Talk:Anti-nuclear movement: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Sandy Harris
No edit summary
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz
No edit summary
Line 9: Line 9:


My guess is this article needs headings for each of the distinct issues and a fairly large section on the protests. [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 11:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
My guess is this article needs headings for each of the distinct issues and a fairly large section on the protests. [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 11:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
:Sandy makes good points, but let me ramble a little. Yes, I think, to some extent, there is a generic anti-nuclear movement. It is best regarded from a sociological standpoint, because the range of nuclear technologies is sufficiently wide that I question if there is a single technically based argument that encompasses [[nuclear power]], [[nuclear weapon]]s, [[nuclear medicine]], industrial use of radioisotopes, food sterilization, [[instrumentation for radioactivity#smoke detectors#smoke detector]]s, nondestructive testing (even of non-nuclear power alternatives), etc. There are a number of articles on the technologies, and some of them indeed could use improvements both at the policy level and at the level of popular protests. I just found some material I will add to the [[Chernobyl Disaster]] article.
:Indeed, it would be interesting to find if some of the protest groups are considering strong arguments for their case, such as the technical obsolescence of [[tactical nuclear weapon]]s given the availability of [[precision guided munition]]s.
:So, there are a family of articles here. [[Nuclear engineering]] might be expanded beyond [[CZ: Nuclear Engineering Subgroup]] to be the index to technologies, anti-nuclear movement to be the undifferentiated protest, and then protest and support for individual technologies. I don't know if it helps give my perspective, but there's a nuclear power plant a fair distance upwind of me. It doesn't frighten me, but, if there's a leak, I'm among the volunteers qualified to go out with instruments and respirators and start tracking the cloud, and working in evacuation if necessary. At the same time, there's a major and controversial wind power project in the waters much closer -- with a lot more controversy, because its proposed location would wipe out fisheries and affect Native American traditional areas, while there's an alternate location, about 20-30 miles away and somewhat farther offshore, that has none of these disadvantages. Both windpower and nuclear power have benefits and liabilities. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 13:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:23, 14 May 2010

This article is a stub and thus not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition The sociological position of opposition to all or most nuclear engineering, rather than more focused objection to nuclear weapons or nuclear power generation [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Politics, Sociology and Engineering [Editors asked to check categories]
 Subgroup category:  Nuclear Engineering
 Talk Archive none  English language variant British English

Duplication & distinctions

I'm a bit unclear on the structure here, either what we need or what we have.

Do we really need two articles Anti-nuclear movement and Anti-nuclear protests with overlapping text? Aren't the protests part of the movement and, if so, should the protests article become a redirect to a section here?

Is there any single "anti-nuclear movement"? There are multiple issues. One might favour retaining nuclear weapons but want to ban tests; this is the position of various governments. Or one might abhor military use but favour civilian reactors. Nukes in space is another issue. I think we need a separate article on Nuclear disarmament, probably with Ban the bomb as a redirect and two-way linking between it and Nuclear non-proliferation.

My guess is this article needs headings for each of the distinct issues and a fairly large section on the protests. Sandy Harris 11:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sandy makes good points, but let me ramble a little. Yes, I think, to some extent, there is a generic anti-nuclear movement. It is best regarded from a sociological standpoint, because the range of nuclear technologies is sufficiently wide that I question if there is a single technically based argument that encompasses nuclear power, nuclear weapons, nuclear medicine, industrial use of radioisotopes, food sterilization, instrumentation for radioactivity#smoke detectors#smoke detectors, nondestructive testing (even of non-nuclear power alternatives), etc. There are a number of articles on the technologies, and some of them indeed could use improvements both at the policy level and at the level of popular protests. I just found some material I will add to the Chernobyl Disaster article.
Indeed, it would be interesting to find if some of the protest groups are considering strong arguments for their case, such as the technical obsolescence of tactical nuclear weapons given the availability of precision guided munitions.
So, there are a family of articles here. Nuclear engineering might be expanded beyond CZ: Nuclear Engineering Subgroup to be the index to technologies, anti-nuclear movement to be the undifferentiated protest, and then protest and support for individual technologies. I don't know if it helps give my perspective, but there's a nuclear power plant a fair distance upwind of me. It doesn't frighten me, but, if there's a leak, I'm among the volunteers qualified to go out with instruments and respirators and start tracking the cloud, and working in evacuation if necessary. At the same time, there's a major and controversial wind power project in the waters much closer -- with a lot more controversy, because its proposed location would wipe out fisheries and affect Native American traditional areas, while there's an alternate location, about 20-30 miles away and somewhat farther offshore, that has none of these disadvantages. Both windpower and nuclear power have benefits and liabilities. Howard C. Berkowitz 13:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)