Skip to main content

Nuclear Energy in the Public Sphere: Anti-Nuclear Movements vs. Industrial Lobbies in Spain (1962–1979)

Abstract

This article examines the role of the Spanish Atomic Forum as the representative of the nuclear sector in the public arena during the golden years of the nuclear power industry from the 1960s to 1970s. It focuses on the public image concerns of the Spanish nuclear lobby and the subsequent information campaigns launched during the late 1970s to counteract demonstrations by the growing and heterogeneous anti-nuclear movement. The role of advocacy of nuclear energy by the Atomic Forum was similar to that in other countries, but the situation in Spain had some distinguishing features. Anti-nuclear protest in Spain peaked in 1978 paralleling the debates of a new National Energy Plan in Congress, whose first draft had envisaged a massive nuclearization of the country. We show how the approval of the Plan in July 1979, with a significant reduction in the nuclear energy component, was influenced by the anti-nuclear protest movements in Spain. Despite the efforts of the Spanish Atomic Forum to counter its message, the anti-nuclear movement was strengthened by reactions to the Three Mile Island accident in March 1979.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    “Political opportunity structures are comprised of specific configurations of resources, institutional arrangements, and historical precedents for social mobilization, which facilitate the development of protest movements in some instances and constrain them in others” (Kitschelt 1986: 58).

  2. 2.

    While we can find some similarities between the protests in Europe and the USA, Japan represents a particular case. The bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the severe seismic conditions and the Bikini incident produced a complex and conflictive scenario around nuclear energy in Japan. The anti-nuclear opposition in Japan has been widely discussed by several authors, who have described the different facets of the Japanese anti-nuclear movement. For instance, Akaha (1985: 75–89) reports the influence of the anti-nuclear movement in the parliamentary resolution that has guided Japanese nuclear policy since the late 1960s, known as the “three nonnuclear principles”; while Higuchi emphasizes the environmentalist origins of the Japanese anti-nuclear movements against the centrality of Hiroshima and Nagasaki within this activism (Higuchi 2008). Nevertheless, there is a wide consensus about the major importance of the movement against nuclear tests in the mid-1950s, and more than one-third of the Japan population had signed a petition to ban nuclear tests by the summer of 1955 (Yamazaki 2009: 132–145).

  3. 3.

    Political, economic and labor representatives worked together to rebuild the national industry complex, and they agreed in the creation of a new electric utility (Electricité de France) and the atomic energy commission, strongly supported by De Gaulle (Hetch 1996: 486–488).

  4. 4.

    Wyhl, a small village in the southwestern corner of Germany, was proposed in 1971 as a possible site for a nuclear power station. In the years that followed, the incipient local opposition had little impact on politicians and planners. Official permission for the plant was granted and earthworks began on February 17, 1975 (Patterson 1986: 113). Just the day after, local people spontaneously occupied the site and the police used force to remove them two days later, on February 20. Television coverage of the rough treatment of the local farmers by the police contributed to turn nuclear power into a major national issue (Fach and Grande 1992: 20). Subsequent support came from the university town of Freiburg, when about 30,000 people re-occupied the Wyhl site on February 23. The Wyhl occupation and the subsequent demonstration in Freiburg generated extensive debate in Germany and, on March 21, 1975 an administrative court withdrew the construction license for the plant (Rudig 1990: 130–135; Mills and Williams 1986: 375–376; Gottlieb 2005: 237). The plant was never built and the land eventually became a nature reserve. The importance of the Wyhl experience in encouraging the emergence of local and regional grassroots activism has been highlighted (Mills and Williams 1986: 375–376; Rudig 1990). The growing protest after the Whyl conflict has been described as a prelude to the “sudden death” of the nuclear program in the late 1970s (Fach and Grande 1992: 20–21). Anti-nuclear success at Wyhl also inspired nuclear opposition in the rest of Europe and North America (Patterson 1986: 113; Gottlieb 2005: 237; Rudig 1990: 130–135).

  5. 5.

    The members of the AIF and the insurance companies pointed out that the risks associated with fuel production, reprocessing and waste storage were as great in the long term as those associated with the reactors. See Damian (1992: 606).

  6. 6.

    The Chair of this Committee cited the article “The nukes are in hot water,” published in 1969 by Sports Illustrated, as the first indication of this change (Balogh 1991: 264).

  7. 7.

    As it was put by Frank Shants, special project manager of the New Hampshire Public Service Company: “Instead of trying to arouse the public for nuclear power, we should change course and try to arouse the public against the antinuclear groups …” (Davidon 1979: 46).

  8. 8.

    Spain began its own production of uranium on an industrial scale, becoming the third country in Europe, after United Kingdom and France, with a pilot chemical treatment plant (Caro et al. 1995: 50–56).

  9. 9.

    The Spanish case shows the propaganda facet of the Atoms for Peace program to perfection (Weart 1988: 162–165). In July 1955, the USA and Spain signed an agreement in Washington D.C. for cooperation “concerning civil uses of atomic energy.” The agreement made it clear that the USA effectively controlled nuclear matters in Spain through the AEC. It also pointed out that “private organizations in either the USA or Spain may deal directly with private individuals and private organizations in the other country” (Ordóñez and Sánchez-Ron 1996: 195–196).

  10. 10.

    The favorable climate of opinion in the Conference, as well as the estimations for the consumption of electricity in the sixties, pointed clearly to nuclear power as a solution, even when its economic viability remained controversial (Weart 1988: 158; Barca Salom 2005: 163–181).

  11. 11.

    This model was based on linking together certain economic sectors, including infrastructure construction, electrical and metallurgical materials, and financing [banks, insurance]. It also reinforced commercial relationships with the United States (and to a lesser extent with Germany and France), which strengthened the military and geo-strategic position of Spain in the Western world (Romero and Sánchez-Ron 2001: 201; De la Torre and Rubio 2014: 2–3).

  12. 12.

    Expression used by Brian Balogh for the Nuclear Program in the United States (Balogh 1991).

  13. 13.

    Hispano Francesa de Energía Nuclear, formed by three electrical companies from Catalonia (Fecsa, Enher and Hidroeléctrica de Cataluña) and Electricité de France (EDF) (Anes et al 2001:47).

  14. 14.

    In the Boletines Informativos of 1966, periodicals edited by the FAE during that year, there is a total lack of references to the incident (Fórum Atómico Español 1966a, b, c, d, e).

  15. 15.

    As reflected in periodicals published during 1976 and 1977, which started to express the increasing worries of the sector (Fórum Atómico Español 1976, 1977a, b).

  16. 16.

    The attendance figures vary according to different sources, but the response was massive: between 15,000 and 50,000 people (La Gaceta del Norte 1976b; López Romo and Lanero Táboas 2010: 760).

  17. 17.

    Property damage was assessed at several hundred million pesetas according to sources close to Iberduero (La Gaceta del Norte 1978c).

  18. 18.

    The survey was conducted among five leading experts of the Spanish energy sector. These experts were Alfonso Alvarez Miranda, president of FAE; Emilio Sanz Hurtado, manager of the oil company Petroliber and member of the Technical Commission of the Minister of Economy for the drafting of the NEP; Roberto Centeno, manager of the energy company Campsa and also member of the Technical Commission of the Minister of Economy; Juan Alegre Marcet, president of Unesa (Association of Spanish electric companies), and Julio Calleja González-Camino, president of Hispanoil (another oil company). The survey comprised two questions: 1. Do you support nuclear energy? 2. Would you nationalize the sector? To the first question, all five answers were “yes,” and in a categorical manner. For the second question, there was a more nuanced response, with 2 “yes” and 3 “no” (ABC 1978c).

  19. 19.

    The survey was carried out during January and February 1978 by the consulting agency AGEUROP (Fórum Atómico Español 1978a: 8–10).

  20. 20.

    From 1963 to 1979, the number of reactors under construction globally increased every year except in 1971 and 1978 (IAEA 2012). However, following this event, the number of reactors under construction in the US declined every year from 1980 to 1998. Many similar Babcock and Wilcox reactors on order were canceled. Eventually, 51 American nuclear reactors were canceled from 1980 to 1984 (EIA 1983).

  21. 21.

    As a result of post-oil-shock analysis and conclusions of overcapacity, many planned nuclear power plants had already been canceled between 1973 and 1979 due to more stringent Federal requirements, more strident local opposition and significantly lengthened construction times (Hertsgaard 1983: 95–97).

References

  1. ABC. 1978a. Hay que ahorrar energía y reestructurar el sector. April 25.

  2. ABC. 1978b. Clausura del Seminario sobre política energética. June 14.

  3. ABC. 1978c. Opiniones en ABC sobre energía nuclear. May 19.

  4. ABC. 1978d. José María Fernández Rúa. Hacia el referéndum nuclear. December 20.

  5. ABC. 1978e. José María Fernández Rúa. La energía nuclear es una solución viable y económica (Entrevista con Manuel López Rodríguez). December 20.

  6. ABC. 1978f. Editorial staff. Bases de la oposición antinuclear. December 20.

  7. ABC. 1979. Expectación ante el debate parlamentario sobre energía. May 5.

  8. Akaha, Tsuneo. 1985. Japan’s three nonnuclear principles: A coming demise? Peace & Change 11(1): 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Anes, G., S. Fernandez Plasencia, and J. Temboury Villarejo. 2001. Endesa en su historia (1944–2000). Madrid: Fundación Endesa.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Balogh, Brian. 1991. Chain reaction: Expert debate and public participation in American commercial nuclear power, 1945–1975. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Barca Salom, Francesc X. 2005. Nuclear power for Catalonia: The role of the Official Chamber of Industry of Barcelona, 1953–1962. Minerva 43: 163–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bigas, Jordi. 1991. El ecologismo en el Estado Español. Ecología Política 93: 91–99.

    Google Scholar 

  13. British Nuclear Energy Society. 1956. Symposium on nuclear energy—nuclear reactors for power generation. Nuclear Future 5(3).

  14. Cabal, Esteban. 1996. Historia de los verdes. Madrid: Mandala Ediciones.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Caro, Rafael, Manuel López Rodríguez, and Francisco Vighi. 1995. Historia Nuclear de España. Madrid: Sociedad Nuclear Española.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Costa, Pedro. 1976. Nuclearizar España. Madrid: Los Libros de la Frontera.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cuerdo, Miguel. 1999. Evaluación de los Planes Energéticos Nacionales en España (1975–1998). Revista de Historia Industrial 15: 161–178.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Damian, Michael. 1992. Nuclear power: The ambiguous lessons of history. Energy Policy 20(7): 594–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Davidon, Ann Morrisett. 1979. The US antinuclear movement. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 35(10): 45–49.

    Google Scholar 

  20. De la Torre, Joseba, and Maria del Mar Rubio Varas. 2014. El Estado y el desarrollo de la energía nuclear en España, c. 1950–1985, No 1403, Documentos de Trabajo (DT-AEHE), Asociación Española de Historia Económica.

  21. El País. 1978a. Acuerdo sobre la necesidad de reelaborar el Plan Energético de Industria. January 14.

  22. El País. 1978b. El ministro de Industria se opone a determinadas propuestas del Plan Energético. February 14.

  23. El País. 1978c. Oposición de los intereses privados a la reducción del programa nuclear. May 6.

  24. El País. 1978d. Editorial Board. Promesas y peligros de la energía nuclear. May 20.

  25. El País. 1978e. Mario Gaviria. Los planes energéticos trucados. June 27.

  26. El País. 1978f. Cambios sustanciales en el Plan Energético Nacional enviado a las Cortes. July 1.

  27. El País. 1979a. Exigen la paralización del programa nuclear español. April 4.

  28. El País. 1979b. Resoluciones aprobadas sobre el Plan Energético Nacional. July 27.

  29. El Periódico de Catalunya. 1978a. Editorial. October 26.

  30. El Periódico de Catalunya. 1978b. A nadie le gusta el Plan Energético del Gobierno. October 27.

  31. El Periódico de Catalunya. 1979a. Barcelona será hoy una ciudad antinuclear. March 11.

  32. El Periódico de Catalunya. 1979b. Barcelona vive una “diada” ecologista. March 12.

  33. El Periódico de Catalunya. 1979c. Josep Maria Triginer, El accidente de Harrisburg podría incluso reforzar el programa nuclear. April 3.

  34. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 1983. Nuclear plant cancellations: Causes, costs, and consequences. DOE/EIA-0392 (April 1983).

  35. European Nuclear Society, and Deutsches Atomforum (eds.). 1979. Acceptance of nuclear power. Essen: Vulkan-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Fach, Wolfgang, and Edgar Grande. 1992. Emergent rationality in technological policy: Nuclear energy in the Federal Republic of Germany. Minerva 30(1): 14–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Falk, Jim. 1982. Global fission: The battle over nuclear power. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Fernández, Joaquín. 1999. El ecologismo español. Madrid: Alianza.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Forgan, Sophie. 2003. Atoms in Wonderland. History and technology 19(3): 177–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Fórum Atómico Español. 1962. Boletín Informativo no 1.

  41. Fórum Atómico Español. 1966a. Boletín Informativo no 22.

  42. Fórum Atómico Español. 1966b. Boletín Informativo no 23.

  43. Fórum Atómico Español. 1966c. Boletín Informativo no 24.

  44. Fórum Atómico Español. 1966d. Boletín Informativo no 25.

  45. Fórum Atómico Español. 1966e. Boletín Informativo no 26.

  46. Fórum Atómico Español. 1976. Boletín Informativo no 50.

  47. Fórum Atómico Español. 1977a. Boletín Informativo no 51.

  48. Fórum Atómico Español. 1977b. Boletín Informativo no 52.

  49. Fórum Atómico Español. 1977. Actas XIV Jornadas Nucleares. La sociedad y la energía nuclear. Fórum Atómico Español: Madrid.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Fórum Atómico Español. 1978a. Boletín Informativo no 53.

  51. Fórum Atómico Español. 1978b. Boletín Informativo no 54.

  52. Fórum Atómico Español. 1978c. Boletín Informativo no 55.

  53. Fórum Atómico Español. 1978d. Boletín Informativo no 56.

  54. Fórum Atómico Español. 1979a. Boletín Informativo no 66.

  55. Fórum Atómico Español. 1979b. Boletín Informativo no 67.

  56. Freeman, Jo, and Victoria Johnson (eds.). 1999. Waves of protest: Social movements since the sixties. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Giugni, Marco. 2004. Social protest and policy change: Ecology, antinuclear, and peace movements in comparative perspective. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Gómez Mendoza, A. 2007. Electra y el Estado: la intervención pública en la industria eléctrica bajo el franquismo. Navarra: Cizur Menor.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Goodman, L. 1961. Some atomic reactor accidents. Partial list of accidents involving radiation in Atomic Energy. Atomic Technical Comittee, UID-AFL-CIO: Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Gottlieb, Robert. 2005. Forcing the spring: The transformation of the American Environmental Movement. Washington: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Häfele, Wolf. 1974. Hypothetically and the new challenges: The pathfinder role of nuclear energy. Minerva 12(3): 303–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Hertsgaard, Mark. 1983. Nuclear Inc. The men and money behind nuclear energy. New York: Pantheon Books.

  63. Hetch, Gabrielle. 1996. Rebels and Pioneers: Technocratic Ideologies and Social Identities in the French Nuclear Workplace, 1955–69. Social Studies of Science 26: 486–488.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Hewlett, Richard G., and Jack Holl. 1989. Atoms for Peace and War. 1953–1961. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

  65. Hewlett, Richard G. 1990. The new world, 1939–1946. A history of the United States Atomic Energy Commission. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Higuchi, Toshihiro. 2008. An Environmental Origin of Antinuclear Activism in Japan, 1954–1963: The Politics of Risk, the Government, and the Grassroots Movement. Peace & Change 33(3): 333–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Hirsch, Helmut, and Helga Nowotny. 1977. Information and opposition in Austrian nuclear energy policy. Minerva 15(3–4): 316–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 2012. 50 Years of Nuclear Energy. http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC48/Documents/gc48inf-4_ftn3.pdf. Retrieved December 29 2008. Accessed October 10 2013.

  69. Kenward, Michael. 1976. California dreaming. New Scientist 70(1003):523.

  70. Kitschelt, Herbert P. 1986. Political opportunity structures and political protest: Anti-nuclear movements in four democracies. British Journal of Political Science 16(1): 57–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Kriesi, Hanspeter, Ruud Koopmans, Jan Willem Duyvendak, and Marco G. Giugni. 1995. New social movements in Western Europe. A comparative analysis. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Krige, John. 2006. Atoms for peace, scientific internationalism, and scientific intelligence. Osiris 21: 161–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. La Gaceta del Norte. 1976a. August 30.

  74. La Gaceta del Norte. 1976b. August 31.

  75. La Gaceta del Norte. 1978a. March 3.

  76. La Gaceta del Norte. 1978b. March 18.

  77. La Gaceta del Norte. 1978c. March 20.

  78. La Gaceta del Norte. 1979. March 29.

  79. Lewis, Richard S. 1972. The nuclear-power rebellion: Citizens vs. the atomic industrial establishment. New York: Viking Press.

  80. López Romo, Raúl. 2008. Tiñendo la patria de verde y violeta. Las relaciones del nacionalismo vasco radical con los movimientos antinuclear y feminista en la Transición. In Ayeres en discusión: temas clave de Historia Contemporánea hoy, eds. María Encarna Nicolás Marín and Carmen González Martínez. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia.

  81. López Romo, Raúl, and Daniel Lanero Táboas. 2010. Antinucleares y nacionalistas. Conflictividad socioambiental en el País Vasco y la Galicia rurales de la transición. Historia Contemporánea 43: 749–777.

    Google Scholar 

  82. López Romo, Raúl. 2011. ¿Democracia desde abajo? Violencia y no violencia en la controversia sobre la central nuclear de Lemóniz (Euskadi, 1976–1982). Historia, Trabajo y Sociedad 2: 91–117.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Megara, John. 2006. Dropping nuclear bombs on Spain. The Palomares accident of 1966 and the U.S. airbone alert. Florida State University.

  84. Mez, Lutz, Mycle Schneider, and Steve Thomas (eds.). 2009. International perspectives of energy policy and the role of nuclear power. Essex: Multi-Science Publishing Co., Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Mills, Stephen, and Roger Williams. 1986. Public acceptance of new technologies. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Ministerio de Industria y Energía. 1978. Plan Energético Nacional 1978-1987. Madrid: Ministerio de Industria y Energía, Servicio de Publicaciones.

  87. Mora Ticó, Pere. 2012. El moviment ecologista a Catalunya: el seu origen, evolució i inserció a la societat catalana. Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Ordóñez, Javier, and José Manuel Sánchez-Ron. 1996. Nuclear energy in Spain. From Hiroshima to the Sixties. In National Military Establishments and the advancement of Science and Technology, eds. Paul Forman and José Manuel Sánchez-Ron, 185–213. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  89. Patterson, Walter C. 1986. Nuclear power. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Pelinka, Anton. 1983. The nuclear power referendum in Austria. Electoral Studies 2: 253–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Presas i Puig, Albert. 2005. Science on the periphery. The Spanish reception of nuclear energy: An attempt at modernity? Minerva 43: 197–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Presas i Puig, Albert. 2009. Globalization through radiation: A reactor for everyone. In A comparative study of European nuclear energy programs, ed. Albert Presas i Puig. Berlin: Preprints Max Planck Institute.

  93. Preston, Paul. 1986. El triunfo de la democracia en España: 1969–1982. Barcelona: Plaza y Janés.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Romero, Ana, and José Manuel Sánchez-Ron. 2001. Energía Nuclear en España: de la JEN al CIEMAT. Madrid: CIEMAT.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Romero de Pablos, Ana. 2012. Energía nuclear e industria en la España de mediados del siglo xx. Zorita, Santa María de Garoña y Vandellòs 1. In La física en la dictadura. Físicos, cultura y poder en España (1939–1975), eds. Nestor Herran and Xavier Roqué. Barcelona: Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Servei de Publicacions.

  96. Rudig, Wolfgang. 1990. Anti-nuclear movements: A world survey of opposition to nuclear energy. Harlow: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Sánchez-Vázquez, Luis. 2010. La legitimación de la energía nuclear en España: el Fórum Atómico Español (1962–1979). Granada: University of Granada.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Sánchez-Vázquez, Luis. 2012. Uranio, reactores y desarrollo tecnológico: relaciones entre la Junta de Energía Nuclear y la industria nuclear española (1951–1975). In La física en la dictadura. Físicos, cultura y poder en España (1939–1975), eds. Nestor Herran and Xavier Roqué. Barcelona: Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Servei de Publicacions.

  99. Shawki, Noha. 2010. Political opportunity structures and the outcomes of transnational campaigns: A comparison of two transnational advocacy networks. Peace & Change 35(3): 381–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Surrey, John, and Charlotte Hugget. 1976. Opposition to nuclear power. A review of international experience. Energy Policy 4(4): 286–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Taylor, Richard. 1994. Against the bomb: The British peace movement, 1958–1965. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Walker, J. Samuel. 2000. Permissible dose. A History of Radiation Protection in the Twentieth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  103. Walker, J. Samuel. 2006. Three Mile Island: A nuclear crisis in historical perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Weart, Spencer R. 1988. Nuclear fear: A history of images. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Wellock, Thomas Raymond. 1998. Critical masses: Opposition to nuclear power in California, 1958–1978. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Yamazaki, Masakatsu. 2009. Nuclear energy in postwar Japan and anti-nuclear movements in the 1950s. Historia Scientarium (Tokyo) 19(2): 132–145.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Young, Nigel. 1983. The contemporary European anti-nuclear movement: Experiments in the mobilization of public power. Peace & Change 9(1): 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Ysàs, Pere. 2007. ¿Una sociedad pasiva? Actitudes, activismo y conflictividad social en el franquismo tardío. Ayer 68(2007): 31–57.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luis Sánchez-Vázquez.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sánchez-Vázquez, L., Menéndez-Navarro, A. Nuclear Energy in the Public Sphere: Anti-Nuclear Movements vs. Industrial Lobbies in Spain (1962–1979). Minerva 53, 69–88 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-014-9263-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Nuclear industry
  • Anti-nuclear movement
  • Spanish Atomic Forum
  • Franco regime
  • Spain