This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Environment Mid‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Energy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology: Social Movements High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force. Military history: National / Technology / Weaponry B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  National militaries task force Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force Climate change Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130606022845/http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/hugh-gusterson/the-new-abolitionists to http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/hugh-gusterson/the-new-abolitionists
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091014204454/http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/special-topics/semipalatinsk-60-years-later to http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/special-topics/semipalatinsk-60-years-later

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Under 3.4 Casualties, the third bullet post does not reference any deaths, just vandalism. Perhaps this could be part of, or the beginning of some other subsection. 173.164.68.154 (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)George Neally[reply]

"There is a wide range of published energy-related studies which conclude that energy efficiency programs and renewable power technologies are a better energy option than nuclear power plants. This diverse range of studies come from many different sources, across the political spectrum, and from various academic disciplines, which 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. [71]"

Reference 71 leads to (a) a seemingly unrelated Reaction Time article, and (b) two books, one from 1975 with plenty of incorrect predictions (such as the unreliability of nuclear) and the other from 2011, the only relevant and rigorous research. This surely does not support the rather bold statements about "different sources", and a "consensus". Nuclear energy is a heated topic, but regardless of one's opinion the article seems to overstep its boundaries supported by citations here. As such, until better sources are provided, I have changed the section to the following:

"There are some energy-related studies which conclude that energy efficiency programs and renewable power technologies are a better energy option than nuclear power plants. ^[1]"

(updated 22/04/2021).