![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Anon 199.125.109.* added
What, if anything, did the anti-nuclear movement do to prevent nuclear developments in those four countries?
—WWoods (
talk) 06:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm amazed at the lack of balance in this article. Also, I'm concerned that we have a large debate section in nuclear power and a competing one here. This is going to take quite a bit of work, and I'm not at all sure we don't want to break out the debates in the two articles back into one unified debate article. I'll post in Nuclear Power about this as well. Simesa ( talk) 22:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Back in 2005, it was decided not to have a nuclear power controversy or debate on nuclear power article. Instead, that debate is now in an extensive section in Nuclear power#Debate on nuclear power. It seems more appropriate to have that debate complete in that article, and reference it everywhere else, rather than have three separate articles with their own debates ( Energy development is the third article involved). I plan to eventually merge the three sections, but wanted everyone to have a chance to comment first - give it, say, a week? Simesa ( talk) 06:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph on environmentalism is clearly american-based when it says: Environmentalists criticise the anti-nuclear movement for under-stating the environmental costs of fossil-fuels and non-nuclear alternatives, and over-stating the environmental costs of nuclear energy. In most of europe and within large environmentalist groups such as Greenpeace, an anti-nuclear stance is considered an environmentalist position. On the other hand, that whole section seems biased 90.128.67.167 ( talk) 13:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
With all respect Paxuscalta, that's an assertion. The likes of Helen Caldicott (who is absolutely hysterical on this issue, and this really stems from her reading a work of FICTION, On the Beach) are fond of going on about how "greenhouses gases" are released by the vehicles used in Uranium mining, and transport, etc. They don't acknowledge the "greenhouse gases" used in fabricating wind turbines, transporting them to their often remote locations and maintenance. It's pure political spin. I do like it when economic imperitives, which are totally dismissed when it comes to the viability of things like solar energy or wind farms, suddenly become vitally important when it comes to nuclear energy. A sure case of moving the goal posts. The real reason is that opposition to nuclear power, for many, if reflexive, politically based, and indeed based around the name "nuclear". Even DU munitions are represented as "nuclear weapons" by many activists.
This contribution [4] is unacceptable: it uses a peacock term as the title of a section in which two particular events are mentionned, without explaining why they would have a specific signification compared to other demonstrations. To make the matter worse, the events are only one month old, which make it impossible to assess objectively their impact. As such, this contribution looks like nothing more than an anecdote sexed up with journalistic-like emphasis techniques. Rama ( talk) 10:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I really have contributed little to this article, and have been mainly watching from a distance. I've watched as several pro-nuclear editors have essentially shaped the article so that the Criticism section is now eight paragraphs long -- one of the longest sections in the article.
And then there is the following persistent section which I have removed twice, and has needed citations since July. Why is unsourced material being held onto? Because it is pro-nuclear?
Views on nuclear power have a lot to do with how people socially construct nuclear technologies. (See Social construction) In places like America, the word "Nuclear" tend to also be related to words like "Nuclear Waste", "Nuclear Radiation" and "Meltdown". In other words, the society has socially constructed the idea of Nuclear power to have a negative connotation. citation needed
It is actually quite difficult to get any sensible, well sourced, up to date, anti-nuclear material added to the article. I've twice added this but have been reverted:
During a weekend in October 2008, over 15,000 people turned out to disrupt the transport of radioactive nuclear waste from France to a dump in Germany. This was one of the largest such protests in many years and it signals a revival of the anti-nuclear movement in Germany. [1] [2] [3] Also in 2008, there have been protests about, and criticism of, several new nuclear reactor proposals in the United States. [4] [5] [6] [7]
I can't remember the last time I added a POV tag to an article. Certainly it would be many months ago. But a POV tag is certainly needed here because the article has a strong pro-nuclear bias.
Johnfos (
talk) 10:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Never in my time on WP have I been called anti-nuclear like that. What about WP:AGF? I have said on my User page that "My interest in the anti-nuclear movement is a scholarly one. There are many books and papers available on this topic and I have tried to read what I can. I have never been to an anti-nuclear protest nor been a member of an anti-nuclear group."
What I have written may not be perfect, but it is a start, and it is well sourced. I have tried to compromise with wording as far as is reasonably possible, and do what I can to bring some balance to this article. But it is clear that this is not possible. So I am adding the POV tag again, and an update tag too, as this article is in sore need of information about recent developments.
A copy of the revised section which has been rejected is here:
During a weekend in October 2008, some 15,000 people disrupted the transport of radioactive nuclear waste from France to a dump in Germany. This was one of the largest such protests in many years and, according to Der Spiegel, it signals a revival of the anti-nuclear movement in Germany. [8] [9] [10] Also in 2008, there have been protests about, and criticism of, several new nuclear reactor proposals in the United States. [11] [12] [13] [14]
-- Johnfos ( talk) 20:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I feel that there has been a scramble here to find any sort of wikipedia policy that could possibly preclude a short mention of a reported "anti-nuclear renaissance" (supported by many reliable references) within the context of a (mainly historical) article on the Anti-nuclear movement.
WP:RECENTISM says: "It is widely regarded as one of Wikipedia's strengths that it is able to collate and sift through vast amounts of reporting on current events, producing encyclopedia-quality articles in real time about ongoing events or developing stories: natural disasters, political campaigns and elections, wars, product releases, assassinations. It would greatly weaken the encyclopedia project if article development about ongoing events were discouraged in a campaign against so-called "recentism"."
WP:SPECULATION says: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."
As far as I'm aware there is no WP policy that suggests scholarly sources are obligatory. Reliable sources are enough. Johnfos ( talk) 00:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
This material has had two tags on it for a long time. I've removed it from the article because it clearly doesn't fit in there. Johnfos ( talk) 02:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This section may contain information not
important or relevant to the article's subject. |
![]() | This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this section if you can. |
John Gofman was called the father of the anti-nuclear movement by some who?, even though his concerns over nuclear energy began in the 1960s, long after the movement started. He was, in fact, a weapons researcher and never apologised for his work on atomic bombs. [15] [16] [17] He claimed that the consequences of exposure to low levels of radiation were much greater than previously thought. His findings were disputed by other analysts, [18] but safety standards were strengthened, [19] and in 2005 The National Academies of Science released a report which concluded "that the smallest dose [of radiation] has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans." [20]
The National Institutes of Health [21] and the Health Physics Society [22] in the United States and other professional health organisations internationally [23] reject the hypothesis on which Gofman based his calculations, the " linear-no-threshold" formula. The International Commission on Radiation Protection and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation acknowledge that the concept is unsupported by scientific evidence but recommend the rule be applied in risk calculations in the interest of conservatism, supposing that overstating the risk leads to safer design considerations. [23] Critics complain that the rule encourages unsafe decisions by driving choices toward other, greater, health risks. [24]
Gofman predicted that Chernobyl would cause 1,000,000 cancers and 475,000 deaths, and later, in 1996, estimated that the majority of cancers in the U.S. were caused by medical radiation. [25] These estimates are widely disputed, and in 2005 a report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organisation (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people; thus disputing Gofman's hypothesis. [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]
Gofman acted as an expert witness in several radiation-exposure legal cases and helped to establish an advocacy group, the Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, based in San Francisco. [31]
Gofman did not play a major organising role in the movement, and suggested that Larry Bogart is the movement's true originator. [15] In 1966, Bogart founded the Citizens Energy Council, a coalition of environmental groups that published the newsletters "Radiation Perils," "Watch on the A.E.C." and "Nuclear Opponents". These publications argued that "nuclear power plants were too complex, too expensive and so inherently unsafe they would one day prove to be a financial disaster and a health hazard". [32] [33]
I've removed these images from the article because neither has a verifiable source for the information provided. Johnfos ( talk) 20:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Johnfos, I see you are frequently editing this article, so can you address the following problems?
Thank you in advance for considering those points. -- Tweenk ( talk) 03:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The Criticism section begins with the introductory statement that some environmentalists favor nuclear energy and criticize opponents. The body of the section lists examples, such as James Lovelock, Patrick Moore, and Stewart Brand. An editor has questioned whether they are really environmentalists. This is a fair question, since many people call themselves environmentalists with no apparent qualifications. These three individuals, in contrast, have spent their lives researching environmental problems and educating the public about them. If the term environmentalist doesn't apply to them then it doesn't apply to anyone.-- Cde3 ( talk) 15:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I've moved this paragraph here for discussion:
I feel this detailed info would be better presented in the Anti-nuclear movement in the United Kingdom article or the Aldermaston March article. Our lead section is already quite long and we shouldn't have a whole para in the lead on just one group of demonstrations. Johnfos ( talk) 00:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Nuclear power is not healthy poster.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
Recently, an editor split out a large block of text into a new article without any discussion. Was there ever a {{SPLIT TO}} tag placed on this article, to afford interested parties the chance to discuss this bold edit, or is this just a single editors unvetted idea? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I just came accross this article now, and find it problematic. By mixing the events of anti-nuclear weapon and anti-nuclear power protests, it gets very confusing. While these two movements are linked, it is difficult to describe them as one anti nuclear movement. Activists and organisations of one movement are not necessarily involved in the other, and the campaigns, mobilisations, successes and failures of the different movements are quite distinct.
It also just lists single events, often taking them out of context. The 2008 anti-nuclear waste protests in Germany which are mentioned in the text have a history of mobilisation going back to the early or mid-1990s (or even to the late 1970s), and there has been a nonviolent blockade with 9,000 participants in 1997 (and 30,000 police were deployed), and other large-scale protests in 1998, and 2001, and almost annually on a smaller scale.
If the article wants to give an overview, than rather than just listing large scale events, it would make more sense to describe some campaigns/mobilisations often spanning several years/decades as examples, which would give the reader a better idea of the movement as a random list of large protests. Andreas Speck 11:51, 11 June 2011 (GMT)
You reverted my edits due to misunderstanding of reality, therefore I reinstated my edit. You do understand you have to be factual and neutral, and present the facts when writing an encyclopedia, right?
These are the reasons you gave for removing my edits, I will debunk each one accordingly -
(1) you wrote - 'there is considerable opposition to fusion research as it diverts funds from practical energy technologies.' That may be your personal anti-nuclear opinion, but the reality of affairs is that most rational countries are in fact funding the development of Fusion, for an example see ITER.
(2)You then suggested that - 'solar and geothermal power are regarded as renewable energy' and that's fine, but where exactly did I say that solar and geothermal weren't regarded as renewable? I think you'll find I didn't, all I made readers aware of is the fact that both are energy sources derived from nuclear energy: The Solar Sun being a Nuclear Fusion fireball, and the Earth containing natural Uranium, Thorium and Potassium-40 which due to Nuclear decay, is the source of geothermal energy.
See- http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/how-geothermal-energy-works.html 'Below the Earth's crust, there is a layer of hot and molten rock called magma. Heat is continually produced there, mostly from the decay of naturally radioactive materials such as uranium and potassium.' &
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/07/18/nuclear-fission-confirmed-as-source-of-more-than-half-of-earths-heat/ 'Nuclear decay Confirmed as Source of More than Half of Earth’s Heat'
So the anti-nuclear movement isn't really 'anti-Nuclear' after all, if indeed they want more geothermal energy plants and solar panels. Both these sources of Energy are both Nuclear & considered 'Renewable', you see, those terms aren't mutually exclusive.
As a side note, regarding the 'renewable' term, who exactly said that Fission Nuclear power is never going to be renewable? see - Nuclear power proposed as renewable energy. Right now Nuclear tech is regarded non-renewable, but it will be in the next ~30 years.
And finally, the greatest piece of misinformation in your edit is (3) you wrote 'cyclotrons produce radioisotopes and no nuclear reactor is needed'. No, that's entirely false John. Cyclotrons may be used to purify radioisotopes, but they aren't used to produce the radioisotopes used in the vast majority of radiopharmaceuticals, Nuclear reactors are, contrary to your opinion, the sole producer. See the National Research Universal reactor & Chalk River Reactor the sole producer of most of the worlds life saving Technetium 99m which is used for common imaging procedures to diagnose and detect heart disease, cancer and other conditions. More than 16 million procedures are conducted annually in the U.S. alone using that isotope. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100708111326.htm
You take away Nuclear reactors, and you take away all the life saving drugs produced by them, is this what the anti-Nuclear movement want?
Bizarre.
They're the facts John, your 'anti-nuclear' point of view is visible, as a survivor of cancer with the help of reactor produced radioisotopes, I find your editting frankly insulting. Boundarylayer ( talk) 16:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Boundarylayer, you have added some material to Anti-nuclear movement in the United States which has been incorporated into the article, no problem. But your edits here have suffered from pro-nuclear POV pushing, poor writing, and misconstruing what sources say, as discussed by several editors on your Talk page. You say I have reverted you, whereas I have actually tried to re-factor the points you raise to make them suitable for inclusion, see [14].
However, I have reverted the Megatons to Megawatts material, as it presented a lot of misinformation. At the very least please see The fallacy of the Megatons to Megawatts program before trying to reformulate this, and consider that it may be more appropriate for the Megatons to Megawatts article. Johnfos ( talk) 03:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Boundarylayer ( talk) 00:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Under the alternatives section no mention was made to the fact that the IAE support the expansion in the number of Nuclear reactors. Previously the article leads one to believe the IEA are anti-nuclear, but that couldn't be further from the truth.
So Johnfos, as for - 'your edits here have suffered from pro-nuclear POV pushing and misconstruing what sources say,'
Have you heard of the pot calling the Kettle black?
Boundarylayer ( talk) 00:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The section "Concerns about nuclear power" lacks common mainstream scientific rebuttals to the fringe views of the anti-nuclear campaigners. Scientific responses can not be relegated to other articles per WP:FRINGE. IRWolfie- ( talk) 09:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Currently the lede ends with a list of countries apparently opposed to 'Nuclear power'.
However, none of those countries are completely opposed to Nuclear power, they are only opposed to Nuclear fission sourced electricity, and they certainly aren't opposed to radiopharmaceuticals produced in Nuclear fission reactors.
Therefore I have attempted to include the following section at the end of the lede, but it has been subject to repeated reverts by the user Johnfos etc.
Is there some reason why this is continually being removed?
Boundarylayer ( talk) 02:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/power/new-reactor-types/
The following sentences were copied verbatim from the above link by Johnfos into the 'Other technologies' section.
A major fusion R&D program is underway called the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. (<www.iter.org>) It involves the European Union, Japan, China, India, South Korea, Russia, and the USA. An experimental plant is to be built at Cadarache in the South of France.
& Fusion power remains a distant dream. According to the World Nuclear Association (2005C), fusion "presents so far insurmountable scientific and engineering challenges".
The copying was done by Johnfos on August 20th here
Please promptly reword the offending sections Johnfos.
Sincerely, Boundarylayer ( talk) 05:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Johnfos seems to be trying to censor all mention to the most successful nuclear weapons disarmament agent in history- the Megatons to Megawatts Program, He seems to think its not a good thing to get rid of tens of thousands of weapons, and to support his POV, he included this authors opinion piece on the matter, who appears opposed to the program, and who would instead prefer that-
...the weapon material could be kept in the warheads, as the Russian Ministry of Defense has a lot of spare storage capacity that's reasonably well-secured--thanks in large part to U.S. assistance
Apart from this being plainly the very antithesis of the main goal of the nuclear disarmament movement-getting rid of weapons. The author of this opinion piece appears to be also taking the unsubstantiated position that Trains cannot also be reasonably well secured and that stockpiling the material in big warehouses forever in a manner that can be perfectly secured, which would be needed indefinitely, is not only possible but a better solution. Bizarre. They also falsely insinuate that the trains that carry the HEU, destined to be put beyond use by downblending, are not already heavily armed to repel any terrorist group feeling suicidal enough to think they could even get near a train carrying HEU without being promptly blown away.
Here is some mention of the convoy trains armed guards - http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF-Kazakh_HEU_returned_to_Russia-2005094.html
Here is mention of the caliber of 'guards' the author of the bulletin piece wants to 'protect' the stockpiles- Most of the HEU in Eastern Europe has been stored since Soviet times, often in badly maintained and poorly guarded facilities where for years underpaid staff were potentially vulnerable to bribery by well-funded terrorists - So no, the author does not for one second mention that the trains are armed to the proverbial 9s, but prefers the idea of weapons grade HEU sitting in weapons stockpiles and warehouses because they personally feel it is more secure than to move it by train and downblend the HEU to a state were it can be burnt - up so it can be completely eliminated forever.
Regardless, this man has the final say what's safest.- The preferred method is to remove HEU for reprocessing. "That way it is made safe, permanently," Mr Bieniawski said. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/8053159/Mission-to-stop-nuclear-terrorism.html
I'll leave you to find out who Mr. Bieniawski is, and what his job is, but here's a hint, have you even heard of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative?
Course you haven't. Sincerely Boundarylayer ( talk) 10:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
> Columban priest Fr Seán McDonagh's forthcoming book is entitled Is Fukushima the Death Knell for Nuclear Energy?. [37] <
But only found mention "He also finished a manuscript, Nuclear Power Post-Fukushima, and began the search for a publisher." [38] A forthcoming book with dead link seems out of place advertisement. -- so deleted.- Yohananw ( talk) 18:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Seems an apology of the movement ? Suggestions or explanations ? -- Robertiki ( talk) 04:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Is there a seasoned editor/administrator affiliated with page? 24.251.41.161 ( talk) 18:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Too one-sided "suggests that there is a consensus among many independent, non-partisan energy experts that nuclear power plants are a poor way to produce electrical power." utter bullshit What about "There is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power." I'll add some balance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 ( talk • contribs) 12:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I have just edited out " John Vidal writing in the Guardian said "The point is that right across the world it is not just the nuclear technology which is so offensive to people, but the arrogance, callousness and ruthless steamrollering of any opposition that invariably accompanies nuclear projects. What the pro-nuclear folk here do not seem to understand is that the abuse of political power is as dangerous as the power source itself". [40]" It's essentially a conspiracy theory. I thought of saying it was a conspiracy theory in the text but it's of little merit.
n his book Global Fission: The Battle Over Nuclear Power, Jim Falk explores connections between technological concerns and political concerns. Falk suggests that concerns of citizen groups or individuals who oppose nuclear power have often focused initially on the "range of physical hazards which accompany the technology". Concern often starts with a single issue, such as radioactive waste, but over time concerns usually spread and the focus broadens. Falk suggests that with a richer and more sophisticated understanding of issues comes more concerns and eventually, almost inevitably says Falk, this leads to a "concern over the political relations of the nuclear industry".[71]
John Vidal has said "The point is that right across the world it is not just the nuclear technology which is so offensive to people, but the arrogance, callousness and ruthless steamrollering of any opposition that invariably accompanies nuclear projects. What the pro-nuclear folk here do not seem to understand is that the abuse of political power is as dangerous as the power source itself".[72]
Falk argues that if all the different concerns over the physical hazards of nuclear power were distilled into one succinct statement, it might be this: "that it is a technology whose safety people deeply distrust". Falk says that that distrust also applies more widely, to the whole nuclear enterprise:[71]
People must have come not only to distrust the safety of the technology but also the authority of those who have assured them so confidently that nuclear power is safe. In this sense people distrust the entire nuclear enterprise -- not only its technology, but the public and private organizations, the political parties, and those often prestigious scientists who advocate and assist in the development of nuclear pow
All of the above says to me, and I admit I think anti-nuclear people are crackpots, that a lot of people make money promoting conspiracy theories about nuclear energy. I think it's absurd to suggest that there's a conspiracy to misrepresent the risks associated with the industry yo the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 ( talk • contribs) 12:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Edit reinstated
We have many WP articles dealing with technical and economic issues of nuclear power. Perhaps the one of most relevance is Nuclear power debate. Much material added to this article already appears there, or should be moved there.
In contrast, this WP article deals mainly with underreported social and political issues, using many scholarly publications as references. Please see social movements for background information.
Also, a considerable amount of material has been deleted from this article. Deleting large portions of text really should be discussed on this Talk page first.
If you are using an IP address, please consider taking advantage of free registration to create a user name. Thanks. Johnfos ( talk) 14:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I find it interesting that there are extensive public relations activities by the nuclear industry, which could misrepresent the risks associated with the industry to politicians and the public. [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] -- Johnfos ( talk) 02:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm picking up from recent comments that there are probably too many images in the article, that it is a bit long, and too US-centric. I have addressed these three issues mainly using WP:SS. See what you think. Johnfos ( talk) 07:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Anti-nuclear movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://peoplebuildingpeace.microhost.nl/thestories/print.php?id=137&typ=theme{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/Thousands+Germans+attend+anti+nuclear+protest/3545178/story.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys, quick question: Should this article be split into the article and a list of the activities section? I noted that this article is long and the activities, while related, could be their own list.
Much Love, Dadofme ( talk) 21:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Anti-nuclear movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/international/news/20120311p2g00m0in018000c.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
It's a bit ironic that there's no (link to the) article on the Danish Anti Nuclear movement OOA. They introduced the "smiling sun", which was later adopted around the world. Henryfunk ( talk) 22:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Anon 199.125.109.* added
What, if anything, did the anti-nuclear movement do to prevent nuclear developments in those four countries?
—WWoods (
talk) 06:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm amazed at the lack of balance in this article. Also, I'm concerned that we have a large debate section in nuclear power and a competing one here. This is going to take quite a bit of work, and I'm not at all sure we don't want to break out the debates in the two articles back into one unified debate article. I'll post in Nuclear Power about this as well. Simesa ( talk) 22:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Back in 2005, it was decided not to have a nuclear power controversy or debate on nuclear power article. Instead, that debate is now in an extensive section in Nuclear power#Debate on nuclear power. It seems more appropriate to have that debate complete in that article, and reference it everywhere else, rather than have three separate articles with their own debates ( Energy development is the third article involved). I plan to eventually merge the three sections, but wanted everyone to have a chance to comment first - give it, say, a week? Simesa ( talk) 06:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph on environmentalism is clearly american-based when it says: Environmentalists criticise the anti-nuclear movement for under-stating the environmental costs of fossil-fuels and non-nuclear alternatives, and over-stating the environmental costs of nuclear energy. In most of europe and within large environmentalist groups such as Greenpeace, an anti-nuclear stance is considered an environmentalist position. On the other hand, that whole section seems biased 90.128.67.167 ( talk) 13:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
With all respect Paxuscalta, that's an assertion. The likes of Helen Caldicott (who is absolutely hysterical on this issue, and this really stems from her reading a work of FICTION, On the Beach) are fond of going on about how "greenhouses gases" are released by the vehicles used in Uranium mining, and transport, etc. They don't acknowledge the "greenhouse gases" used in fabricating wind turbines, transporting them to their often remote locations and maintenance. It's pure political spin. I do like it when economic imperitives, which are totally dismissed when it comes to the viability of things like solar energy or wind farms, suddenly become vitally important when it comes to nuclear energy. A sure case of moving the goal posts. The real reason is that opposition to nuclear power, for many, if reflexive, politically based, and indeed based around the name "nuclear". Even DU munitions are represented as "nuclear weapons" by many activists.
This contribution [4] is unacceptable: it uses a peacock term as the title of a section in which two particular events are mentionned, without explaining why they would have a specific signification compared to other demonstrations. To make the matter worse, the events are only one month old, which make it impossible to assess objectively their impact. As such, this contribution looks like nothing more than an anecdote sexed up with journalistic-like emphasis techniques. Rama ( talk) 10:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I really have contributed little to this article, and have been mainly watching from a distance. I've watched as several pro-nuclear editors have essentially shaped the article so that the Criticism section is now eight paragraphs long -- one of the longest sections in the article.
And then there is the following persistent section which I have removed twice, and has needed citations since July. Why is unsourced material being held onto? Because it is pro-nuclear?
Views on nuclear power have a lot to do with how people socially construct nuclear technologies. (See Social construction) In places like America, the word "Nuclear" tend to also be related to words like "Nuclear Waste", "Nuclear Radiation" and "Meltdown". In other words, the society has socially constructed the idea of Nuclear power to have a negative connotation. citation needed
It is actually quite difficult to get any sensible, well sourced, up to date, anti-nuclear material added to the article. I've twice added this but have been reverted:
During a weekend in October 2008, over 15,000 people turned out to disrupt the transport of radioactive nuclear waste from France to a dump in Germany. This was one of the largest such protests in many years and it signals a revival of the anti-nuclear movement in Germany. [1] [2] [3] Also in 2008, there have been protests about, and criticism of, several new nuclear reactor proposals in the United States. [4] [5] [6] [7]
I can't remember the last time I added a POV tag to an article. Certainly it would be many months ago. But a POV tag is certainly needed here because the article has a strong pro-nuclear bias.
Johnfos (
talk) 10:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Never in my time on WP have I been called anti-nuclear like that. What about WP:AGF? I have said on my User page that "My interest in the anti-nuclear movement is a scholarly one. There are many books and papers available on this topic and I have tried to read what I can. I have never been to an anti-nuclear protest nor been a member of an anti-nuclear group."
What I have written may not be perfect, but it is a start, and it is well sourced. I have tried to compromise with wording as far as is reasonably possible, and do what I can to bring some balance to this article. But it is clear that this is not possible. So I am adding the POV tag again, and an update tag too, as this article is in sore need of information about recent developments.
A copy of the revised section which has been rejected is here:
During a weekend in October 2008, some 15,000 people disrupted the transport of radioactive nuclear waste from France to a dump in Germany. This was one of the largest such protests in many years and, according to Der Spiegel, it signals a revival of the anti-nuclear movement in Germany. [8] [9] [10] Also in 2008, there have been protests about, and criticism of, several new nuclear reactor proposals in the United States. [11] [12] [13] [14]
-- Johnfos ( talk) 20:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I feel that there has been a scramble here to find any sort of wikipedia policy that could possibly preclude a short mention of a reported "anti-nuclear renaissance" (supported by many reliable references) within the context of a (mainly historical) article on the Anti-nuclear movement.
WP:RECENTISM says: "It is widely regarded as one of Wikipedia's strengths that it is able to collate and sift through vast amounts of reporting on current events, producing encyclopedia-quality articles in real time about ongoing events or developing stories: natural disasters, political campaigns and elections, wars, product releases, assassinations. It would greatly weaken the encyclopedia project if article development about ongoing events were discouraged in a campaign against so-called "recentism"."
WP:SPECULATION says: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."
As far as I'm aware there is no WP policy that suggests scholarly sources are obligatory. Reliable sources are enough. Johnfos ( talk) 00:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
This material has had two tags on it for a long time. I've removed it from the article because it clearly doesn't fit in there. Johnfos ( talk) 02:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This section may contain information not
important or relevant to the article's subject. |
![]() | This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this section if you can. |
John Gofman was called the father of the anti-nuclear movement by some who?, even though his concerns over nuclear energy began in the 1960s, long after the movement started. He was, in fact, a weapons researcher and never apologised for his work on atomic bombs. [15] [16] [17] He claimed that the consequences of exposure to low levels of radiation were much greater than previously thought. His findings were disputed by other analysts, [18] but safety standards were strengthened, [19] and in 2005 The National Academies of Science released a report which concluded "that the smallest dose [of radiation] has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans." [20]
The National Institutes of Health [21] and the Health Physics Society [22] in the United States and other professional health organisations internationally [23] reject the hypothesis on which Gofman based his calculations, the " linear-no-threshold" formula. The International Commission on Radiation Protection and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation acknowledge that the concept is unsupported by scientific evidence but recommend the rule be applied in risk calculations in the interest of conservatism, supposing that overstating the risk leads to safer design considerations. [23] Critics complain that the rule encourages unsafe decisions by driving choices toward other, greater, health risks. [24]
Gofman predicted that Chernobyl would cause 1,000,000 cancers and 475,000 deaths, and later, in 1996, estimated that the majority of cancers in the U.S. were caused by medical radiation. [25] These estimates are widely disputed, and in 2005 a report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organisation (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people; thus disputing Gofman's hypothesis. [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]
Gofman acted as an expert witness in several radiation-exposure legal cases and helped to establish an advocacy group, the Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, based in San Francisco. [31]
Gofman did not play a major organising role in the movement, and suggested that Larry Bogart is the movement's true originator. [15] In 1966, Bogart founded the Citizens Energy Council, a coalition of environmental groups that published the newsletters "Radiation Perils," "Watch on the A.E.C." and "Nuclear Opponents". These publications argued that "nuclear power plants were too complex, too expensive and so inherently unsafe they would one day prove to be a financial disaster and a health hazard". [32] [33]
I've removed these images from the article because neither has a verifiable source for the information provided. Johnfos ( talk) 20:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Johnfos, I see you are frequently editing this article, so can you address the following problems?
Thank you in advance for considering those points. -- Tweenk ( talk) 03:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The Criticism section begins with the introductory statement that some environmentalists favor nuclear energy and criticize opponents. The body of the section lists examples, such as James Lovelock, Patrick Moore, and Stewart Brand. An editor has questioned whether they are really environmentalists. This is a fair question, since many people call themselves environmentalists with no apparent qualifications. These three individuals, in contrast, have spent their lives researching environmental problems and educating the public about them. If the term environmentalist doesn't apply to them then it doesn't apply to anyone.-- Cde3 ( talk) 15:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I've moved this paragraph here for discussion:
I feel this detailed info would be better presented in the Anti-nuclear movement in the United Kingdom article or the Aldermaston March article. Our lead section is already quite long and we shouldn't have a whole para in the lead on just one group of demonstrations. Johnfos ( talk) 00:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Nuclear power is not healthy poster.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
Recently, an editor split out a large block of text into a new article without any discussion. Was there ever a {{SPLIT TO}} tag placed on this article, to afford interested parties the chance to discuss this bold edit, or is this just a single editors unvetted idea? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I just came accross this article now, and find it problematic. By mixing the events of anti-nuclear weapon and anti-nuclear power protests, it gets very confusing. While these two movements are linked, it is difficult to describe them as one anti nuclear movement. Activists and organisations of one movement are not necessarily involved in the other, and the campaigns, mobilisations, successes and failures of the different movements are quite distinct.
It also just lists single events, often taking them out of context. The 2008 anti-nuclear waste protests in Germany which are mentioned in the text have a history of mobilisation going back to the early or mid-1990s (or even to the late 1970s), and there has been a nonviolent blockade with 9,000 participants in 1997 (and 30,000 police were deployed), and other large-scale protests in 1998, and 2001, and almost annually on a smaller scale.
If the article wants to give an overview, than rather than just listing large scale events, it would make more sense to describe some campaigns/mobilisations often spanning several years/decades as examples, which would give the reader a better idea of the movement as a random list of large protests. Andreas Speck 11:51, 11 June 2011 (GMT)
You reverted my edits due to misunderstanding of reality, therefore I reinstated my edit. You do understand you have to be factual and neutral, and present the facts when writing an encyclopedia, right?
These are the reasons you gave for removing my edits, I will debunk each one accordingly -
(1) you wrote - 'there is considerable opposition to fusion research as it diverts funds from practical energy technologies.' That may be your personal anti-nuclear opinion, but the reality of affairs is that most rational countries are in fact funding the development of Fusion, for an example see ITER.
(2)You then suggested that - 'solar and geothermal power are regarded as renewable energy' and that's fine, but where exactly did I say that solar and geothermal weren't regarded as renewable? I think you'll find I didn't, all I made readers aware of is the fact that both are energy sources derived from nuclear energy: The Solar Sun being a Nuclear Fusion fireball, and the Earth containing natural Uranium, Thorium and Potassium-40 which due to Nuclear decay, is the source of geothermal energy.
See- http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/how-geothermal-energy-works.html 'Below the Earth's crust, there is a layer of hot and molten rock called magma. Heat is continually produced there, mostly from the decay of naturally radioactive materials such as uranium and potassium.' &
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/07/18/nuclear-fission-confirmed-as-source-of-more-than-half-of-earths-heat/ 'Nuclear decay Confirmed as Source of More than Half of Earth’s Heat'
So the anti-nuclear movement isn't really 'anti-Nuclear' after all, if indeed they want more geothermal energy plants and solar panels. Both these sources of Energy are both Nuclear & considered 'Renewable', you see, those terms aren't mutually exclusive.
As a side note, regarding the 'renewable' term, who exactly said that Fission Nuclear power is never going to be renewable? see - Nuclear power proposed as renewable energy. Right now Nuclear tech is regarded non-renewable, but it will be in the next ~30 years.
And finally, the greatest piece of misinformation in your edit is (3) you wrote 'cyclotrons produce radioisotopes and no nuclear reactor is needed'. No, that's entirely false John. Cyclotrons may be used to purify radioisotopes, but they aren't used to produce the radioisotopes used in the vast majority of radiopharmaceuticals, Nuclear reactors are, contrary to your opinion, the sole producer. See the National Research Universal reactor & Chalk River Reactor the sole producer of most of the worlds life saving Technetium 99m which is used for common imaging procedures to diagnose and detect heart disease, cancer and other conditions. More than 16 million procedures are conducted annually in the U.S. alone using that isotope. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100708111326.htm
You take away Nuclear reactors, and you take away all the life saving drugs produced by them, is this what the anti-Nuclear movement want?
Bizarre.
They're the facts John, your 'anti-nuclear' point of view is visible, as a survivor of cancer with the help of reactor produced radioisotopes, I find your editting frankly insulting. Boundarylayer ( talk) 16:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Boundarylayer, you have added some material to Anti-nuclear movement in the United States which has been incorporated into the article, no problem. But your edits here have suffered from pro-nuclear POV pushing, poor writing, and misconstruing what sources say, as discussed by several editors on your Talk page. You say I have reverted you, whereas I have actually tried to re-factor the points you raise to make them suitable for inclusion, see [14].
However, I have reverted the Megatons to Megawatts material, as it presented a lot of misinformation. At the very least please see The fallacy of the Megatons to Megawatts program before trying to reformulate this, and consider that it may be more appropriate for the Megatons to Megawatts article. Johnfos ( talk) 03:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Boundarylayer ( talk) 00:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Under the alternatives section no mention was made to the fact that the IAE support the expansion in the number of Nuclear reactors. Previously the article leads one to believe the IEA are anti-nuclear, but that couldn't be further from the truth.
So Johnfos, as for - 'your edits here have suffered from pro-nuclear POV pushing and misconstruing what sources say,'
Have you heard of the pot calling the Kettle black?
Boundarylayer ( talk) 00:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The section "Concerns about nuclear power" lacks common mainstream scientific rebuttals to the fringe views of the anti-nuclear campaigners. Scientific responses can not be relegated to other articles per WP:FRINGE. IRWolfie- ( talk) 09:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Currently the lede ends with a list of countries apparently opposed to 'Nuclear power'.
However, none of those countries are completely opposed to Nuclear power, they are only opposed to Nuclear fission sourced electricity, and they certainly aren't opposed to radiopharmaceuticals produced in Nuclear fission reactors.
Therefore I have attempted to include the following section at the end of the lede, but it has been subject to repeated reverts by the user Johnfos etc.
Is there some reason why this is continually being removed?
Boundarylayer ( talk) 02:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/power/new-reactor-types/
The following sentences were copied verbatim from the above link by Johnfos into the 'Other technologies' section.
A major fusion R&D program is underway called the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. (<www.iter.org>) It involves the European Union, Japan, China, India, South Korea, Russia, and the USA. An experimental plant is to be built at Cadarache in the South of France.
& Fusion power remains a distant dream. According to the World Nuclear Association (2005C), fusion "presents so far insurmountable scientific and engineering challenges".
The copying was done by Johnfos on August 20th here
Please promptly reword the offending sections Johnfos.
Sincerely, Boundarylayer ( talk) 05:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Johnfos seems to be trying to censor all mention to the most successful nuclear weapons disarmament agent in history- the Megatons to Megawatts Program, He seems to think its not a good thing to get rid of tens of thousands of weapons, and to support his POV, he included this authors opinion piece on the matter, who appears opposed to the program, and who would instead prefer that-
...the weapon material could be kept in the warheads, as the Russian Ministry of Defense has a lot of spare storage capacity that's reasonably well-secured--thanks in large part to U.S. assistance
Apart from this being plainly the very antithesis of the main goal of the nuclear disarmament movement-getting rid of weapons. The author of this opinion piece appears to be also taking the unsubstantiated position that Trains cannot also be reasonably well secured and that stockpiling the material in big warehouses forever in a manner that can be perfectly secured, which would be needed indefinitely, is not only possible but a better solution. Bizarre. They also falsely insinuate that the trains that carry the HEU, destined to be put beyond use by downblending, are not already heavily armed to repel any terrorist group feeling suicidal enough to think they could even get near a train carrying HEU without being promptly blown away.
Here is some mention of the convoy trains armed guards - http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF-Kazakh_HEU_returned_to_Russia-2005094.html
Here is mention of the caliber of 'guards' the author of the bulletin piece wants to 'protect' the stockpiles- Most of the HEU in Eastern Europe has been stored since Soviet times, often in badly maintained and poorly guarded facilities where for years underpaid staff were potentially vulnerable to bribery by well-funded terrorists - So no, the author does not for one second mention that the trains are armed to the proverbial 9s, but prefers the idea of weapons grade HEU sitting in weapons stockpiles and warehouses because they personally feel it is more secure than to move it by train and downblend the HEU to a state were it can be burnt - up so it can be completely eliminated forever.
Regardless, this man has the final say what's safest.- The preferred method is to remove HEU for reprocessing. "That way it is made safe, permanently," Mr Bieniawski said. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/8053159/Mission-to-stop-nuclear-terrorism.html
I'll leave you to find out who Mr. Bieniawski is, and what his job is, but here's a hint, have you even heard of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative?
Course you haven't. Sincerely Boundarylayer ( talk) 10:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
> Columban priest Fr Seán McDonagh's forthcoming book is entitled Is Fukushima the Death Knell for Nuclear Energy?. [37] <
But only found mention "He also finished a manuscript, Nuclear Power Post-Fukushima, and began the search for a publisher." [38] A forthcoming book with dead link seems out of place advertisement. -- so deleted.- Yohananw ( talk) 18:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Seems an apology of the movement ? Suggestions or explanations ? -- Robertiki ( talk) 04:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Is there a seasoned editor/administrator affiliated with page? 24.251.41.161 ( talk) 18:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Too one-sided "suggests that there is a consensus among many independent, non-partisan energy experts that nuclear power plants are a poor way to produce electrical power." utter bullshit What about "There is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power." I'll add some balance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 ( talk • contribs) 12:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I have just edited out " John Vidal writing in the Guardian said "The point is that right across the world it is not just the nuclear technology which is so offensive to people, but the arrogance, callousness and ruthless steamrollering of any opposition that invariably accompanies nuclear projects. What the pro-nuclear folk here do not seem to understand is that the abuse of political power is as dangerous as the power source itself". [40]" It's essentially a conspiracy theory. I thought of saying it was a conspiracy theory in the text but it's of little merit.
n his book Global Fission: The Battle Over Nuclear Power, Jim Falk explores connections between technological concerns and political concerns. Falk suggests that concerns of citizen groups or individuals who oppose nuclear power have often focused initially on the "range of physical hazards which accompany the technology". Concern often starts with a single issue, such as radioactive waste, but over time concerns usually spread and the focus broadens. Falk suggests that with a richer and more sophisticated understanding of issues comes more concerns and eventually, almost inevitably says Falk, this leads to a "concern over the political relations of the nuclear industry".[71]
John Vidal has said "The point is that right across the world it is not just the nuclear technology which is so offensive to people, but the arrogance, callousness and ruthless steamrollering of any opposition that invariably accompanies nuclear projects. What the pro-nuclear folk here do not seem to understand is that the abuse of political power is as dangerous as the power source itself".[72]
Falk argues that if all the different concerns over the physical hazards of nuclear power were distilled into one succinct statement, it might be this: "that it is a technology whose safety people deeply distrust". Falk says that that distrust also applies more widely, to the whole nuclear enterprise:[71]
People must have come not only to distrust the safety of the technology but also the authority of those who have assured them so confidently that nuclear power is safe. In this sense people distrust the entire nuclear enterprise -- not only its technology, but the public and private organizations, the political parties, and those often prestigious scientists who advocate and assist in the development of nuclear pow
All of the above says to me, and I admit I think anti-nuclear people are crackpots, that a lot of people make money promoting conspiracy theories about nuclear energy. I think it's absurd to suggest that there's a conspiracy to misrepresent the risks associated with the industry yo the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 ( talk • contribs) 12:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Edit reinstated
We have many WP articles dealing with technical and economic issues of nuclear power. Perhaps the one of most relevance is Nuclear power debate. Much material added to this article already appears there, or should be moved there.
In contrast, this WP article deals mainly with underreported social and political issues, using many scholarly publications as references. Please see social movements for background information.
Also, a considerable amount of material has been deleted from this article. Deleting large portions of text really should be discussed on this Talk page first.
If you are using an IP address, please consider taking advantage of free registration to create a user name. Thanks. Johnfos ( talk) 14:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I find it interesting that there are extensive public relations activities by the nuclear industry, which could misrepresent the risks associated with the industry to politicians and the public. [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] -- Johnfos ( talk) 02:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm picking up from recent comments that there are probably too many images in the article, that it is a bit long, and too US-centric. I have addressed these three issues mainly using WP:SS. See what you think. Johnfos ( talk) 07:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Anti-nuclear movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://peoplebuildingpeace.microhost.nl/thestories/print.php?id=137&typ=theme{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/Thousands+Germans+attend+anti+nuclear+protest/3545178/story.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys, quick question: Should this article be split into the article and a list of the activities section? I noted that this article is long and the activities, while related, could be their own list.
Much Love, Dadofme ( talk) 21:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Anti-nuclear movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/international/news/20120311p2g00m0in018000c.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
It's a bit ironic that there's no (link to the) article on the Danish Anti Nuclear movement OOA. They introduced the "smiling sun", which was later adopted around the world. Henryfunk ( talk) 22:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help)