BB & Louis V,
Thanks for your thoughts.
While doing a little research on radiation safety issues I came across this posting on the radsafe listserv at Vanderbilt: vanderbilt.edu
It's an interesting and compelling behind the scenes perspective from an industry insider.
Jerry in Omaha
Re: American AntiNuclear Movement
-----------------------------------------------------------
To: Randall_F_Brich@RL.GOV, radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: American AntiNuclear Movement
From: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 14:38:07 EDT
Reply-To: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM
Sender: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------
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 Moreover, Anthony Ladd is pretty much out of date, and like any outsider, has only a partial insight.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 |
