| Revision as of 21:31, 29 October 2005 editDV8 2XL (talk | contribs)6,808 editsm linkfix← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:54, 29 October 2005 edit undoDV8 2XL (talk | contribs)6,808 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| The '''anti-nuclear''' movement holds that ] is inherently dangerous and thus ought to be "replaced with safe and affordable ]." | The '''anti-nuclear''' movement holds that ] is inherently dangerous and thus ought to be "replaced with safe and affordable ]." | ||
| Several factors make ] a prime target for opposition. The comming of environmental awareness] meant that the existence of any impacts a technology might have made it vulnerable to attack. Nuclear power was particularly vulnerable because it was not yet entrenched, as well as being associated with ]s both technologically and conceptually, and this became a more important negative factor in the 1970s after the signing of the ]. Finally, nuclear power has always been a technology which necessarily depends on experts thus became became categorised as an alien technology. | |||
| The early opposition to nuclear power was almost entirely on environmental grounds: ], ], release of ] during shipments, ] disposal. The ] had made such concerns socially legitimate, whereas opposition on issues such as proliferation of nuclear weapons did not invoke the same social resonance. | |||
| Some observers claimed to see a considerable overlap between opponents of ] and supporters of ] during the ]. Others link the anti-nuclear movement to currents within the ] who want the West (particularly the U.S.) to stop using so much energy and get back to simpler things. | Some observers claimed to see a considerable overlap between opponents of ] and supporters of ] during the ]. Others link the anti-nuclear movement to currents within the ] who want the West (particularly the U.S.) to stop using so much energy and get back to simpler things. | ||
Revision as of 21:54, 29 October 2005
The anti-nuclear movement holds that nuclear power is inherently dangerous and thus ought to be "replaced with safe and affordable renewable energy."
Several factors make nuclear power a prime target for opposition. The comming of environmental awareness] meant that the existence of any impacts a technology might have made it vulnerable to attack. Nuclear power was particularly vulnerable because it was not yet entrenched, as well as being associated with nuclear weapons both technologically and conceptually, and this became a more important negative factor in the 1970s after the signing of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Finally, nuclear power has always been a technology which necessarily depends on experts thus became became categorised as an alien technology.
The early opposition to nuclear power was almost entirely on environmental grounds: thermal pollution, reactor accidents, release of radiation during shipments, radioactive waste disposal. The environmental movement had made such concerns socially legitimate, whereas opposition on issues such as proliferation of nuclear weapons did not invoke the same social resonance.
Some observers claimed to see a considerable overlap between opponents of nuclear power and supporters of unilateral disarmament during the Cold War. Others link the anti-nuclear movement to currents within the environmentalist movement who want the West (particularly the U.S.) to stop using so much energy and get back to simpler things.
Critics of unilatireal disarmament felt that the practice would not have the heralded effect but would encourage Soviet aggression (abroad) and facilitate repression internally.
Critics of the "back to nature" element among environmentalists often feel that it's either (a) misguided earth worship which puts people second and nature first or (b) a trick by redistributionist socialists to get the U.S. to transfer 100s of billions of dollars of wealth annually to third world governments.
See:
 | This activism-related article is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |