fact that they disagree, which is non-controversial. Your introduction of controversy about the article is controversial because criticism of the movement is already amply covered, and there is no reason to treat the subject as controversial. You didn't say whether he thought that the pro-nukes are stupid or the anti-nukes are stupid in the above statement, but you did imply that one was. Clearly everyone in the anti-nuclear movement would regard pro-nukes as stupid, and pro-nukes would regard anti-nukes as stupid. Do you see that that is non-controversial? 199.125.109.58 15:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

We're arguing a point outside the question of whether the article is neutral. You challenged me to show that the anti-nuclear movement is controversial, so that's what I did. I do not think nuclear opponents are stupid. I think the original leaders spread misinformation about nuclear energy to serve the cause of lowering material consumption, especially in advanced countries. That's covered in the history part of the article. I think the followers of the movement have accepted the misinformation because they didn't take the time to check it, and because it conformed to their ideological prejudices. In all of the anti-nuclear propaganda I have seen, pro-nukes are accused not of being stupid or misinformed, not of having tangential motives, but of being manifestly evil.(Cde3)19:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You haven't convinced me that the article is about a controversial subject. The article is about a group of people who take a particular POV. What is controversial about that? The article is not about what the issue of nuclear power, it is about a group who takes a position about nuclear power. The word "evil" appears no where in the article, and once again, I think you would have a hard time finding a reliable source that said that they thought that. 199.125.109.58 00:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if you're convinced or not. I've been following this subject for forty years and I can tell you the term "evil" gets tossed in by the true believers whenever they're low on histrionic adjectives. Your position that the anti-nuclear movement isn't controversial is absurd on its face, and it's not my job to convince someone whose mind is totally closed of anything.(Cde3)Cde3 01:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that uses the word evil feel free to add it to the article. You still don't seem to see the difference between what the movement stands for and the fact that there is a movement. The facts of the movement are completely non-controversial. And that is what the article is about, not an argument for or against nuclear technology, which is obviously controversial, even though to you it is completely non-controversial; for whatever reason, no one in the anti-nuclear movement would agree with you, which is the definition of controversial. You have previously tried to add information that could have been controversial, for example that most environmentalists are pro-nuclear today, which isn't controversial at all, it is flat out false. 199.125.109.58 04:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

First, I don't need your permission to post anything. Second, I think you're pretending not to understand something that couldn't be clearer, that people have different perceptions of the anti-nuclear movement. Third, that particular point has nothing to do with the article. Fourth, I did not at any time add the information that most environmentalists are pro-nuclear today; your statement that I did so is flat out false. I have added the information that some environmentalists have always favored nuclear energy, which is a fact. This dialog has gone way beyond stupid and I'm not taking part in it any further.(Cde3)Cde3 05:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked and couldn't find a basis for your remark, "The NPOV tag does not mean that someone disagrees with the point of view of the group that the article is about, it means that the article is a piece of junk that needs to be re-written in an encyclopedic manner." Where does that come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cde3 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is NPOV, writing articles from a neutral point of view. Using the word junk was a euphemism for it should be discarded and not included. The NPOV tag is a flag that a flagrant violation of NPOV exists and needs to be corrected, which is why I took a look at the article. Tell you what, I'll give you one week to fix the article in an NPOV manner or I'm removing the tag. 199.125.109.58 14:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, I have repeatedly fixed the article in an NPOV manner and all the fixes were reverted by CyrilleDunant. The article continues to lose its neutrality as bumper-sticker slogans are added. At the rate the article is being degraded it soon will be junk. You can remove the NPOV tag as many times as you like, but it probably would be more productive to enter dispute resolution.(Cde3)Cde3 19:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have anything to dispute, if you wish to duke it out with your counterpart Cde dup, have at it. It's a little surprising that you say you have a strong POV, but have fixed the article in an NPOV manner. My question, is how would you know, given your "strong POV"? However, there is one easy way to fix the article, ask for others to edit it. 199.125.109.58 00:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you just skimmed through this. I made the same point at least twice. Of course it's possible my corrections might have added bias to the article. That's why I haven't protested when my humble additions were modified. But when editors add bumper-sticker slogans and irrelevant quotations, obviously to promote a particular viewpoint, that's something to protest.(Cde3)Cde3 01:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your last question, the only reason there is an anti-nuclear movement is that the original opponents, for reasons they don't advertise but haven't hidden, distorted the facts to suit their agenda and persuaded the popular media to cooperate.Cde3 (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of your POV, but it doesn't seem to be shared by any reliable sources, so I would ask you to keep it to yourself. The world is full of conspiracy theories, and yours is just yet another. 199.125.109.58 14:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you're lecturing me. I simply answered your question. Since you feel free to give me advice, I'll return the favor all in the spirit of the holidays: If you don't want your questions answered don't ask them.

It would be helpful if you'd sign your comments.(Cde3)19:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV request

Please review this article and edit or remove anything that is not NPOV, or at least not balanced to include all majority points of view. 199.125.109.58 00:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment from uninvolved user: looks not too bad NPOV-wise. Good work. If anyone wants to come over to solar energy to help out, contributions or just comments appreciated. Itsmejudith 20:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• I would agree with Judith's assessment. Is there anyone who still wishes to keep the POV tag in place? Johnfos (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Judith's assurance notwithstanding, the article still contains propagandistic language, most notably irrelevant quotations and bumper-sticker slogans.Cde3 (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm deleting the tag. It is safe to say that Cde3 is not making an unbiased assessment of the article, and has had ample opportunity to edit the article and has not done so. Thanks Itsmejudith and Johnfos for your concurrence. I still think that Cde3 thinks that the tag means, I don't like this subject, not, this article is written poorly. 199.125.109.98 (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, this is the last time I'm going to explain this. I've corrected this problem repeatedly and Cyrilledunant undid the corrections without any justification. Your problem is with him, not with me.Cde3 (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, there are a few editors/watchers of this page. If your edits do not seem to generate concensus, maybe there is something about them that is not quite right. In any case, as for the personal attack, this is not what the history of the page says... I will remove the tag, and you will re-add it to those sections/sentences that you think are iffy.

I bear much of the blame for the situation we're in. In the past I've acquiesced to your arbitrary whims in the interest of collegiality and you got the idea that you're entitled to issue orders to other editors. To clear this up, you're not. Vandals have harmed what could be a good article and readers deserve to be warned at the outset.Cde3 (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not "giving orders". You seem to believe that I am somehow leading a crusade against you because we disagreed on grammar one section. This is in fact not the case, and I actually agree with the majority of your edits. However, keeping the npov banner on the whole article because there are sections that you feel are unbalanced is really WP:POINT.

So maybe you could tell us what you dislike and we certainly can find a compromise.CyrilleDunant (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait, if the NPOV isn't supposed to be used when there's something unbalanced, when is it supposed to be used? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There is also the issue of bumper-stickers. There is a bumper-sticker featured prominently on the top of this article, which should probably be replaced by an in-context photo, if one could be found.CyrilleDunant (talk) 06:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Dubious tag

If you look at the data in the article, it appears that while the 2002 data may have been accurate it is outdated, because the more recent data shows much lower approval percentages. 199.125.109.46 (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at the reference for the graph below it? Not only do we have data from 2000 for that one, but the document isn't in English. Regarding your statement "more recent data shows much lower approval percentages," the graphs were made in good faith and used the well known Eurobarometer data. I don't believe that you actually saw data that supports that. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a graph of data from Spain, which is why the data is in Spanish. I don't know what you mean by 2000, the pdf file says the data was taken in June of 2007. I don't speak Spanish, but I used Google to translate it into English.[4] I think Mac speaks Spanish. The article says 37% approval in Europe in 2005, the chart clearly showed over 50% approval in 2002, making it either questionable or outdated or both. Través de 2000 entrevistas does not mean, in the year 2000, it means "Through 2000 interviews" according to Google translation, meaning that 2,000 people were interviewed. The next sentence, "Los trabajos de campo se llevaron a cabo en junio de 2007" means "The fieldwork was carried out in June 2007." As I have said before, the size of support is not important. It's still a movement whether there is 1% support or 99% support. Now if no one supports it, well then it wouldn't be a movement, but to call it a movement only needs about 1% support, or not even that, which in the US would be over a million people, and would be a huge movement. I don't think the anti-nuclear movement in the US can claim to have ever been that big. The biggest rallies I ever heard about only had maybe 30,000. The biggest Shoreham rally, outside New York City apparently had 17,000.[5] That doesn't mean that more didn't support the movement, but being a part of a movement and supporting what it stands for are totally different. 199.125.109.46 (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see, you may be right about the Spanish pdf, but I unfortunately still can not figure out how to make Google Translate work for a pdf file. But yes, I did interpret that 2000 as the year and it may be more recent that I thought. What report are you referring to regarding the pie chart? Do you have a link? More information (and discussion) needs to go on the Wikipedia Commons page. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This version of the page [6] has a chart showing over 50% support in Europe while the article says differently. That chart has been replaced with the USA chart which agrees more closely with the article. Save the pdf file, open it in Acrobat reader, export it to text, open the text file, and cut and paste the Spanish into Google. Google stops translating after a while so you have to repeat several times for a large file like this one, but the first section includes the relevant data. Even Mac thought the data was 2006, when it is actually this year. 199.125.109.46 (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What does "the article" refer to? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"the article" refers to "this article", an article about the "anti-nuclear movement". 199.125.109.58 14:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait, let me get this straight, you were saying that having statistics from different sources contradict each other is not acceptable? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

photoreq

okay, what is up with the picture thing? Pictures of people? Like this kind of picture? Okaaaay... thumb —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theanphibian (talk • contribs) at 18:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It was reverted because you didn't sign it and I thought it was a prank by some kid who came by to vandalize the talk page. No I don't think that photo is appropriate for the article, but I was not the one who made the request. I think what they had in mind was photos of demonstrations, like these: Commons:Category:Protests against nuclear energy 199.125.109.45 18:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Then put it in your RfC, the photoreq is for articles where original photography is requested. Someone who finds the article under that listing will be wasting their time and confused. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The cat has very few photos about the subject. Most of the photos in the cat are also taken in France or Switzerland and don't have many signs in English. There is no need to add the request to the RFC. Wikipedia in general has very few photos. There are many many articles that have no illustrations at all, mostly because of the strict licensing requirements. 199.125.109.45 19:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Category:Protests against nuclear energy is a very good collection of perfectly free photos. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be centered around English speaking countries, and a photo from France showing the same thing as one from New York should be just as good. And I don't see where there is a big communication problem considering that they wave banners that say "Stop EPR". I don't think there's any mistake as to the meaning and I don't think there is any outstanding serious request for new photos. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

EPR means nothing to me. Maybe it means something to you, but it isn't even mentioned in the article. This is however, the English Wikipedia, so it is better to have photos of signs that are in English. A sign that says "Greenpeace" is not particularly useful. 199.125.109.47 22:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

thumb

That is ridiculous. You can't expect to a picture to be uploaded by anyone just for this article with someone holding up a sign saying "We are doing an anti-nuclear protest". The European Pressurized Reactor is a new design that has plans on the board for China, France, Finland, and the United States. It is PLENTY representitive, helpful, and connected to a wide variety of topics included on Wikipedia epically this one. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Look if this is a photo you like just use it. There is no need to post photos to the talk page. 199.125.109.45 03:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

History section

The last sentence of this paragraph has been removed twice without explanation:

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 with advent of Hollywood films such as Them! and Godzilla.

The "novels" presumably refers to Frankenstein, which was written to cause paranoia about electricity (note the similarity of the name to Benjamin Franklin.) I think that the "creature features" of the 60s were far more influential on the anti-nuclear movement -- both Godzilla and the giant ants of "Them!" were created by nuclear testing. It might also be appropriate to bring us up to the present day by mentioning the 3-headed fish that live around the nuclear plant in "The Simpsons." --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the editor who did the removal, but consider that WP prefers a published reference over our personal recollections. The reference for this part is Weart's book. He mentions the novel Failsafe and the film Dr. Strangelove. They were about the bomb and probably influenced people's attitudes more than Them! and Godzilla did. Maybe we could substitute them.Cde3 (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it because for months it said, as late as the 1960s, and was changed to beginning in the 1960s. I figured that if you all couldn't tell whether the trend began or ended, since it was unreferenced anyways, it was better to just delete it as OR. Personally I would agree that after the 1960s it was thought of as parody, and that the Simpsons, Godzilla, and Them! had zero impact on the anti-nuclear movement. 199.125.109.84 (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Global warming

The section about pro-fossil fuel proponents seems highly questionable. As a separate issue, I don't think that an article about "anti-nuclear" something needs to use the phrase "anti-nuclear" 24 times, in almost every paragraph. It's very poor style. As a guideline, the entire article is about the anti-nuclear movement, other than the criticisms of the anti-nuclear movement section, and does not need to point that out in every sentence. 199.125.109.84 (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The comments from Lovelock, Brand and others should not be moved from "Global Warming" to "Criticism," because these comments are not in fact criticism. Also, I restored the quote from Geldof -- he's not an expert, but then neither is Gore, whose quote precedes him. And the history of the anti-nuclear movement has been one where celebrities of all sorts, entertainers, movie stars, and so forth have been prominent spokespersons. So it is only fair to include a similar personality who comes out on the other side. --Marvin Diode (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the section is "critism" not "everything that looks bad on the anti-nuclear movement so that it doesn't appear in other sections". I have my reservations about having a global warming section at all, since the debate itself should be, and is, covered somewhere else. This article should be about who what the movement has done, who did it, and things like that. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's probably best to take it out. As written it is a lame attempt to show that because of global warming environmentalists have decided that we need nuclear power, neither of which are true. Brand and Lovelock have failed to attract any defection. Moore is simply a paid lobbyist for whatever industry he can find that will pay him. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It is highly notable when well-known personalities in the anti-nuclear movement switch sides. It isn't necessary that they "attract any defection" -- they are notable in their own right. Likewise, Bob Geldof should not be removed. He is obviously not an expert, but then, neither is Al Gore, whose quote precedes his, and there is a tradition in the anti-nuclear movement that celebrities, entertainers, movie stars etc. have emerged as spokespersons, no scientific credentials necessary. --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't notable if no one agrees with their shift. This is an article about the anti-nuclear movement. Not an article about everyone who isn't in the anti-nuclear movement, and there is no need to mention anyone who is not in the anti-nuclear movement in this article. 199.125.109.46 (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Topic (move) proposal

I think this should be made an article on just the anti-nuclear power movement. I don't think it would need to be renamed, but there is a horrible neglect of bomb related resistance. This really just comes to mind after going over the German and Japanese pages which seem to focus on weapons, and power respectively. I think that anti-weapons topics could be covered in a separate article, if at all. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, although the article should mention that the anti-nuclear power movement has historically tried to link its agenda to opposition to nuclear weapons. (Ironically, that is what George W. Bush is doing with his opposition to nuclear energy in Iran.) --Marvin Diode (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There hasn't been a lot of activity against weapons because no one's testing them and both the US and the Russians are dismantling their warheads. If weapons are split off it'll be a small, historical section. Won't anti-nukes complain if the connection between weapons and civilian power is broken?Cde3 (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

George Bush will for one. 199.125.109.46 (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Peer check request

I recognize that the sections of "Major Events" and "Types of Protests" may need input from other editors before they become stable. Certainly, as it is now there is a strong bias in coverage by reporting the mishaps and violent action events. I wanted to include a "largest gatherings" section, which could boast some impressive numbers, but I have not been able to find a direct list of this on the internet.

That sort of thing needs to be added, and otherwise I think that the "Types of Protests" is not very well organized. I copied the basic structure from the German version of this page, and mostly I think it's just ugly right now. Though it is necessary.

And in general, I would like to see the quality of this article improve to where it is the same general quality of the by country articles for this. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The "major events" are best incorporated into the text. Ditto for "largest gatherings". 199.125.109.45 (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant image

When you have a movement, it does not matter if there is one percent of the population behind you or 99 percent. In the former case you have more work to do than in the latter, but it is still a movement. The lead image for this article should be one that is representative of the anti-nuclear movement (golly gee that is the title of this article isn't it?), not a poll that is irrelevant, and erroneous by the way. 199.125.109.46 21:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't completely agree with you, but I also don't completely agree with the person who deleted the image. The poll should not stand alone as it is, but if accompanied with other images that were in some way representitive of the anti-nuclear movement, then I believe it contributes to the illustrative value of the article in the same way. IMO, it would be appropriate to contain several images used as PR by organizations opposed to nuclear with clear and direct explanations accompanying them that tell who it is that use them and under what context. In terms of "opinion poll" type stuff, I think a graph over time showing opinion regarding nuclear power and whatnot would be ideal in that it does show a progression of the "anti-nuclear movement". -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see that the previous smiling sun image had been deleted. I would not particularly object to moving or deleting the poll the article stands. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why the smiling sun was deleted, but that is the most common image for the anti-nuclear movement. The second most common is the flower that says "nuclear power is not healthy for children and other living things". As Theanphibian says, charts are interesting for historical perspective, but not as a main image. And by the way, anyone can edit, that's one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. 199.125.109.58 06:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

this logo looks like it has a good bit of usage as well. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I had never seen that one (the hand in front of a nuclear radiation sign), but I see that it is used in Australia a lot, it is prominently displayed on the map of the Australian anti-nuclear movement at http://www.australianmap.net/ 199.125.109.46 (talk) 05:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I had seen the hand on the radiation symbol many times before, and had only ever seen the smiling sun a few times outside of this article (recently, not like years ago). And then the other "poster" in the article I had never heard of, couldn't even find on the internet, and still question when it was used and what it's significance. Yet most people who've contributed here seem to think the one they know of it the MAIN one. I'm sure there are more - if you wanted to do this right, there should be a section that describes what logos are used, where, and their significance relative to one another. That's why people use Wikipedia, to get the real story, not some BS propaganda. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

how is the peace sign not here? honestly, how? peace sign = anti-nuclear. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_symbol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.67.209 (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the anti-war movement is not the same as the anti-nuclear movement. Many people are against war who favor nuclear energy. Furthermore, the original purpose of atomic weapons was to end a war and later the purpose was to prevent an invasion of Europe by the Soviet Union.--Cde3 (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen the peace symbol be used in connection with the anti-nuclear movement, but there is a book about the peace movement that extensively covers the history of the peace symbol and it does directly connect the peace symbol with the anti-nuclear movement. But I think you are reading way too much into the purpose of nuclear weapons to say why they were developed. And this is the wrong article for that anyway - that belongs in the nuclear weapons article. With the peace symbol. However, if there is a reliable source, such as that book, then a case could be made for including it, but I would be one person to say what if I saw it, and would immediately want to see the reference. The peace symbol clearly has as its primary use, peace, and not anti-nuclear. 199.125.109.127 (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Global warming

The global warming criticism needs to be put into perspective. Almost noone thinks that nuclear power needs to be included as a solution to global warming. Basically what needs to be presented is that concerns over global warming is a newly presented environmental threat, but it has not changed the viewpoint of most people toward nuclear power, including all of the leading environmental groups. Just saying that Lovelock now supports nuclear power etc. is just a weasel way to try to say that everyone now supports nuclear power, which just isn't true. The majority viewpoint is that nothing has changed and must be presented first, the minority viewpoint is that nuclear power needs to be revisited and as such must be presented second, and given less treatment. Otherwise you bring in a really biased POV again. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Shall I list the things that this IP claims that almost no one thinks? We've seen this claim before. And as a quick response, you're wrong. Plenty of people think that nuclear power needs to be included as a solution to global warming. You seem to be arguing that attributed claims and facts be removed in lieu of and opinion. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say... no. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Are any of these "plenty of people" a part of the anti-nuclear movement? No. This isn't an article about James Lovelock, it's an article about the anti-nuclear movement. Stay on topic please. 199.125.109.46 (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Here in the US, most people look to nuclear energy as an important means of reducing greenhouse gases, if you can believe the news media. All the Republican presidential candidates put it at the top of the list. All but one of the major Democratic contenders consider it a necessary part, and the other one's greatest handicap is credibility: people think he's all just empty promises. Among my friends, who are almost all environmentalists, there is some remorse that they didn't look more closely at the facts; now they are quite accepting of the need for nuclear energy.--Cde3 (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion of global warming, it is a discussion of the article. The anti-nuclear movement and the environmental movement are steadfast opposed to nuclear power, and this needs to be emphasized in the article. It really doesn't matter what anyone in the world thinks, it only matters for the purpose of this article what the anti-nuclear movement thinks. The reference, Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy ISBN 9781571431738 which is available online[7] states "This book shows it is possible to have a secure and economic energy system without the headaches and risks of nuclear power. Why would one want to expand its role in an already insecure world?" 199.125.109.46 (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's put this in perspective. No, this is not an article about global warming. And no, it's not especially notable that anti-nuclear activists oppose nuclear energy as a remedy for global warming. However, it is quite notable that Brand, Lovelock and others, who were at one time acknowledged as leaders of the anti-nuclear movement, changed their minds. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong movement. They were environmentalists, and not members of the anti-nuclear movement. 199.125.109.47 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect; many environmentalists were once part of the anti-nuclear movement. These include Brand, Lovelock and others. We should be clear on the point that membership in the anti-nuclear movement is defined by beliefs about the usage of nuclear technology. An organization that discourages utilization of nuclear technology is part of the "Anti-nuclear movement". A person that discourages utilization of nuclear technology is part of the "Anti-nuclear movement".

As the "Anti-nuclear movement" rationalizes their beliefs on the basis of environmental concerns the effects of their purposed policies on global warming remains a valid critism of their opinions on the usage of nuclear technology. More emphasis needs be placed on the contradiction entailed by the priorities of conventional environmentalism and those of the "Anti-nuclear movement" as most persons reading the article would be misled into believing that the "Anti-nuclear movement" was a sub-movement of environmentalism, which you clearly dispute by the insistance on the irrelevence of the implications of global warming to the prioties of the "Anti-nuclear movement".

In any case it is clear that the policy position of the "Anti-nuclear movement" with respect to global warming remains a valid critism. Agalmic (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

John Gofman

Can someone add some information about him? His obit says he was the reluctant father of the anti-nuclear movement, yet he isn't mentioned. See John Gofman and this article.[8] 199.125.109.47 (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC) What, no takers? I'll see if I can hodge something together, please feel free to "edit it mercilessly". 199.125.109.47 (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This needs serious re-write. I'm not qualified to do it, but this paragraph isn't accurate. It could be that someone called him Father of the Anti-nuclear Movement, but the movement goes back to the 1950s and at that time he was a willing participant in the bomb program. So the encomium doesn't make sense. Nonetheless, he and Tamplin were at ground zero in the debate over nuclear energy in the 1970s. On the other hand, he probably had less influence than Jane Fonda.--Cde3 (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And an even bigger influence was TMI. 199.125.109.46 (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It is argumentative to claim he showed anything. He made claims about the dangers of plutonium, but analysts at the time and since have refuted his claims and no one outside the anti-nuclear movement has any respect for his crusade. As far as I know, no professionals in the field of health physics ever accepted his work. Even Tamplin acknowledged that the analysis was wrong. Here are two references: http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=7346902 and http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=4020019 --Cde3 (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Those documents were published in 1975 and 1976. I think that you need to come up with something just a bit more objective. On the other hand, Helen Caldicott says that the government now admits that what everyone was saying all along is true - that there is no safe threshold of radiation - right down to zero. Need to add in something about the anomaly of increased cancer deaths due to atmospheric testing. 199.125.109.46 (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Two people who have been of interest to me lately are Paul Gunter and Gregory Minor... Johnfos (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the articles about them it sounds like they came along later. Hey, I said "edit it mercilessly" not "delete it" - please come up with something else if you don't like it. And tons of people have said that if nuclear power is the answer we must be asking the wrong question. 199.125.109.46 (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone added a lot of information on Dr. Gofman. I reverted it because (1) it was way too long, making it seem as though he was the only figure in the movement, (2) because the sources were advocacy organizations, and (3) the points were contentions, not facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cde3 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Your complaints seem to be unfounded. However, I have added some explanatory text. There are enough people watching this article that surely someone will remove your oddly placed tags. You are throwing a blanket tag over the whole history section, but I think you are really only complaining about three individual items. Shall we take them one by one?

1. John Gofman was often called the father of the anti-nuclear movement. For this I was looking for something other than the BBC[9] and the LATimes written obituary that appeared in the Boston Globe. Not that that wasn't reliable as a source, but if he was called that surely he was called that in his lifetime and not just after his death. The Plowboy interview from 1981 was sufficient to show that. A google search for "father of the anti-nuclear movement" turns up four other names, Ichiro Moritaki, Ernest J. Sternglass, Günther Anders, and Edgar Lin, in addition to Gofman. Feel free to add all of them too. I think that Randy Forsberg should be mentioned too, the founder of the Freeze. The anti-nuclear movement article alludes to opposition to nuclear weapons but doesn't have much about that part of the movement, which is more of an anti-war movement than an anti-nuclear movement. Most of this article is only about the anti-nuclear power movement, although nuclear power clearly can not be separated from nuclear weapons. (n.b. North Korea and Iran)
2. that even very low doses can cause cancer - what the National Academy of Sciences isn't good enough for you? You want the NIH? The NRC?
3. that John Gofman estimated that the majority of cancers in the U.S. were caused by medical radiation. Read his book, it is available online in the ref cited.

I really think you are getting out of control with your insistence that the article only be about criticisms of the movement. 199.125.109.46 (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

My objection to the "father of the anti-nuclear movement" claim is that it doesn't make sense, since he was developing bombs when the movement started. Why you want to embarrass people with such a stupid quotation is your business, but if we're going to include every dumb thing someone said about the anti-nuclear movement this article will become extremely long. I can't understand why something so inconsequential should be included in the article.

There are two objections to sourcing NIRS. First, it's an advocacy group and therefore is not a reliable source of information. I think there's a WP rule against it. Second, it mischaracterizes the NAS source's statement. Here is the relevant quotation from the NAS BEIR VII report: "At doses of 100 mSv or less, statistical limitations make it difficult to evaluate cancer risk in humans. A comprehensive review of available biological and biophysical data led the committee to conclude that the risk would continue in a linear fashion at lower doses without a threshold and that the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans."

This is very much different from the certainty NIRS attributes to the statement. The report admits the data don't support the view that the risk continues all the way down to zero exposure, but recommends using that as the rule anyway. This is the conundrum radiation safety analysts have struggled with for as long as there have been radiation safety analysts. As is often the case in committee-written reports, important contradictions have been inserted, no doubt by individuals who insist on imposing their opinions on everyone else. NIRS has altered the statement to promote its own views, which is why NIRS is an unacceptable source.

Even the NAS doesn't have the last word on this, and wouldn't if it were free of contradictions. Other, equally-respected, study groups have reached the opposite conclusion. If we start quoting from all the studies that have been done on nuclear safety we'll end up with an incoherent battle of the quotes.

As it is written, the article emphasizes Gofman over all the other people who have influenced the movement. To that extent, this extolling of his importance makes the article inaccurate.--Cde3 (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cde3 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

So add all the others. I don't see anyone else complaining about the article. As to radiation, I think it is like the Rutherford discovery of the structure of the atom - which he likened to as if you fired cannon balls at a piece of tissue paper and some of them bounced back, because the nucleus is so much more dense. It only takes one gene being damaged to cause cancer. The body doesn't know how to reject the cancer cell and so it continues to reproduce, but the damage starts with a single quanta of radiation, which is why it makes sense that the risk would continue in a linear fashion with no threshold. I see that Linus Pauling is quoted as "always saying" this. I do not see that NIRS has "altered the statement" as you are suggesting, but primary sources are always preferred, so by all means replace it if you can. I think you will find more recent sources which say the same thing - that there is no threshold. Genetic damage and the imperfect reproduction which results also provides the mechanism for evolution, the imperfect reproduction of one species leading to the development of another, which happens so slowly that you can't see it happening. I know that Helen Caldicott embraces natural radiation as part of life. She just doesn't want any unnatural radiation. It is certainly significant to include facts like this to see what has caused people to believe one way or another. We are historians, remember? For example it is probably worth noting that the movie China Syndrome came out about two weeks before TMI. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This is posted at the top of this page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anti-nuclear movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." The page is supposed to be about the article, not the a-n movement or nuclear energy or radiation safety or misinformation you've absorbed from unreliable sources.

The information you've inserted does not meet even rudimentary scholarship standards and goes directly against WP's principles. It obviously was inserted not to enhance readers' knowledge about the a-n movement but only to persuade readers to your opinions. That is precisely the reason the template at the top of the section was created.

If this sort of propaganda is allowed, then I can load the article with so much pro-nuclear information, all of it factual, you'll wonder why there ever was an anti-nuclear movement.

I don't think I'm going to take orders from someone who doesn't even have enough credibility to sign his comments with a handle.--Cde3 (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I have no intention of either expressing an opinion or attempting to persuade readers of an opinion. This is an encyclopedia, not a brochure. The intent is to be factual, and accurate. If someone is called the father of the subject of an article it is worth pursuing, to see what their role was, regardless of the subject of the article. The article appears to be both factual and accurate. I still think that your objection is that it isn't as you say only pro-nuclear information. By the way I don't think I would ever make up my mind on any subject from reading a wiki article. They are inherently too unreliable. I use them only as a starting point and rely on the underlying references for actual information. 199.125.109.127 (talk) 06:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're wrong. It isn't factual. The "father of the a-n movement" claim was false and the NIRS redaction of BEIR VII was false. But the rule that covers this situation is that the sources have to be authentic and peer-reviewed, and NIRS definitely is neither.--Cde3 (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

List of notable anti-nuclear groups

We now have a list of anti-nuclear groups. If one of them changes their view of nuclear power, that is notable. Other environmental groups changing their view is not, and including them is just adding mashed potatoes to the article - all fluff and no substance. 199.125.109.45 (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

FYI, I removed this statement:

Not all actions against nuclear power are taken by members of the anti-nuclear movement, some are done by provocateurs, some were undertaken by a state.

Text: Government poses as protesters and attacks nuclear plant
Reference: Israel-based journalists reported that Israeli aircraft attacked a military institution. The U.S. later reported it to be a nuclear or missile facility.

There was something also about nonviolent action coming from MLK junior. Believe me, I looked. So far I can't even find something to authoritatively make this claim for the entire organization of Greenpeace. If you want to find a reference, be my guest [10].

Gee only 111,000 references to check. Well here is one, "This book reveals the roots of ecology and the influence on Greenpeace of legends such as Gandhi, Einstein, Rachel Carson, and Martin Luther King Jr." Greenpeace ISBN 1-59486-106-4 199.125.109.84 (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

More generally, don't put opinions in this article. I'm at a lack to find one thing in the history section beyond the events that I can clearly say is a FACT other than someone saying something. No body cares. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the sequence was Thoreau, Gandhi, MLK, and then non-violent direct action against nuclear power. One reference is a pictorial history of active non-violence in the U.S. including women's suffrage, labor movement, disarmament, civil rights, farm workers, and the peace movement. The non-violence code is:

1. Our attitude will be one of openness, friendliness, and respect towards all people we encounter.
2. We will use no violence, verbal or physical, toward any person.
3. We will not damage any property.
4. We will not bring or use any drugs or alcohol other than for medical purposes.
5. We will not run.
6. We will carry no weapons.

pg. 6 Diablo Canyon Blockade/Encampment Handbook

Other actions used very similar guidelines, and there is a lengthy explanation of the guidelines of the non-violence code. Someone deleted the reference to the movie about Seabrook, but it is a pretty interesting documentary of the anti-nuclear movement.[11] 199.125.109.84 (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Posters

If anyone is interested, there are a few representative posters from around the world at this site.[12] 199.125.109.84 (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wind power blows nuclear industry into the wilderness

Here is a reference to a Government White Paper in the UK which states that the country no longer requires nuclear power. "Its current economics make it an unattractive option for new, carbon-free generating capacity and there are also important issues of nuclear waste to be resolved." As FoE put it, "Goodbye nuclear, hello wind."[13] 199.125.109.84 (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely irrelevant to the article. At the risk of an unneeded tangent, no clear basis to claim this comes from the UK government is presented. Do a google search for "united kingdom nuclear power" and tell me what the first batch of results indicate. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to do your own research, thank you. This article is not about the UK and nuclear power, it is about the anti-nuclear movement. FoE is a part of the anti-nuclear movement. 199.125.109.47 (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Not anti-nuclear

Neither the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, nor Friends of the Earth are "anti-nuclear groups". They are all environmental groups who have taken a strong anti-nuclear position. The purpose of the Sierra club is to "explore, enjoy, and protect the planet". The purpose of Greenpeace is to "protect the environment". Friends of the Earth "defends the environment and champions a healthy and just world." Of the three, and any group with a million members is inherently "mainstream" by the way, only Greenpeace has a specific policy of using non-violent direct action. Greenpeace does not restrict itself to anti-nuclear actions, although their first action was anti-nuclear. If you can find a way to describe them other than "mainstream environmental" feel free. So far the attempts have been simply to come up with pretty odd derogatory language. There are other environmental groups that to my knowledge have not taken a position on nuclear technology, who can also be called "mainstream", such as the Audobon Society, National Wildlife Federation, the Nature Conservancy, and the Wilderness Society. The point is that no mainstream environmental group has changed their view towards nuclear technology because of global warming. Some have had a view, others have not, but none have changed their view. 199.125.109.47 (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A group in the "Anti-nuclear movement" is a group with a policy position against the utilization of nuclear technology. Sierra Club, Greenpeace, nor Friends of the Earth are therefore "anti-nuclear groups".

We may further sub-divide the "Anti-nuclear movement" into groups which oppose the deployment of nuclear weapons, groups that deplore usage of nuclear power, etc... However membership in any of these sub-categories still entails membership in the "Anti-nuclear movement".

It should be made explicity what the specific policy of each of these groups are towards nuclear technology rather than drawing a boolean dichotomy between "Anti-Nuclear movement" groups and non-"Anti-Nuclear movement" groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agalmic (talk • contribs) 04:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The primary purpose is not anti-nuclear. They are an important part of the anti-nuclear movement, but they are not anti-nuclear organizations in the same sense as the Clamshell Alliance or the Abalone Alliance, whose only purpose was anti-nuclear. Since nuclear power is seen to represent a threat to the environment many environmental groups have taken a stand against nuclear power. Others, like the Nature Conservancy and the Audubon Society, have not to my knowledge taken any position on nuclear power. You know it's funny I keep hearing about solar power taking up more room than nuclear and nuclear requiring less fuel than coal, but I suspect that if you add in the area from the uranium mine, processing plant and waste storage, the total land area for solar would be comparable or less, and I also hear that one kg of silicon puts out more energy than 500,000 kg of coal - so once again that sounds comparable or better than uranium. 199.125.109.47 (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The rule here is to discuss the article, not the movement and not nuclear energy. Your erroneous argument here against nuclear energy isn't based on anything but your anti-nuclear feeling. If you persist we're likely to have another verbal slugfest like the ones that have happened here before.--Cde3 (talk) 05:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Germany's largest demonstration

This demonstration had 100,000 peaceful, non-violent protesters and a few hundred violent protesters. To characterize it as violent ignores the facts. 199.125.109.47 (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The demonstration is not being "characterized as violent." It is being used as an example of instances where violence took place. There is no question about the fact that there was violence at that demonstration. The section of the article which is being discussed is a list of different sorts of tactics, with examples. Your continual insertions of the claim that the demonstration was non-violent are irrelevant to the section, and they are becoming disruptive -- if you wanted to claim that there was no violence at that demonstration, there would be reason to remove it as an example, but the sources say otherwise. --Marvin Diode (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The only place the demonstration is mentioned is under the section "violence", and yes it was partly violent, but it was predominantly non-violent, and that needs to be pointed out. Otherwise it is totally misrepresented. Notice the German version of the article, which only states that 100,000 protesters faced 10,000 police, with no mention of violence. That is a more fair way to present the demonstration. The way it is presented it makes it sound like everyone there was violent, which just isn't so. You are smart, you can figure out how to accurately report the demonstration. CDE on the other hand is a single purpose account with the sole purpose of trashing the article and the movement. That is not what an encyclopedia is for, which is to accurately provide information. I don't know if any of you have ever been to a demonstration, but there are always hotheads and often provocateurs (someone who is paid to provoke violence). Today we enlist a large number of peacekeepers to prevent violence. It is possible that the Germans had not learned that lesson in 1981. In any case it is ludicrous to report the demonstration in this ridiculous manner. What I am insisting on is that the demonstration be accurately portrayed. 199.125.109.47 (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The segment in question is about various types of tactics, and the only relevant question is whether violence was employed at that demonstration. Reliable sources say that there was, and therefore it is a suitable example of the use of violent tactics. This segment is not an appropriate place to describe or analyze that particular demonstration more generally. However, I have added a link to Anti-nuclear movement in Germany, and the material you wish to include might be appropriate in that article. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The use of violence was not "a tactic" it was a result of inadequate use of peacekeepers. It is still a total misrepresentation of what actually happened. 199.125.109.127 (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Please re-read the section in question. --Marvin Diode (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

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)