[pjc50]

The South African nuclear reactor was of course linked to their desire to have nuclear weapons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_ma...

It's difficult to disentangle civilian power from nuclear weapons concerns. This is particularly important if you want to get a good historical understanding of the opposition to nuclear reactors.

- until the end of the cold war, many people considered the risk of nuclear war to be potentially imminent, while global warming was a comparatively distant threat. This is still a somewhat live political issue around Iran, and Israel/US security services devote a lot of effort to sabotaging the Iranian nuclear weapons industry

- until environmental campaigners won, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_... was common

- American commentators really underestimate the impact of Chernobyl on European agriculture, and how long it took to dissipate

[qwerty9001]

> … while global warming was a comparatively distant threat.

Ahhh young folks. Until about the 70s all the media, leading scientist and organisations were concerned about the impending ice age.

So no, people then could not be bothered by the global warming, as they were actively scared of the horrors of the coming ice age.

How times have changed.

[mistrial9]

> Until about the 70s all the media, leading scientist and organisations were concerned about the impending ice age

no, not "all" the media nor all the leading scientists.. this is simply false

[FuriouslyAdrift]

In the 70's we were still trying to get rid of lead in paint and gasoline while being concerned about the giant hole in the ozone.

[defrost]

Nonsense.

You actually fell for the early FUD being spread by the fossil industry?

And you're still parroting it 50 years later?

Have another pack of death sticks and kick back with nine out of ten doctors sucking back cancer.