Re: American AntiNuclear Movement

["Thomas E. Potter" <pottert@erols.com>]

Thanks to Ruth Weiner for her interesting and valuable insider's view of



the development of the anti-nuclear movement and one woman's relation

to it.  (Looks to me like there could be a book there.)  I would also

ask

Ruth, if she would, to share with us the titles of her favorite books

about the

development of the anti-nuclear movement and the broader environmental

movement.



I agree that the anti-nuclear movement is institutionalized and will not



fade away by itself.  Understanding how it became institutionalized

and how deeply institutionalized it is may help reveal why it is

unlikely

to wane on its own and why it is likely to remain problematic for any

future development of nuclear power.



As Ruth describes it, the old-line conservation movement grafted onto

itself the radical anti-nuclear movement in its transformation into

what we currently know as the environmental movement.  I can't

claim Ruth's insider knowledge, and I can't claim to be a historian,

but I believe the story is more complex than that, and, for proponents

of nuclear power, more troubling.



Ladd's description of the life-cycle of a movement is too simplistic.

Movements do not simply rise and wane.  They also evolve, interact

with other movements, and inspire or spin off new initiatives--partly

in response to changes in interests, but also, importantly, in attempts

to increase influence by trying new strategies and by extending the

power base.



I believe that the current environmental movement has deep roots in the

early anti-nuke movement--the movement especially active during the

1950's and early 60's to oppose nuclear weapons and, in particular,

atmospheric testing.  (Fears about strontium-90 in baby teeth are not

new.)

Rachel Carson, Barry Commoner, and other seminal figures in the

environmental movement have remarked on the importance of the early

anti-nuke movement in shaping their own views.  SANE, an important

organization in that early movement, is still operating (now called

Peace

Action) but can now be considered just one of many organizations in the

"environmental" movement.  The very idea of an Earth Day is much

closer to the strategy and tactics of the early anti-nuke movement than

to anything else.



It is interesting that some of the most outspoken early proponents of

nuclear power participated to some extent—enough to come to some

prominence—in that early anti-nuke movement.  Ralph Lapp and

Merril Eisenbud come to mind immediately, and there were others.

But the vast majority of people in that early movement did not follow

their lead in supporting nuclear power.  Why not?



The small schism of nuclear power proponents occurred at a time

when development of nuclear power, development of interest in

environmental problems more broadly defined, and development of

anti-establishment sentiment (anti-government, anti-corporate,

anti-university, etc.), sentiment inspired by the Vietnam war and other

factors, were all occurring simultaneously, as Ruth notes.



The groups evolving toward broader environmental problems drew

both energy and legitimacy from the victories of the early anti-nuke

movement--atmospheric test ban, etc.  In some cases, they appeared

to model themselves on the early anti-nuke organizations.  Given the

history and the context within which their interests were developing,

it is hard to imagine that the nascent and vulnerable nuclear power

industry could have appeared as anything but an irresistible target for

their new endeavors.



Curtailment of the development of nuclear power, achieved in the 70's

with substantial (some might say crucial) help from the industry and its



regulator, could be seen as an early, important win for the

environmental

movement and one more addition to the anti-nuke trophy case.



As I see it, the anti-nuclear movement is the primary root of what

has become the environmental movement, and has become inextricably

subsumed within it (as has the conservation movement).  Anti-nuclear

victories have been important legitimizing factors supporting the larger



movement.  Fears from the earliest days of the anti-nuke movement

continue to energize the larger environmental movement.  Even if

nuclear power could be made utterly pristine overnight, the

environmental

movement would be hard-pressed to let its anti-nuke element die.



---------------

Ruth Weiner posted:



Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 14:38:07 EDT

From: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM

Subject: Re: American AntiNuclear Movement



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.



<snip>



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 oftheir ways"  nor will the popular support for it decline

because people

areconvinced 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.







************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.