The anti-nuclear movement in the United States consists of more than 80 anti-nuclear groups that oppose nuclear power, nuclear weapons, and/or uranium mining. These have included the Abalone Alliance, Citizens Awareness Network, Clamshell Alliance, Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, Nevada Desert Experience, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Plowshares Movement, United Steelworkers of America (USWA) District 31, Women Strike for Peace, Nukewatch, and Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. Some fringe aspects of the anti-nuclear movement have delayed construction or halted commitments to build some new nuclear plants, and have pressured the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to enforce and strengthen the safety regulations for nuclear power plants. Most groups in the movement focus on nuclear weapons.
Anti-nuclear protests reached a peak in the 1970s and 1980s and grew out of the environmental movement. Campaigns that captured national public attention involved the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant (by the Clamshell Alliance), Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, and Three Mile Island.Giugni, Marco (2004). Social Protest and Policy Change: Ecology, Antinuclear, and Peace Movements p. 44.
Beginning in the 1980s, many anti-nuclear power activists began shifting their interest, by joining the rapidly growing Nuclear Freeze campaign, and the primary concern about nuclear hazards in the U.S. changed from the problems of nuclear power plants to the prospects of nuclear war. On June 3, 1981, the White House Peace Vigil began and has continued day and night ever since, thanks to William Thomas and a small band of stalwart antinuclear activists who launched the "Proposition One Campaign for a Nuclear-Free Future" voter initiative in 1993 which led to a bill that has been introduced into the House of Representatives every session by Eleanor Holmes Norton. On June 12, 1982, one million people demonstrated in New York City's Central Park against nuclear weapons and for an end to the Cold War arms race. It was the largest anti-nuclear protest and the largest political demonstration in American history.Jonathan Schell. The Spirit of June 12 The Nation, July 2, 2007.1982 – a million people march in New York City International Day of Nuclear Disarmament protests were held on June 20, 1983, at 50 sites across the United States. There were many Nevada Desert Experience protests and peace camps at the Nevada Test Site during the 1980s and 1990s.
More recent campaigning by anti-nuclear groups has related to several nuclear power plants including the Enrico Fermi Nuclear Power Plant,Fermi 3 opposition takes legal action to block new nuclear reactor Indian Point Energy Center, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station,Oyster Creek's time is up, residents tell board Examiner, June 28, 2007. Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station,Pilgrim Watch (undated). Pilgrim Watch Salem Nuclear Power Plant,Unplugsalem.org (undated). UNPLUG Salem and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. There have also been campaigns relating to the Y-12 Nuclear Weapons Plant,Stop the Bombs! April 2010 Action Event at Y-12 Nuclear Weapons Complex , the Idaho National Laboratory,Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free (2003). Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository proposal,Sierra Club. (undated). Deadly Nuclear Waste Transport the Hanford Site, the Nevada Test Site,22 Arrested in Nuclear Protest The New York Times, August 10, 1989. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,Hundreds Protest at Livermore Lab The TriValley Herald, August 11, 2003. and transportation of nuclear waste from the Los Alamos National Laboratory.Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety (undated). About CCNS
Some scientists and engineers have expressed safety concerns about specific nuclear power plants, including: Barry Commoner, S. David Freeman, John Gofman, Arnold Gundersen, Mark Z. Jacobson, Amory Lovins, Arjun Makhijani, Gregory Minor, M.V. Ramana, Joseph Romm and Benjamin K. Sovacool. Scientists who have opposed nuclear weapons include Paul M. Doty, Hermann Joseph Muller, Linus Pauling, Eugene Rabinowitch, M.V. Ramana and Frank N. von Hippel.
Emergence of the movement
Emergence of the anti-nuclear weapons movement
On November 1, 1961, at the height of the Cold War, about 50,000 women brought together by Women Strike for Peace marched in 60 cities in the United States to demonstrate against nuclear weapons. It was the largest national women's peace protest of the 20th century.
The nuclear debate initially was about nuclear weapons policy, and began within the scientific community. Scientific concern about the adverse health effects arising from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing first emerged in 1954. Professional associations such as the Federation of Atomic Scientists and the Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs were involved. The National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy was formed in November 1957, and surveys showed rising public uneasiness about the nuclear arms race—especially atmospheric nuclear weapons tests that sent radioactive fallout around the globe.Lawrence S. Wittner. Preserving the Golden Rule as a Piece of Anti-Nuclear History History News Network, February 8, 2010. In 1962, Linus Pauling won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to stop the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, and the "Ban the Bomb" movement spread throughout the United States.
Between 1945 and 1992, the United States maintained a program of vigorous nuclear weapons testing. A total of 1,054 nuclear tests and two nuclear attacks were conducted, with over 900 of them at the Nevada Test Site, and ten on miscellaneous sites in the United States (Alaska, Colorado, Mississippi, and New Mexico).Carey Sublette, Gallery of U.S. Nuclear Tests Until November 1962, the vast majority of the U.S. tests were above-ground; after the acceptance of the Partial Test Ban Treaty all testing was relegated underground, in order to prevent the dispersion of nuclear fallout.
The U.S. program of atmospheric nuclear testing exposed some people to the hazards of fallout. Since the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990, more than $1.38 billion in compensation has been approved. The money is going to people who took part in the tests, notably at the Nevada Test Site, and to others exposed to the radiation.What governments offer to victims of nuclear tests The Associated Press, March 24, 2009.
Emergence of the anti-nuclear power movement
Unexpectedly high costs in the nuclear weapons program, along with competition with the Soviet Union and a desire to spread democracy through the world, created pressure on federal officials "to develop a civilian nuclear power industry that could help justify the government's considerable expenditures."John Byrne and Steven M. Hoffman (1996). Governing the Atom: The Politics of Risk, Transaction Publishers, p. 136.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 encouraged private corporations to build nuclear reactors and a significant learning phase followed with many early partial core meltdowns and accidents at experimental reactors and research facilities. This led to the introduction of the Price-Anderson Act in 1957, which was, "an implicit admission that nuclear power provided risks that producers were unwilling to assume without federal backing." The Price-Anderson Act "shields nuclear utilities, vendors and suppliers against liability claims in the event of a catastrophic accident by imposing an upper limit on private sector liability." Without such protection, private companies were unwilling to become involved. No other technology in the history of American industry has enjoyed such continuing blanket protection.
The first U.S. reactor to face public opposition was Fermi 1 in 1957. It was built approximately 30 miles from Detroit and there was opposition from the United Auto Workers Union.Michael D. Mehta (2005). Risky business: nuclear power and public protest in Canada Lexington Books, p. 35.
Pacific Gas & Electric planned to build the first commercially viable nuclear power plant in the U.S. at Bodega Bay, north of San Francisco. The proposal was controversial and conflict with local citizens began in 1958.Paula Garb. Review of Critical Masses , Journal of Political Ecology, Vol 6, 1999. The proposed plant site was close to the San Andreas Fault and the region's environmentally sensitive fishing and dairy industries. The Sierra Club became actively involved in the controversy.Thomas Raymond Wellock (1998). Critical Masses: Opposition to Nuclear Power in California, 1958–1978, The University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 27–28. The conflict ended in 1964, with the forced abandonment of plans for the Bodega Bay power plant. Historian Thomas Wellock traces the birth of the anti-nuclear movement in the United States to the controversy over Bodega Bay. Attempts to build a nuclear power plant in Malibu were similar to those at Bodega Bay and were also abandoned.
A small military test reactor exploded at the Stationary Low-Power Reactor Number One in Idaho Falls in January 1961, causing 3 fatalities. This was caused by a combination of dangerous reactor design plus either sabotage, operator error by experienced operators. A further partial meltdown at the Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station in Michigan in 1966.
In his 1963 book Change, Hope and the Bomb, David E. Lilienthal criticized nuclear developments, particularly the nuclear industry's failure to address the nuclear waste question. He argued that it would be "particularly irresponsible to go ahead with the construction of full-scale nuclear power plants without a safe method of nuclear waste disposal having been demonstrated." However, Lilienthal stopped short of a blanket rejection of nuclear power. His view was that a more cautious approach was necessary.
Samuel Walker, in his book Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective, explains that the growth of the nuclear industry in the U.S. occurred as the environmental movement was being formed. Environmentalists saw the advantages of nuclear power in reducing air pollution, but became critical of nuclear technology on other grounds. The view that nuclear power was better for the environment than conventional fuels was partially undermined in the late 1960s when major controversy erupted over the effects of waste heat from nuclear plants on water quality. The nuclear industry "gradually and reluctantly took action to reduce thermal pollution by building cooling towers or ponds for plants on inland waterways."Walker, J. Samuel (2004). Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective (Berkeley: University of California Press), p. 10
Several authors challenged the prevailing view that the small amounts of radioactivity released by nuclear power plants during normal operation were not a problem. They argued "that the routine releases were a severe threat to public health and could cause tens of thousands of deaths from cancer each year." Exchange of views about radiation risks caused uneasiness about nuclear power, especially among those unable to evaluate the conflicting claims.