Anti-nuclear Movement in Austria

From Nuclear Heritage
Jump to navigationJump to search

In Austria, a nuclear plant was built in Zwentendorf in the 70s. In 1978, there was a referendum against the Zwentendorf plant which succeeded. After that, the technically finished reactor was never used. Today, there is a vast majority in Austria against nuclear power, supported by all major parties.

However, to date a TRIGA MARK II type research reactor is still in operation in Vienna-Prater called TRIGA II VIENNA. The construction had started in 1959, it became operation in 1962 and generates 250 kW thermal output. Until 1955 any activity in the field of nuclear energy had ben prohibited. 1956 the federal government founded the "Österreichische Studiengesellschaft für Kernenergie GmbH" ordering it to construct a "power reactor for teaching". With support of the US nuclear energy commission a nuclear reactor center near Seibersdorf south-east of Vienna was formed. Since December 5, 1978 the "Atomsperrgesetz" prohibited the use of nuclear energy in Austria. In 1999 the "Atomsperrgesetz" received constitutional character.[1]

Furthermore, there is a nuclear waste repository for small amounts of low level radioactive waste located in the Seibersdorf Laboratories operated by Nuclear Engineering Seibersdorf GmbH (NES).[2]

Austrian Activities Towards A Nuclear-free World[3]

This section is based on an article of 1994. For this reason some statements may not be up to date.

Austria's NO to Nuclear Power

In the late 60s the Austrian government decided to start a nuclear energy program. A planning company for nuclear power plants (NPP) was established. The German "Kraftwerksunion" (AEG and SIEMENS) began the construction of the first nuclear power plant in Zwentendorf on the Danube, about 20 miles upstream of the capital, Vienna, in 1972. It was designed as a boiling water reactor with a capacity of 700 MW(e), that was expected to generate about 10% of the Austrian electricity production.

In early 1974, a company was founded to build a second NPP in Austria. The small but steadily growing antinuclear movement, which had existed since the late sixties, now concentrated its efforts on this second nuclear plant. The major political parties - the ruling Socialist Party and the conservative People's Party (which at that time was the major opposition party) - were harmoniously pro-nuclear. Only the small opposition Liberal Party took a critical position with respect to nuclear power.

In 1975, the official energy plans projected that by 1985 there would be three nuclear power stations with a total capacity of 3000 MW. In the winter of 1974, plans to begin construction of the second NPP were postponed, partly because the increase in electricity demand slowed down and partly because of the massive local protests against the project.

In autumn 1976 the government launched an information campaign about nuclear power with a view to justifying and palliating the nuclear program. The outcome however, was just the contrary. For the first time some newspapers featured articles critical of nuclear power, and the antinuclear movement was enormously stimulated. It turned out that, contrary to previous concepts, Austria could not "solve" its nuclear waste problem by export to other countries. The issue of nuclear waste storage stimulated massive local opposition in the regions proposed for that purpose. Newspapers began to cover the nuclear issue extensively. For the first time it was possible to publicly question in earnest the starting up of the almost completed plant in Zwentendorf without being branded as an utter idiot.

There were many reasons for protesting against nuclear power. Perhaps the most important were:

  • The hazards to human health connected with the release of radioactivity.
  • A number of unresolved technical problems of the reactor.
  • The unsettled and unsolvable problems of nuclear waste management and disposal.
  • The connections between the so called peaceful nuclear energy and the military nuclear industry. We were aware of the fact that our opposition against the expansion of the nuclear industry (and plutonium production) in our country was also a contribution to the fight against the horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons.
  • Inadequate emergency planning, the necessity for and impossibility of evacuating several cities in case of a nuclear catastrophe.

Many activities took place. In April 1977 for example, there was an International Conference for a Non-Nuclear Future[4], held in Salzburg, Austria, organised by several non-governmental organisations from different countries. In autumn 1977, big demonstrations in Zwentendorf and several Austrian cities took place. In December 1977 the opponents uncovered plans for secret fuel imports for the Zwentendorf reactor announcing action to prevent the transport. To avoid trouble with opponents, the shipment was postponed to early 1978, and military helicopters were used to transport the fuel elements to the site, which was barricaded by police forces. It is important to note that all antinuclear demonstrations and activities in Austria have been completely non-violent.

Nuclear power in general and starting up the first nuclear plant in particular had become a burning political issue. The government passed the decision on nuclear power on to parliament. The Socialists were sure they would come to a mutual agreement with the major opposition party because the latter's most influential groups were clearly in favour of nuclear power. A report on nuclear energy was submitted to parliament by the government. This report was presented as the summary of an impressive mass of written material and information which had accumulated in the information campaign. It was extremely pro-nuclear and biased and proved that the government had completely ignored a number of important facts that had come up in its own information campaign. The early charge by nuclear opponents that the official information campaign had been planned to deceive the public thus turned out to be true.

In the subsequent parliamentary hearings several questionable safety aspects of the Zwentendorf site and plant construction and also the lack of important studies (e.g., there was no radioecological expertise) were disclosed by nuclear opponents. The People's Party reconsidered its position. Its leader, Dr. Taus, declared that while he was still in favour of nuclear power, he was for the time being against the Zwentendorf nuclear plant because of a lack of safety in a number of aspects.

The anti-nuclear minority among voters was by now big enough to tilt any general election against any party that could be regarded as the culprit for putting Zwentendorf into operation. The Socialists under Chancellor Kreisky did not now dare to bring the decision before parliament since support from the People's Party was uncertain and the Socialist MPs from the westernmost province (Vorarlberg) were not in a position to support their party's nuclear policy. The Vorarlbergers had just successfully fought a desperate fight against neighbouring Switzerland's Rüthi project; Switzerland proposed to construct a nuclear power station in the immediate proximity of the Austrian border. The Vorarlberg population was overwhelmingly anti-nuclear and fearing that the opening of an Austrian nuclear power station would weaken their negotiating position with Switzerland.

In June 1978 the Socialist Chancellor, Dr. Kreisky, who had earlier called the nuclear issue an extremely inappropriate one for a referendum, announced a referendum for November 5 declaring that he was sure there would be a clear majority in favour of nuclear power. The pro-nuclear forces went into the battle with enormous backing. The state-owned utilities alone spent AS 30 million (US$ 2 million) of taxpayer's money. Further tens of millions were poured into the campaign by the industrialists' association, by the trade union umbrella organisation and the Socialist Party. The anti-nuclear groups had only their own savings and their commitment at their disposal but their action was very effective. An impressive diversity of groups joined in, e.g. Mothers against Nuclear Power, Teachers against N.P., Physicists against N.P., Biologists, Geologist, Physicians, Pupils, Catholics, Artists, Trade Unionists against Nuclear Power and others. A number of co-ordination centres - one of them run by the Austrian Students' Union - and two umbrella organisations were established. Co-operation between scientists and citizen groups was excellent.

The nuclear problem was covered extensively in the large newspapers, where experts from several fields discussed the most important issues from all angles. There was little hope for an anti-nuclear majority. But the unthinkable happened: on November 5, the referendum resulted in a narrow majority against the plant. Nearly two thirds of the voters went to the polls. Of these, 3.26 million 49.5% voted for, 50.5% against nuclear power. The enthusiasm and the dedication of the anti-nuclear movement had won, the propaganda machinery — and the pressure exerted by the establishment — were defeated. This was in itself a remarkable event in Austria's post-war history.

A tiny majority of less than 20.000 votes brought the rejection of nuclear energy in our country. This is a very important result. It showed the activists that their work and dedication had been worthwhile, that every meeting, every discussion, every pamphlet had been decisive for the victory. We learned that nothing is without effect and that it is essential to fight even when the prospects of success are bad. The (Socialist) government and the political parties reacted promptly: a few weeks after the referendum, on December 15, 1978, the Austrian parliament unanimously passed a law prohibiting the use of nuclear energy for the production of electricity in our country. This democratic decision turned Austria from one of the last industrialised countries without nuclear power into the first industrialised country without nuclear power.

Only a few months after the referendum the accident at the Three Mile Island plant near Harrisburg, USA, occurred, and many people in our country realised that the NO had been a wise decision.

Several initiatives have been made by the nuclear lobby, the electricity companies and trade unions to overcome the bar on Zwentendorf, but they have not succeeded. The definitive end of their dreams came with the Chernobyl accident.

The outcome of the Austrian referendum, however insignificant as it may seem from an international point of view, is nevertheless a ray of hope in the struggle to correct the suicidal course our industrial societies have embarked upon.

Austria And Nuclear Power After Chernobyl

The 1986 Chernobyl accident affected Austria very profoundly. Depending on weather conditions at the time, some parts of the country were contaminated with Iodine-131 (and other nuclides) to such an extent that restrictions were imposed on agriculture and cattle had to be fed with hay of the previous year. But many farmers soon ran out of supplies and especially organic farmers suffered severe losses as a result of the Chernobyl accident[5]. Also safety precautions especially for children were recommended. So the Austrian people realised that nuclear power stations in neighbouring countries are a menace to life and health even when these reactors are a long distance away.

After the Chernobyl disaster in Austria information about risks to human health connected with radiation was much better compared to countries with a powerful pro-nuclear lobby (e.g. France, Britain or Switzerland) which suppressed the media.

Anti Atom International

After the Chernobyl accident, activist groups from several European countries founded Anti Atom International (AAI). The aim of this Vienna based Organisation is to collect and distribute information as well as to co-ordinate international action against nuclear industry[6]. In September 1986 — as a counter-conference to the IAEA Conference on "Reactor Safety" — AAI organised a "Reactor Unsafety Conference" in Vienna.

The reprocessing plant in Wackersdorf, Germany

There was remarkable opposition against a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant under construction in the eighties near Wackersdorf in Bavaria. The licensing procedure made it possible for citizens including Austrians, to raise objections against this project. There was most positive response in Austria (and of course in Germany): According to the Bavarian licensing board, about 420,000 Austrian citizens have signed or filed individual objections against the plant. Also, the heads of some Austrian provincial governments and even the Federal Minister of the Environment have submitted objections. The participation of leading politicians in antinuclear activities was quite a novelty in our country.

Besides the health hazards caused by routine emissions of radioactivity and the risk of accidents of potentially catastrophically dimensions, the prime concern is the mass production of plutonium. Reprocessing plants are a link between the civilian and military nuclear industries. They offer the possibility of diversion of fissile material. Control is of necessity inadequate.

The main reason for the reprocessing project in Germany was the legal requirement for the nuclear power industry to make sure that their spent fuel elements can be either disposed of safely or will be reprocessed. Since there is no site and no safe technology so far to dispose of high-level radioactive waste, the construction of a reprocessing plant was regarded as necessary for the nuclear industry.

Conversely, it is unavoidable to stop reprocessing, if we want to phase out nuclear power and prevent horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons as well. In the meantime the Wackersdorf-project was terminated because of its tremendous costs and instead a co-operation with France was established. The financial loss is about 4 billion Deutschmarks. The failure of this huge project was in fact a success of the antinuclear movement in Germany and Austria.

The Austrian Exampel

Several lessons can be learned from the 1978 Austrian referendum against atomic energy:

  • It is worthwhile fighting against strong opponents, even if there appears to be no chance of success.
  • Nothing is without effect.
  • The few thousand votes that decided the referendum against nuclear power were a clear enough proof that every activist and every action had been indispensable.
  • Perhaps the most important insight is that powerful organisations such as electricity companies, big political parties and trade unions are the last to learn the lesson. Changes must be forced upon them by the public, which is by no means an easy task.
  • In the long run personal communication, though slow and laborious, is effective. There is no alternative to information and motivation of the public, if we want our hope for a non-nuclear future in a liveable world to become reality.
  • Personal communication is a process that increases exponentially. At the beginning it is hard to observe any effect, but when critical awareness builds up in the population, there may be a sudden change of mind. Small countries have an advantage insofar as this process is less time-consuming in a smaller society than in a larger one.

Under the influence of the increasing antinuclear public opinion the still pro-nuclear attitude of the Austrian government slowly changed. In spring 1990 the chancellor dissolved his "Commission for Reactor Safety". Instead of this pro-nuclear advisory body another commission was established, the "Forum for Atomic Affairs", which consists of a majority of objective scientists. A few weeks after this commission was founded, the issue of the risks connected with the operation of nuclear power plants in the neighbouring countries was discussed in public and covered by the media.

The person responsible for "nuclear safety" in the CSFR, Jiri Beranek, admitted in an Czechoslovak newspaper interview that the old reactor-block in the Jaslovske Bohunice plant is not safe and should be shut down as soon as possible.

The Bohunice Report

Political negotiations with the Czechoslovak government brought the result that Austria was invited to send an expert commission to Bohunice in order to investigate this plant. The Austrian commission consisted of highly qualified scientists and engineers, some of whom had practical experience in operating and risk assessment of the German Greifswald plant, which is the same type as the Bohunice nuclear plant (VVER-440).

On 13 December 1990 the Austrian expert commission submitted its report to the chancellor who handed it over to the Czechoslovak Prime Minister. The most important result of the "Bohunice Report" was that it made clear that compared with present technical standards this reactor is much more dangerous. "An accident with catastrophic consequences is possible at any time." Under "worst case" assumptions even in Austria evacuations are necessary. The Austrian experts recommended the Chancellor to take measures that could help to shut down this dangerous Power plant. The Czechoslovak experts agreed on the technical facts but not on the conclusions.

Official and Unofficial response

The official Czechoslovak bodies of course stated that for them the report was not enough reason to shut down block 1 and 2 of the Bohunice plant. But unofficially the report has remarkable consequences indeed. It brought to light several deficiencies in the construction and raised some serious questions which so far never had been discussed in a critical way by the nuclear community. Contrary to the official Czechoslovak policy there is much interest by those actually running the plant to continue and to extend the critical investigation of the dangerous reactor.

In the campaigning for the general elections in summer 1990 the big political parties put an emphasis on taking an anti-nuclear stance. The new coalition government declared to support Austrians role as a pace-maker towards a nuclear-free Central Europe.

In order to facilitate phasing out the very risky Bohunice nuclear power plant, the Austrian government in January 1991 decided to offer technical, financial and energetic support to the CSFR. The offer included a substitution of the electricity production of the two Blocks in Bohunice during a period of 12 months (5.300 GWh, at costs of 3,5 billion AS for the Austrian Republic). In addition, an Austrian-Czechoslovak commission for energy and environment was established. In the field of industrial co-operation financial instruments for facilitating Austrian investment in the CSFR were developed.

There have also been negotiations with the CSFR which resulted in an agreement on information in case of accidents in nuclear installations which could affect Austrian citizens. Austria decided to support studies in the fields of nuclear risk analysis, least cost planning and integrated resource planning but not to support measures for reconstruction or increasing the life cycle of nuclear installations.

The Krsko NPP, Slovenia

In February 1992 the Austrian Chancellor initiated negotiations for establishing an international commission in order to evaluate the risks in connection with operation of the Krsko NPP. After difficult negotiations — partly caused by the political situation in former Yugoslavia — in May 1992 an international expert commission chaired by Slovenia and partly financed by Austria started to investigate the Krsko NPP and the problems connected with its operation, e.g. seismicity of the site. The form and structure of this co-operation was completely new in the field of international co-operation concerning transboundary risk evaluation (for example all neighbouring countries were invited to send experts in the commission).

Concerning the neighbouring country Hungary co-operation in the field of energy efficiency has been started in order to avoid the construction of new blocks in the nuclear power station of Paks.

Following a suggestion from environmentalists the Austrian government declared that it would take steps in order to establish an "International Solar Energy Agency" on the level of the United Nations based in Wien.

At present[7] there is much discussion with the Czech Republic concerning its energy options. The main arguments which are also increasingly gaining momentum within the Czech environmental movement are these:

  • Nuclear power does not offer a solution to the energy problems. It is too expensive and too risky.
  • Economically speaking, there are only two alternatives — either the Czech people help themselves by modernising the industrial structure and the private sector and increasing energy efficiency and thus energy services — or they help the suffering nuclear industry. Instead of pouring billions of Czech crowns in an extremely expensive, obsolete and dangerous energy supply technology, steps should be taken on the demand side. For example, central heating systems often do not have individual controls, so that room temperature can only be regulated by opening the windows.
  • France is no good example for advantages of nuclear power. EDF, the French state-owned electricity utility has, in spite of remarkable subsidies, accumulated debts in the magnitude of 35 000 000 000 US$. The French nuclear industry, in order to sustain employment of their specialists and utilisation of their manufacturing capacity, is now continuing production in spite of increasing stockpiles and can thereby offer "loss leaders", i.e., make cheap quotations to the CSFR or Hungary.
  • The nuclear industry represents an accumulation of technocratic power and is inconsistent with democracy


The NPP under construction near Temelin in the Czech Republic is highly controversial. It is a PWR of the VVER 1000 type. This formerly Soviet design is an enlarged version of the old VVER 440. In spite of some additional so-called safety features, the overall construction is problematical. The old VVER 440 is known among experts to be relatively easy to operate, quite in contrast to its "Big Brother". The completion of the Czech-Soviet plant with American technology raises fundamental compatibility and thus safety problems, a concern held by numerous experts.

The World Bank and other international financial bodies have, after thorough economic considerations, declined financial support for the project, which now hinges solely on the Citybank-Eximbank deal. As the decision is pending, strenuous efforts are being taken on the part of Austria, on all levels from grass-root to top political, to make American decision-makers aware of Austria's vital concerns.

To Be Prepared For A Nuclear Accident?

In discussions about the Chernobyl disaster you sometimes hear people say: "We were not prepared for such a catastrophe..." Can we ever be prepared for nuclear catastrophes? Of course, many grave mistakes that have been made can be avoided, but what can really be done? A subgroup of our Forum for Atomic Affairs which is working on crisis management has recently submitted a preliminary report. It describes the problems for Austria in dealing with the possibility of a major nuclear accident in a neighbouring country.

There are different problem fields such as: preventive medicine, information, supply logistics, evacuation, protection attempts. Each of these fields comprises a variety of open questions and would need an enormous input of personal and financial resources much more than available. Given these restrictions there is only one conclusion: We will never be prepared for a nuclear catastrophe, even if we try hard. Instead of wasting enormous resources in a task which cannot be accomplished anyhow, it seems to be much better to concentrate all efforts on the elimination of the danger itself, which means phasing out nuclear power.

At present antinuclear awareness is growing all over the world. This is the prerequisite for national and international strategies which in the long run will bring about a future without atomic energy.

Temelin and debate about nationalism

There were many protest actions in Austria against the czech reactor Temelin, including border blockades. The protests got critics from left ecologists. The FPÖ, a right-wing-party, played an important role in the protest.

Anti-nuclear Movement in Austria

The Austrian situation may indeed be considered as unique, since no other country in the world has written in its constitution, that the country will not use nuclear power for its energy needs. Until 1978 this was not the case however and only after a referendum, where slightly over 50 % of the voters put a stop to starting up the country´s first and only NPP Zwentendorf a bit west of Vienna. The result of this referendum came as a surprise to the political establishment, but was in the end respected. Had there however not been the catastrophe of Chernobyl in 1986, tendencies within Austria to start up the completely ready built NPP would have in the long run probably prevailed. After 1986 however no politician in Austria, who wanted to be re-elected, dared to be pro-nuclear any more. One of the side effects of the referendum 1978 and the accident in Chernobyl was also the emerging of the green party, which however on the national level has never been yet part of the government. This is a bit different on the regional level and especially in the province of Upper Austria it led even to a government funded programme, which supports anti-nuclear projects also in neighbouring countries with a special focus on the NNP Temelín in the Czech Republic.

Another important aspect in the discussion in Austria is by the way the fact, that beginning with small private initiatives there was a market created for the use of solar energy. Austria is one of few countries, where having a solar collector on one´s private roof is a kind of even fashion, one could say. The start was really a grassroots process. One of the examples, which could be named, is the in the meanwhile established company “SOLARier Gesellschaft für erneuerbare Energie mbH”. State funded installations for that kind of solar collectors for heating up the water for domestic needs and heating are broadly accepted in Austria. Quite different however is the situation with the boom of photovoltaic, which in Austria has not taken place yet. This trend is only slowly becoming a reality and is far behind compared with Germany or the Czech Republic, where within about 3 years there have been installed about 20 time as many photovoltaic modules than in Austria, with a very controversial public discussion however ("good business for the rich, paid by the poor"), which could be avoided in Austria. Wind power is a big topic in the East of the country and for example the province of Burgenland has become statistically completely independent from fossil and nuclear energy (concerning electricity) already, covering its electricity demands only from renewable energy sources. In the west of this partly alpine country the water power stations are dominating and enable Austria to really reach a very high level of covering its electricity demands from renewable sources.

Of course a different story but not independently seen from the structure of the energetic system is the situation of the anti-nuclear movement as a whole. Austria is quite a young country in its present structure and the country is missing something like a founding myth. When the Habsburg empire collapsed 1918 people in Vienna saw their country as "the rest, that remained" and so the country actually started to have its modern identity only after 1955, after the foreign troops having stayed in the country after the second world war when the country was part of Nazi-Germany had left. Then one important point in Austrian modern identity developed which is the so called "Neutrality" a bit similar as in Switzerland, however the Austrian Neutrality was always more a bit of an alibi than a real concept of politics, maybe with the exemption of the period of Chancellor Kreisky who tried to bring this concept of Neutrality to life in the foreign politics of the country.

And it was Kreisky too, who enabled the referendum against the Zwentendorf NPP in 1978, originally being very strongly in favour of nuclear energy. So in the end he gave, quite against his will, the country also a second "modern point" of its new identity, which can be called a strong position of the anti-nuclear movement as a national consensus in the country. Also here however much of the rhetoric is only a big front and would there not be in some regions really well working NGOs, which are partly supported by it members but also partly by the regional governments or the capital city of its province (one of the really long term NGO with a long record of high profile work with international contacts is the group "Überparteiliche Plattform gegen Atomgefahren Salzburg“). After many different attempts over the years a well coordinated network of anti-nuclear NGOs from the west to the east and partly even with intensive contacts to the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia as well as with Germany of course is now slowly emerging. Also bigger NGOs like Greenpeace or Global 2000 (the Austrian representative of Friends of the Earth are cooperating in certain areas of the anti-nuclear movement.

With the Nuclear Heritage Network and the so called NukeNews also an international platform exists, which is being used by some groups as the French network “Réseau Sortir du nucléaire”, although not too many activists in Austria speak French. Remains to see how the Austrian situation will develop. One interesting aspect will be the attempt of trying to reform the EURATOM-Treaty in the EU, or if that proofs impossible to make Austria leave that pro-nuke lobby group and start a discussion in other EU-Countries which don´t run any NPP.

Anti-nuclear Groups

  1. Anti Atom International
    • Volksgartenstraße 1, A-1010 Wien; phone: +43 15229102; fax: +43 15229103
  2. Anti Atom Komitee
    • Promenade 11, A-4240 Freistadt; phone: +43 794272543
  3. Antiatom Szene
  4. Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Atomkraftfreie Zukunft
  5. Atomstopp Oberösterreich]
  6. atomstopp atomkraftfrei leben
    • Roland Egger, Promenade 37, A-4020 Linz; phone: +43 732 774275; Roland Egger: +43 680 2393019; fax: +43 732 785602; post AT[8]
  7. Greenpeace Austria
    • Greenpeace in Central- and Eastern Europe, Fernkorngasse 10, A-1100 Wien; phone: +43 15454580; fax: +43 1545458098; service AT[8]
  8. Global 2000 / Friends of the Earth Austria
  9. Joint Project
  10. Mütter gegen Atomgefahr
    • Gabriele Schweiger: +43 680 3333625
  11. Naturschutzbund
  12. Überparteiliche Plattform gegen Atomgefahren Salzburg
  13. Sonne + Freiheit
  14. Wiener Plattform Atomkraftfrei
  15. WWF Austria
    • Ottakringer Straße 114-116, A-1160 Wien; phone: +43 1 488170; fax: +43 1 4881744; wwf AT[8]

Organizations connected to nuclear issues

  1. as at January 30, 2014
  2. as at January 30, 2014
  3. This section is based on an article by Peter Weish - P. W. is Human Ecologist at the Vienna University and chairman of Anti Atom International and President of the Forum of Austrian Scientists for Environment
  4. The final document of this conference is still of high relevance
  5. More than two years after the accident, Caesium-137 contamination was still quite high in some regions: Peak levels in some milk samples were about 4-5 nCi/kg (The average is about 0,1 nCi/kg). Also some species of mushrooms show high Caesium-137 concentrations.
  6. Recently AAI published a critical documentation of the IAEA´s policy: "35 years promotion of nuclear energy: The International Atomic Energy Agency" (Vienna - Hannover 1993)
  7. This article has been presented at the second international Eurochernobyl seminar in Kiew, 21-25 April 1991, updated in February 1994
  8. 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 For protection against automatical email address robots searching for addresses to send spam to them this email address has been made unreadable for them. To get a correct mail address you have to displace "AT" by the @-symbol.