Exploring Who Opposes Nuclear Energy and Why

As anachronistic as it is, anti-nuclear forces still exert a lot of political power in the U.S. and around the world.  We shall take a look at some of the prominent corporations, spokespeople, organizations and local activists opposing nuclear.  Corporations engaging in antinuclear lobbying all have a direct financial interest in suppressing support for their only true competition. The motives of those in the other categories are much more murky and appear to be a blend of self-promotion, self-preservation, secretly hyping competing technology, and true believers who have not kept up with the news and like attention.

I. Profiteers

Individuals, companies and the organizations allied with the fossil fuel industry or the renewables industry which profit directly from the malignment and containment of nuclear energy. Their goal is to use whatever tactics they can to prevent growth and/or close existing plants in order to benefit their own commercial interests.

II. Self-Promoters

Individuals motivated by personal gain, in the form of income (such as speakers fees, book sales, advisory gigs), political power or academic influence. Many originally were anti-war activists, part of an older generation of “hippies” who came of age in the 1960s and 1970s, opposing the Vietnam War, the “military-industrial-complex,” the threat of atomic war and racism. As environmental awareness grew, they took lessons on the use of fear as a powerful grassroots organizing tool. They successfully used fear of nuclear power to build enormous environmental organizations. While often well-intentioned, fear of backlash keeps them from changing their stance on nuclear power.

III. Fearful Followers & Members of the Tribe

People who actually believe that nuclear poses a serious threat to the world. They populate a range of non-profit organizations, some quite old, which have failed to observe that nuclear has outperformed expectations and built a track record as the safest energy technology ever designed. They cling to tribal loyalty premised on antinuclear belief and reject any new information. This group practices “cancel culture” on anyone who dares to pose openness to nuclear. You will hear the accusation “industry stooge” if you talk positively about nuclear energy around these individuals.

Category I:  Profiteers

API Cover Image to Power Point plan

American Petroleum Institute

(Click here to download a PDF of the article.)

As part of reporting called “Pay Dirt,” The Daily Beast’s Lachlan Markay released some exclusive research entitled “Inside the Gas Industry’s Plan to Sink Nuclear Power,” about the corporate front groups that arose to do political battle over proposals by a number of states to prop up nuclear power plants struggling in the wake of dirt-cheap natural gas.  In particular, he delved deep into the American Petroleum Institute’s organization of opposition to Bill 11, Pennsylvania’s proposed legislation to stave off financial ruin for Pennsylvania’s  nuclear power plants through an initiative called No Nuclear Bailouts. Markay was able to access the API’s Power point plan detailing a host of activities, including “grassroots” activism, legislator “intercepts, and the engagement of third-party groups and “key influencers” in its attempt to sway policymakers.  This is just one example of how the API has sought to bolster its own market share by working to undermine nuclear energy.

API Cover Image to Power Point plan


MAJOR FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES, but most prominently ExxonMobil, have known the truth for nearly 50 years: that their oil, gas, and coal products create greenhouse gas pollution that warms the planet and changes our climate. They’ve known for decades that the consequences could be catastrophic and that only a narrow window of time existed to take action before the damage might not be reversible. They have nevertheless engaged in a coordinated, multi-front effort to conceal and contradict their own knowledge of these threats, discredit the growing body of publicly available scientific evidence, and persistently create doubt in the minds of customers, consumers, regulators, the media, journalists, teachers, and the general public about the reality and consequences of climate change. The sole reason: to extend their ability to profit from the sales of dirty energy known to cause illness and climate change. We have posted a much longer exposition of the data showing knowledge by ExxonMobil as early as 1968 in our #KnowNukes portal: Oil Company Knowledge.

Sierra Club

This is a quote from an article posted at EcoCentric in 2012: “Now the biggest and oldest environmental group in the U.S. finds itself caught on the horns of that dilemma. TIME has learned that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking—to help fund the Club’s Beyond Coal campaign. Though the group ended its relationship with Chesapeake in 2010—and the Club says it turned its back on an additional $30 million in promised donations—the news raises concerns about influence industry may have had on the Sierra Club’s independence and its support of natural gas in the past. It’s also sure to anger ordinary members who’ve been uneasy about the Club’s relationship with corporations. “The chapter groups and volunteers depend on the Club to have their back as they fight pollution from any industry, and we need to be unrestrained in our advocacy,” Michael Brune, the Sierra Club’s executive director since 2010, told me. “The first rule of advocacy is that you shouldn’t take money from industries and companies you’re trying to change.”

More profiles (coming soon)


Saudi Aramco




Category II:  Self-Promoters

Most of the loudest anti-nuclear voices come from this category.  Young hippies who came of age in the 1960s and 1970s in the antiwar movement which held raucous anti-atomic bomb protests, learned the power of organizing the “grassroots” around fear.  As fear of war subsided and awareness of environmental degradation grew, they evolved into 1970s and 1980s era environmentalists. Nudged by the fossil fuel industry, which saw the competitive advantage of exaggerating public fear of nuclear power, this group shifted their anti-bomb” campaigns into “anti-nuclear power” fundraisers for environmental groups, spreading false information about the public risks of nuclear power. Many still wear anachronistic, anti-nuclear sentiments like a badge.  Virtually none of them have a scientific background—but the extraordinary coincidence of the Three Mile Island accident (which hurt no one but generated a lot of fear in the early days of nuclear development) and the release of the fictional movie “The China Syndrome” two weeks later (which portrayed a fictionalized nuclear accident), brought enormous wealth and strength to the environmental movement. It was very easy to get people to shift the focus on their fears onto the nuclear industry.  Many of these environmental activists found themselves leading large organizations which became dependent on maintaining the public’s fear of nuclear power for their funding.  Since then, many have privately acknowledged that softening their opposition to nuclear power would damage the support they receive.

Mark Z Jacobson, Stanford Professor and co-founder of the Solutions Project and 100.org

Mark Z Jacobson is best known as the Stanford academic who ideologically insists that we can solve climate change with just renewables. In this respect, he’s one of the most influential voices that seeks to deny a role for nuclear power and, as a result, is putting our entire world at risk. This fact does not deter him. He is highly prolific and has written papers, “roadmaps,” and computer simulation models that are widely shared with his graduate students. Having written 85% of the code, his models replicate his underlying assumptions about how energy systems operate. When a large group of climate scientists published a peer-reviewed study refuting and challenging some of Jacobson’s many erroneous assumptions (such as that humanity can reduce energy demand by 40%, despite growing population and billions under-served by energy, as well as errors in the model he used), Jacobson did not publish a peer-reviewed paper in defense of his work, rather he sued the lead scientists on the paper that shot down his work and the National Academy of Sciences. Of course, this was not how science works but rather a tactic to try to intimidate his detractors.  However, Jacobson lost that law suit badly and was forced to pay the legal costs of the scientists. Nevertheless, Jacobson, though more widely reviled than almost anyone else because of his refusal to deal with real world facts, is a consummate self-promoter. He has launched fundraising organizations and what he calls the “!00% Clean, Renewable Energy Movement.”  He has managed to recruit a number of high-profile personalities, such as Mark Ruffalo, to fund his various initiatives and help raise other funding. Jacobson is widely known to block any person who dares to raise the issue of nuclear energy with him on social media.

Ed Lyman is the sole voice at Union of Concerned Scientists opposing nuclear, even though the group has officially recognized that we only hurt our chances of limiting carbon emissions if we close nuclear power plants. Lyman doesn’t care.  He has built his reputation and, most likely, his primary sources of revenue from opposing nuclear. Thus, like many of the aging anti-nuclear activists, Lyman persists in hyping risks that have never panned out, while steadfastly ignoring the fact that climate change is a tsunami of disaster barrelling down on humanity. The Union of Concerned Scientists may have recognized that there’s indeed new data to be factored in but Ed Lyman has too much at stake and refuses to acknowledge the prevailing wisdom regarding the importance of nuclear to our success decarbonizing our grids.  He has long ago staked his reputation and most of his professional speaking appearances on maintaining his staunch opposition to nuclear energy, he cannot admit how safe nuclear actually is and how threatening climate change is. So much for being a “concerned scientist.”

Lyman is an internationally recognized opponent and outspoken skeptic about nuclear power who widely exaggerates the risks of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism as a way to maintain his marketability as an “expert” on nuclear power safety and security. Since joining UCS in 2003, Lyman has published non-stop  in a wide range of anti-nuclear journals, including the “dubious” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Science and Global Security, and Arms Control Today, and he has been a one-man wrecking ball for the truth and accurate risk assessments of nuclear safety and its reliability.  His exaggerations of the risk posed by nuclear energy and radiation have been cited in hundreds of news stories, as he appears to know exactly the click-bait needed to appeal to the media, to boost consumption. Lyman’s book, Fukushima: The Story of a Nuclear Disaster, published in February 2014 failed to recognize that, although more than 20,000 people were washed away by the tsunami, the Fukushima Daiichi melt-down itself that occurred in the subsequent days, proves its safety case, since only one death was ever attributed to the actual plant melt-down. This fact is now widely understood by experts to reflect just how safe nuclear power really is, even when the plant itself gets destoryed. Relative to the human death and destruction being wrought every day by fossil fuels, now seen as the cause of almost 9 million premature deaths globally every year, and their impacts on our climate, which now threaten billions around the world with rising temperatures and the collapse of life-sustaining ecosystems, even the worst nuclear melt-downs are essentially a non-event for human safety. Which makes one wonder how Lyman’s “the sky is falling” anti-nuclear career has been sustained all this time.

Helen Caldicott

Helen Caldicott started her career is as a nutritionist and pediatric physician in Adelaide, where she established the first Australian Clinic for cystic fibrosis at the Adelaide Chidrens Hospital.  In the 1970s, she gained prominence in Australia, New Zealand and North America, speaking on the health hazards of radiation from the perspective of paediatrics. She convinced Australia to sue France over its atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the Pacific in 1971 and 1972, which brought the practice to an end. She also informed Australian trade unions about the medical and military dangers of uranium mining, which led to the three-year banning of the mining and export of uranium.  Caldicott left her medical career to concentrate on calling the world’s attention to what she referred to as the “insanity” of the nuclear arms race and the growing reliance on nuclear power. She influenced Physicians for Social Responsibility to work to educate the US public about the “dire medical implications” of both nuclear war and nuclear power and she began publishing her own books that were influential but regarded as highly alarmist.  In 2002. Caldicott’s The New Nuclear Danger, made what one reviewer called “many cogent criticisms” about the excesses of the military-industrial complex but valid points were “undermined by other far-fetched or alarmist arguments, sloppy research, and haphazard footnoting.” This habit has plagued Caldicott’s entire career. In 2011, Caldicott was involved in a public argument in The Guardian with British journalist George Monbiot, who expressed great concern at Caldicott’s failue to provide adequate justification for any of her arguments. Critiquing Caldicott’s book, Nuclear Power is Not The Answer, he wrote: “The scarcity of references to scientific papers and the abundance of unsourced claims it contains amaze me.” Ultimately, what began as a sincere and beneficial effot to raise awareness of and reel in excesses of the military use of atomic warfare was used to spread non-fact based and unrealistic alarmism about nuclear energy, where such dangers were not present.  While Caldicott’s tactics have been called out by many experts, nevertheless she and her publications and messages have had considerable influence.

Dan Kamen, UC Berkeley professor

Dan Kammen is a professor at UC Berkeley, currently in the Energy and Resources Group (ERG) with an additional appointment to the Goldman School of Public Policy.  He has marvelous speaking credentials, having served as an advisor and expert, giving testimony to Congress and various governmental committees, as well as serving as a commentator and speaker at many area conferences.  Kammen was educated in physics at Cornell and Harvard, and held postdoc postitions at CALTech and Harvard.  He was also an Assistant Professor at Princeton University before moving to Berkeley.  Kammen claims to have contributed to various reports of the IPCC and is serving as an advisor for the X-Prize Foundation. In all respects, Kammen is clearly extremely smart and one could expect, given his work in physics, that he’d be unbiased towards nuclear energy.  In fact, quite the opposite.  Kammen nearly always describes his openness towards nuclear energy at the beginning of his comments but invariably, Kammen resorts to the use of a remarkably smooth review of doubts about nuclear technology and its deployment potential to minimize and reject its use as a climate solution. He does this with great finesse and subtlety but it becomes quite obvious that Kammen has a strong bias against nuclear power and towards renewable technologies, such that he ends up dismissing nuclear energy as if irrelevant. In this respect, he is much more coy about his bias than Mark Jacobson but he is clearly every bit as ideologic in his support for renewables. When Kammen is on the podium, you know you get a powerful argument from him against counting on nuclear to perform on behalf of climate solutions. Kammen, on the other hand, always talks as if all of the technical issues of renewables being able to power energy 24×7 have been solved.

Harvey Wasserman, founder of Solartopia, whatever that is.

Harvey Wasserman, now age 75, started life as an elementary school teacher and made it up the career ladder all the way to “adjunct instructor” at a community college in Ohio, where he also sold uniforms on the side. Despite this modest degree of professional success, Mr. Wasserman has not let that dim his enthusiastic self-promotion. He launched “Solartopia” as a revenue-generating activity and hopes to get consulting and speaking gigs. His website “Bios” page hosts three bios for himself. These three distinct bios are not enough, however, so he supplements with an “Etc.” section, which combined exceed 200 lines.

Mr. Wasserman personifies the worst of today’s self-proclaimed environmental spokesperson, who ignore any facts which conflict with their world view or threaten their self-image.  In 1962, as a junior in high school, Wasserman apparently received such positive feedback from participating in a protest at a segregated roller rink in Columbus, that it set his life’s course. There, he gleefully chanted “Don’t Skate, Integrate!” and got town-wide press. This so enchanted him, Wasserman has  since endeavored to replicate that success with virtually any issue whatsoever. Now, sixty years later, Wasserman’s primary claim to fame is his assertion (unconfirmed) that he coined the term “No Nukes.” While the phrase was used primarily to protect atomic bombs, we have leveraged its familiarity for our “KnowNukes” portal.

Otherwise, most of what fills Wasserman’s bloated bios consists of “I was there with so and so,” and then talking about it with any media outlets as he could possibly find. Then, Wasserman would write about having talked about having protested with so and so, and further pad the bio. Even the tweet that Wasserman has pinned to his Twitter feed attempts to cozy up to David Crosby, while making completely non-sensical claims about nuclear power.

Despite the fact that Wasserman’s long history as protestor, speaker and school instructor might have embued him with some semblance of responsibility to know the facts, Wasserman clings to his 1960s vision of a “solartopia” in which we’ve banned waste and war, banned fossil fuels and nuclear, transformed the corporation, restored the matriarchy, raised organic food, achieved “total efficiency,” revived mass transit and achieved social justice and true democracy, having converted to renewables.  No update there for carbon emissions or climate change. In other words, like many of the aging environmental leaders who launched their protest careers in the 1960s and 1970s, Wasserman’s world view has calcified to the point that he has utterly failed to recognize that climate change is universally acknowledged by scientists as our #1 threat and that nuclear power is required to address it.

Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org

Bill McKibben is a powerful writer, teacher and a committed environmental leader. He founded his organization, 350.org, back in 2007 with a group of students from Middlebury College in Vermont with the idea that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere should not exceed 350 parts per millions (ppm). This was because NASA climate scientist James Hansen contended that any atmospheric concentration of CO2 above 350 parts per million was unsafe. 350.org has built a “global movement for climate solutions.”  For a very long time, despite apparently recognizing that nuclear should be part of the solution, McKibben was unwilling to stick his neck out and show support for nuclear power, recognizing that the fierce differences in views about nuclear energy among supporters of 350.org could “split the movement.”

More recently, McKibben has softened his stance. We received a report of a Zoom presentation on January 9, 2021, in which Bill McKibben spoke to a virtual audience of over 400 people at an Ashby Village Arts and Culture Series event on the topic of  Engaging Elders in Climate Action.  Fortunately, it was recorded. During the Q&A (min. 1:18:51) Roger Newman asked Bill the question: Do you think there’s a place for nuclear energy in a sustainable power supply? He answered:

1:19:01: Bill McKibben: “So nuclear is always an interesting question and I know you all are all facing it again with Diablo Canyon and things. Look, nuclear power doesn’t scare me as much as some other things. And I guess the reason is we all know if something goes wrong in a nuclear power plant it goes wrong, and that’s really big trouble. But if you operate a gas fired power plant exactly the way that it’s supposed to operate it destroys the world. So that’s worth bearing in mind. I think that in places where they can be operated safely we probably should try to keep nuclear power, that we’ve already built and paid for, running. But that’s going to be a call for each place to make about how safe it is.”

Dr. Paul Dorfman, Dr. Gregory Jaczko, Dr. Bernard Laponche, Wolfgang Renneberg

Four former US, German and French nuclear officials, none of whom ever supported nuclear energy, have co-authored a statement to reiterate their antinuclear views. Dr. Gregory Jaczko, widely recognized as the most damaging, antinuclear appointee to the U.S. NRC, whose statements and actions undermined confidence in nuclear energy and increased fear, even while he was supposedly working to improve the safety of the industry, is joined by Professor Wolfgang Renneberg, Dr. Bernard Laponche and Dr. Paul Dorfman in arguing against the use of the technology. In their opinion piece, Nuclear is not a practicable means to combat climate change, we see the types of arguments which antinuclear advocates use to try to rationalize their own preference to support renewables, and suppress support for nuclear. They assert not that nuclear is unsafe, but rather that renewables are a better alternative to nuclear for two main reasons: “cost and speed of deployment.”  They argue that “while the costs of renewables are plummeting, nuclear costs have steadily been on the rise.” Ironically, during his tenure, Jaczko did more to cause the regulatory burden on the industry to increase, which increased nuclear’s costs, and to have the NRC refuse to approve new power plants, causing great delays and even cancellations of nuclear projects.  Nevertheless, these “experts” are perpetuating the great myth about renewable costs that ignores the system costs. LCOE, the cost metric most commonly used and quoted, misleadingly compares baseload power and needs, with intermittent point sources, that produce power for no more than 1/3rd of the time. Add in backup by natural gas and utility scale batteries and it’s a whole different story.  The truth is that renewables increase the costs to ratepayers for their reliable energy and nuclear power reduces total electric grid costs, reduces emissions, and increases reliability.

More profiles (coming soon)

Amory Lovins

Angela Merkel

Joe Romm

Robert Kennedy, Jr.

R.V. Ramanan

Category III:  Fearful Followers & Tribalists

While antinuclear views held sway for most of the 1990s and 2000s, by the second decade of the milennia, the issue of climate change emerged as the primary threat to both humanity and the environment. A growing number of climate scientists, notably Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Dr. Ken Caldeira and others began to calculate global energy demand and sources of available clean energy, that found that there was no pathway to decarbonize without nuclear power.  During the Democratic primaries for president, all of the candidates expressed support for urgent climate action. Two candidates, Sen. Cory Booker and Andrew Yang, expressed overt support for nuclear energy. Candidate Joe Biden eventually won the primary and the 2020 election and issued a nuclear-inclusive Climate Plan. Accordingly, the Congress wrote a number of bills to enact the Biden Administration’s climate goals of utilizing all approaches to eliminating dependence on fossil fuels. Among these were the 2020 American Nuclear Infrastructure Act. Organized by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service and promoted by Friends of the Earth, more than 100 groups signed a letter to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee opposing funding for nuclear power. These are mostly non-scientific groups, who continue to cling to a staunch antinuclear view.

Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Food & Water Watch
Friends of the Earth
Indigenous Environmental Network
Public Citizen
Beyond Extreme Energy (BXE)
Clean Water Action
Beyond Nuclear
Institute for Policy Studies Climate Policy Program
League of Conservation Voters
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns
Physicians for Social Responsibility
The United Methodist Church – General Board of Church and Society
San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace
Peoples’ Action for a Safe Environment
Nuclear Energy Information Service (NEIS)
Nuclear Watch South
Snake River Alliance
Coalition for Social Justice
Pilgrim Watch
Coalition for a Nuclear Free Great Lakes
Clean Water Action
Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety
NC Alliance to Protect the People and the Places We Live
Multicultural Alliance for a Safe Environment
(See the full list of signers)

Peninsula Clean ENergy is one of many new Community Choice Aggregation organizations in California.  Under the leadership and because of the direct anti-nuclear lobbying of board members by Jan Pepper, Peninsula Clean Energy, refused to accept an allocation of more than $5 million dollars of free clean nuclear power. This allocation could have allowed the organization to have an extra $5 million to use to lower rates for customers, run special energy savings programs or even educate their customers about clean energy. Despite knowing that nuclear power is carbon free, nevertheless, Ms. Pepper’s fear of possible anti-nuclear flak made her push individual board members to change their votes against getting $5 million for free, a move that was an enormous loss for them and their customers.

True Believers: A Closer look at a Classic Antinuclear Organization

According to Wikipedia, “more than 80 anti-nuclear groups are operating, or have operated, in the United States. These include Abalone Alliance, Clamshell Alliance, Greenpeace USA, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Musicians United for Safe Energy, Nevada Desert Experience, Nuclear Control Institute, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Public Citizen Energy Program, Shad Alliance, and the Sierra Club. These are direct action, environmental, health, and public interest organizations who oppose nuclear weapons and/or nuclear power.”  As part of our analysis, we shall explore who these groups are, how many real supporters they have, and whether or not they are still active.  The list provided in Wikipedia is reproduced below and the first thing to note is that there are 70, rather than 80 listed.  Of these, only 48 have a link to either an internal Wikipedia page or an external website of their own.

Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility

Mission: The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility (§501(c)(3) Charity) a works to educate and protect the citizens of the State of California and future generations from the dangers of radioactive contamination. We support educating the public on options for energy generation, the dangers of aging nuclear plants and the increasing production and storage of high-level radioactive waste on California’s coastal zone.  The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility Legal Fund (§501(c)(4) Lobby) lobbies for California legislation to limit the production and storage of high-level radioactive waste on California’s coast to current license terms and to prohibit license renewals for California’s nuclear plants until there is a permanent safe and operating solution to the storage of high-level radioactive waste.

Team:  ROCHELLE BECKER (Age: ~70+ based upon data on website as of 03/2022)

Rochelle Becker co-founded the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility in 2005. Active for 35 years working against nuclear power. Rochelle has testified before the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, California Energy Commission, Regional Water Quality Control Board, as well as the state legislature and Congress. She is currently intervening on license renewal issues at the CPUC and sits on the state’s review committee analyzing water-related impacts from aging reactors. Rochelle was instrumental in gaining the support of California’s Attorney General (AG) and the County of San Luis Obispo for federal appeals and continues work with the county and AG’s office. Rochelle met with NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko in March of 2010 to request the agency stay PG&E’s request for a license renewal and work in collaboration with California’s oversight agencies to investigate new seismic information.

Rochelle has also worked on safety issues at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). Since Fukushima, she has done dozens of interviews and has been quoted in articles and published Op Ed’s in local, state and nationwide newspapers. She is often interviewed radio and television network and outlets including NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR’s California Report, KPFA, KPFK, NOW, Newsweek and the New York Times. Rochelle has won several environmental awards over the years. Rochelle Becker graduated from the University of San Francisco. She lives with her husband of 47 years in Grover Beach, and also in San Diego.

Legal Team:


John Geesman joined his wife of 27 years, Kathy Dickson, to form Dickson Geesman in 2012 and return to active engagement in California’s energy debate. From 2006 to 2011 he served as Co-Chair of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) and was a frequent speaker at national and international policy conferences.  John was the attorney member of the California Energy Commission from 2002 to 2008, after a private sector career of nearly 20 years in the bond markets. His first service in government was as Executive Director of the California Energy Commission from 1979 to 1983. A former chair of the California Power Exchange and board member of the California ISO, he also served as the chair of the California Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board.  He is the author of two energy-related e-books, 21 Machetes and Green Energy War, and former executive producer of the blip-tv animated series, Scurvy News Network. He is a graduate of Yale College and the UC Berkeley School of Law.


For the Pacific Gas & Electric Company Test Year 2017 General Rate Case, A4NR will be represented by a team of lawyers from the California Power Law Group, a women-owned law firm headquartered in Sacramento, California.  One of the firm’s senior attorneys, Al Pak, will lead this effort  Mr. Pak has represented and advised a broad range of clients before state and federal courts, state and federal administrative agencies, and state legislatures since 1978. He specializes in matters involving public utility regulation and ratemaking, project finance and permitting related to major infrastructure projects, and regulatory policymaking. Mr. Pak has held leadership positions with the State of California, various international corporations, the nation’s largest nonprofit research institute, a large Los Angeles-based law firm, and various subsidiaries of a major California public utility holding company. Mr. Pak has also testified as an expert witness before state and federal regulatory agencies and federal trial courts. Mr. Pak holds degrees from the University of California Berkeley and the University of San Francisco School of Law.

Board of Directors


Wheeler-JacqueJacque, a former career counselor at Custa College, lives in San Luis Obispo. She’s been involed in local civic and political organizations for decades. After working at Cuesta College, she was the owner of  Career Resources in San Luis Obispo, offering counseling and job placement services to injured workers. As a non-profit advocate, she served as development officer for the San Luis Obispo Community Foundation in 2004, and as a Member of the Board of the Court Appointed Special Advocates of San Luis Obispo (President of the Board, 2005-2010).She holds a BA from U.C. Berkeley and an MA from Stanford University.


Dr. Casalina has worked for decades as a Senior Industrial Hygienist, starting in the early 1950s with work at the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory in Berkeley, California.  There, he spent several years as Technical Coordinator providing complete radiologic health planning for the researchers.  He is the holder of four U.S. Letters of Patent in the field of radiopasteurization and radiopolymerization. He subsequently provided radiation safety and industrial hygiene services for such aerospace fabrication programs as the Space Shuttle.  Dr. Casalina currently resides in San Luis Obispo County, California.


Deidra O’Merde opened a small floral and wine shop in 1980 which has grown into one of the most recognized and award winning floral businesses in San Francisco. Her floral, wine and gourmet business expanded by adding a wine-tasting bar in 2002. Involvement in small business politics over the years has provided the vehicle for which she can promote her progressive values, often somewhat at odds with business owners.


Judy lives near San Clemente, and in previous years has run for California State Assembly in the 73rd Assembly District, from Oceanside to Laguna Hills.  Her MBA from the University of Chicago and her Peace Corps experience teaching in Belize give her a background that combines problem solving with understanding of a wide range of people and issues.  She’s been a consultant, helping businesses find the right software tools for more than 25 years in both the southern California and Chicago area.

More Antinuclear Organizations

  1. Abalone Alliance
  2. Alliance for Nuclear Accountability
  3. Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
  4. Arms Control Association
  5. Beyond Nuclear
  6. Cactus Alliance (Utah)
  7. Catfish Alliance (Alabama)
  8. Citizen’s Committee for Protection of the Environment
  9. Citizens Energy Council
  10. Clamshell Alliance
  11. Coalition Against Nukes
  12. Coalition for Nuclear Power Postponement
  13. Committee for a Nuclear Free Island
  14. Committee for a Nuclear Overkill Moratorium
  15. Committee for Nuclear Responsibility
  16. Concerned Citizens Against the Bailly Nuclear Site
  17. Corporate Accountability International
  18. Council for a Livable World
  19. Crabshell Alliance (Seattle)
  20. Critical Mass
  21. Don’t Make a Wave Committee
  22. Economists for Peace and Security
  23. Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power
  24. Federation of American Scientists
  25. Friends of the Earth
  26. Greenpeace
  27. Heart of America Northwest
  28. Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
  29. Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy
  30. Maryland Public Interest Research Group
  31. Mothers for Peace
  32. Musicians United for Safe Energy
  33. Nevada Desert Experience
  34. New England Coalition
  35. North Anna Environmental Coalition
  36. Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
  37. Nuclear Control Institute
  38. Nuclear Disarmament Partnership
  39. Nuclear Energy Information Service
  40. Nuclear Energy Information Service of Chicago (NEIS)
  41. Nuclear Information and Resource Service
  42. Nuclear Policy Research Institute
  43. Nuclear Threat Initiative
  44. Nuclear Watch of New Mexico
  45. Nuclear Watch South
  46. Oystershell Alliance (New Orleans)
  47. Palmetto Alliance (South Carolina)
  48. Peace Actio
  49. People’s Alliance for Clean Energy
  50. Physicians for Social Responsibility
  51. Pilgrim Watch
  52. Plowshares Movement
  53. Proposition One Campaign for a Nuclear-Free Future
  54. Public Citizen
  55. Red Clover Alliance (Vermont)
  56. Riverkeeper
  57. Rocky Flats Truth Force
  58. Seneca Women’s Encampment for a Future of Peace and Justice
  59. Shad Alliance
  60. Shundahai Network
  61. Sierra Club
  62. Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
  63. Tri-Valley CARE
  64. Trojan Decommissioning Alliance
  65. Two Futures Project
  66. Western States Legal Foundation
  67. White House Peace Vigil
  68. Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control
  69. Women Strike for Peace
  70. Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom, US Section

Seeking further contributions to this page

There are many more examples of antinuclear individuals, profiteers and fearful followers.  Please use the comment box below to submit your suggestions for more to be added to this page, including links to articles or data about your selection.  We will selectively add recommendations as our editors deem appropriate (but will not post your comment so you remain anonymous).