Re: American AntiNuclear Movement

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

I cannot resist answering this in some detail, since I was for more than a 

decade actually part of (and in a leadership role in) the "American 

Antinuclear Movement" (that I'll just call the "anti-nukes" for simplicity).  

 Moreover, Anthony Ladd is pretty much out of date, and like any outsider, 

has only a partial insight.  His "stages" are pretty accurate, but the 

demarcation between them is never very clear.  Here are my own insider 

observations (note- this is pretty long):


If we start pre-Vietnam War (or at least  before escalation of that war and 

the protests against it), there were disparate roots to the anti-nuke 

movement.  One was what I'll lump as the "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" 

group -- the group I essentially belonged to -- which had legitimate 

questions about some rather extravagant claims made by the early nuclear 

utility industry, about the development and effects of nuclear weapons, which 

was of course shrouded in secrecy, about what went on at the defense 

facilities sites (also pretty much secret), and also had some legitimate 

concerns about radiation effects.  Another was the "peace groups" who were 

opposed to all "defense" activity, demonstrated at military installations, 

and some of whom had been opposed to US involvement in WWII.  Finally there 

were the fringe groups like people opposed to water fluoridation, who are 

sort of anti-technology Luddite-oriented.  These are the folks who really 

hyped-up the fear of radiation.  At this time, the old-line environmental 

groups (Sierra Club, Audubon, Wilderness Society) were not at all anti-nuke 

or even concerned with pollution.  Greenpeace wasn't really a player.


Earth Day I happened in 1970 (interestingly, I spoke to a crowd of 8000 and 

was followed at the microphone by Jane Fonda!  She was (and is) a LOT better 

looking, certainly wealthier and more famous, but I actually got more 

applause).  There is a theory that Earth Day was invented to stall the 

Vietnam protests.  It did mark the beginning of the legitimacy of the 

environmental movement in the US.  The environmental groups went from ignored 

underdogs to super-heroes virtually overnight.  This coincided with the 

formation of EPA and CEQ and NEPA.  EPA actively courted the enviro 

organizations, and pollution became one of the organizations' concerns (I was 

the Sierra Club air pollution expert).  The anti-nukes were still considered 

by the enviro groups to be pretty fringy (and "pink") at the time -- 

remember, this was the Cold War.  


In 1976, Nader ran a "nuke safety" intiative in a number of states (including 

Washington, where I lived).  It lost, of course, big time, but had the side 

effect of drawing a number of groups together: SANE, Public Citizen, all 

those animal-named groups like the Clamshell Alliance, etc.  In Wash. State, 

it coincided with the beginnings of the WPPSS debacle.  It was followed of 

course in 1979 by TMI.  TMI legitimized anti-nuke activity in the same way 

that Earth Day legitimized environmental conservation activity, and also did 

so virtually overnight.  In my opinion, the old line conservation 

organization staff took a hard, cold look at this, and decided that they 

would gain members by embracing the anti-nukes, which they did.  I actually 

had a Sierra Club staffer tell me this.  Many politicians did the same thing. 

 In 1980, we ran an initiative in Washington that was the forerunner of the 

1980 LLW Policy Act (yes, I wrote that initiative) and it got 70% of the vote 

at a time when almost all the Democrats running in the state lost.  That sent 

a message.  Interestingly, it began my own disaffection with the anti-nukes 

(that is another story).  I also believe, from hints I got here and there, 

that this was the beginning of the infusion of foundation money into the 

anti-nuke movement -- much of the money coming from petroleum -industry 

foundations.  


In 1982 Ruckelshaus made his first speech about risk-based standards, EPA 

embraced risk, and risk assessment and "perception" have since burgeoned as a 

sort of cottage industry.  The temporal confluence of TMI, Love Canal, Times 

Beach, Bhopal, and risk-based standards I think captured the public 

imagination, and the effect was of course enhanced by Chernobyl.  The Vietnam 

protests legitimized the opposition to sacrificing individual benefit for the 

common good.  Being anti-nuke became being anti "big business," anti-war, 

anti-big government, pro-individual, as well as being able to think of 

oneself as a victim (it's fun to be a victim when it doesn't hurt).  It gives 

people something to blame their troubles on. 


When the Cold War ended and the defense sites "opened up," the early 

questioners like me (who got our questions answered) drifted away from the 

anti-nukes, but then there were never many of us anyway, and in the current 

junk science era the anti-nukes neither need nor want us.  At what stage is 

the anti-nuke movement now? It is institutionalized.   Riding very high!  

Lots of foundation money and lots of Hollywood stars.  When good and popular 

novelists like Margaret Drabble use anti-nuke themes, when there are movies 

and TV dramas coupling support for the downtrodden with the dissemination of 

anti-nuke fears ("the uranium mine over the hill is poisoning the ancient 

tribal homeland" sort of thing), when "anti-nuke" is considered a synonym for 

"liberal" (which I find objectionable), the anti-nukes are definitely on top. 

 "Anti-nuke" is an institution that has infiltrated popular culture, and will 

continue to as long as it provides votes and popular support for those who 

want that.  As long as an anti-nuke stance brings in money and members to 

Sierra Club, the Club will embrace  and promote it.


Popular movements need not be morally in the right -- racial segregation was 

pretty popular -- and (in my inexpert and naive opinion) don't seem to wane 

by themselves.  They wane either when something else comes along to capture 

the imagination or when they are forced to back down ( racial desegregation 

was forced).  The anti-nukes won't back off by being shown the "error of 

their ways"  nor will the popular support for it decline because people are 

convinced by safety statistics or any show of "caring" by government 

bureaucracies.  The "trust" issue and the "use of technical language" issue 

are red herrings.  The anti-nuke leadership knows perfectly well when it is 

distorting the truth.    For that matter, the yammerers at hearings know 

perfectly well when they are playing fast and loose with the truth -- they do 

it because it gets them on TV. (and let me tell you, it's fun to be a hero on 

TV).


So -- long cynical and opinionated answer to short question -- the anti-nuke 

movement is institutionalized, and will not move to fragmentation by itself.


Clearly only my own opinion.



Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com