Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Hsin-Hsing Chen
(Shih-Hsin University)
Kohta Juraku (Tokyo Denki University)
Wenling Tu (National Chengchi University)
Send message to Convenors
- Chair:
-
Hsin-Hsing Chen
(Shih-Hsin University)
- Format:
- Traditional Open Panel
Short Abstract:
This panel seeks to examine people’s experience to the “upstream” and “downstream” of the nuclear power plants, from uranium mining to the radioactive wastes disposal, particular those in East Asia, and re-examing valuable STS insights spurred by the nuclear issues.
Long Abstract:
Nuclear power is again on the agenda of serious discussion in many countries as a possible response to the volatile geopolitical situation and the need to cut down on carbon emission. This is particularly worrying as we have seen nuclear power sites have been literally put on the frontline of an active war in Ukraine. Even though the adverse social, political, ecological and health effects nuclear power technology poses have been a central topic STS scholars explore since the advent of this field, and even though drastic nuclear disasters have repeatedly heightened public alarms for the nuclear power, the legacy of nuclear industry is destined to be with people in countries that have ever been involved in it for the foreseeable future.
This panel seeks to examine people’s experience to the “upstream” and “downstream” of the focal point of the nuclear problem—the power plants, particular those in East Asia where lessons from the 2011 Fukushima Incidence are still fresh and even ongoing. From uranium mining to the disposal of high- and low-level radioactive wastes, the nuclear industry leaves, or is bound to leave, long-lasting footprints, often in places where the benefits of nuclear power generation do not reach. The complex economic and political power maneuvering shape and reshape communities and their environment at various scales and in multi-faceted aspects. In looking at those experience, we hope to spur some inspirations for updating valuable STS insights, or to develop new frameworks, that are helpful for making sense of today’s nuclear power problems.
Accepted papers:
Session 1Makoto Takahashi (VU Amsterdam)
Short abstract:
Building on STS work on how expert authority is performed, this paper examines why nuclear policy actors have tried to demarcate two variants of the deficit model: the (psychological) discourse of ‘radiophobia’ and the (economic) discourse of ‘reputational damage’.
Long abstract:
In recent years, concerns about a crisis of expert authority have been expressed across the globe. Japan is no exception to this trend. Scandals surrounding the (mis)management of the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster severely damaged public confidence in public institutions, posing an additional challenge for those engaged in radiological protection. This paper examines how claims to expert authority are made in these perceived conditions of low public trust. To this end, it offers an ethnographic account of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency’s (NEA) Workshop on Post-Accident Food Safety Science – an event staged at the request of the Japanese Cabinet Office with the aim of inspiring confidence in Fukushima produce. I analyze the practices through which the organizers craft a credible public persona using the idiom of dramaturgical improvisation; drawing attention to the ‘performed resourcefulness’ with which they adapted extant institutional scripts in response to a discerned crisis of public reason. Concretely, improvisation invites us to consider how and why nuclear policy actors have sought to demarcate two variants of the deficit model: the (psychological) discourse of ‘radiophobia’ and the (economic) discourse of ‘reputational damage’. Where prior scholarship has identified the continuities between the two discourses, attention to this boundary work reveals the dramaturgical advantages of ‘reputational damage’ over ‘radiophobia’ in contesting critics’ claims to the mantle of victimhood, securing international support, and producing the expert’s body as a site of evidence.
Christine Fassert (LATTS ENPCUniversite Gustave Eiffel)
Short abstract:
This communication proposes a transnational approach to nuclear waste infrastructures in Japan (storage of contaminated waters in Fukushima) and in France (La Hague, nuclear waste reprocessing). We explore the "upscaling" of infrastructures and the specific nuclear "residual governance" (Hecht).
Long abstract:
In August 2024, the release of Fukushima nuclear wastewater into the ocean raised concern and protests locally (the fishermen in the region feared the consequences for fish sell and consumption), but also at a more global level; it sparked angriness and protests in China, accusing Japan of polluting the ocean, although the discharge of the waters had been approved by the International Agency for Atomic Energy.
In France, a French environmentalist NGO (ACRO) expressed concerns on the release of polluted waters into the ocean, but also drew the attention on the situation in La Hague, the biggest nuclear reprocessing and disposal facility in France: “the storage of tritium in Fukushima which will be evacuated in 30 years is the equivalent of 30 days in La Hague”. Besides, they protest against the construction of a new nuclear waste storage pool in the place, to cope with the risks of saturation of the current infrastructures.
Drawing on a field work currently led in La Hague in order to analyse the types of mobilisations against the construction of this new facility, our communication aims at approaching nuclear storage issues as calling for transnational approaches, and for approaches which go beyond traditional categories such as “post accidental” and “normal operations”. Indeed, in both cases, questions linked to the upscaling (Tsing) of infrastructures are raised, and question our “residual governance” (Hecht). Through the category of “impossible infrastructures” put here at work, we propose to discuss and explore further the multi-scale conundrum of nuclear waste.
Mehmet Hasim Cevik (Middle East Technical University)
Long abstract:
The global fight against climate change necessitates a transition towards low-carbon energy systems. In this context, some South and East Asian countries are exploring nuclear energy as a potential bridge between fossil fuels and renewables, aiming to achieve net-zero emission targets and meet growing energy demands. This trend is particularly evident in the region's new nuclear reactor construction, accounting for over half of global additions. However, such expansion warrants serious consideration of accompanying risk management, particularly on liability regimes.
Nuclear power, while offering distinct advantages, isn't free of risk. The industry's unique characteristics necessitate robust domestic and international legal frameworks to address potential accident-related liabilities. While several international treaties, like the Paris Convention and Vienna Convention, exist to handle transboundary damage compensation, widespread adherence remains limited, hindering the establishment of a global regime. Despite recent positive developments towards regional frameworks under these conventions, South and East Asian countries lack a harmonized and comprehensive nuclear liability regime.
This study proposes that signing the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC) presents a pivotal opportunity for the region. As the newest and most encompassing liability convention, the CSC is specifically designed to establish a global regime, comprehensively addressing domestic and transboundary nuclear incident damages. Its adoption by South and East Asian nations would signify a strong commitment to responsible nuclear development, bolstering the region's image as a leader in safety and transparency.
Wenling Tu (National Chengchi University) Yu-Hsin Hsu (National Cheng-Chi University) Li-Chun Lin (NCCU)
Long abstract:
In Taiwan, three nuclear power plants from the 1970s are now undergoing decommissioning. Yet, the absence of a disposal site for nuclear waste persists, and the spent fuel remains in the deactivated reactors due to disputes over dry storage facilities. Legislation for low-level nuclear waste exists since 2006 but lacks progress in site selection due to local government resistance to conducting public referendums for the nuclear waste siting candidacy.
Finding a home for nuclear waste is highly challenging, intertwined with polarized pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear sentiments in society. In the dynamic landscape of nuclear power in Taiwan, this article focuses on the innovative social communication initiatives, designed by the Centre for Innovative Democracy (CID), aimed at breaking through the stalemate surrounding nuclear waste. Since the initiative started in 2019, the CID has been able to map out the issue, find collaborative actors, develop communication programs at different levels and feed back into the policy process. Unlike traditional techno-scientific approaches that often emphasize one-way informed processes, the CID’s methodology addresses interactive engagement among stakeholders including the community people, experts, citizens and policymakers. Drawing inspiration from STS research, the CID employs multiple tools and creates contextualized models like negotiation theater involving non-human actors, to foster meaningful techno-science discussions and reflection on waste disposal choices. The experimental efforts aim to break the stalemate by engaging citizens in broadening perspectives on the deadlock issue, and empowering participants to contribute to solutions.
Kohta Juraku (Tokyo Denki University) Shin-etsu Sugawara (Kansai University)
Long abstract:
Since the Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Disaster in 2011, Japanese nuclear risk governance has experienced transformations. Many believe it is now improved in various aspects, such as independence and transparency of the regulatory body, rigorous technical standards and enforcement, better risk-informed process, and so on.
We identified, however, that those “improvements” have been articulated by strong epistemic authority of scientism, not necessarily by wider stakeholder participation on risk trade-offs. Contrary to the standard theory of STS scholarship, tot only top decision-makers, bureaucrats and technical experts, but citizens, residents and even anti-nuclear activists have often called for “use of the best scientific answers,” instead of opening-up the technocratic policy process.
Because of this public imaginary, human agency has always been alienated, and somehow “automated” decisions based only on the “science” have been advocated, instead. Remarkably, it has also been persistently found in the case of the high-level radioactive waste (HLW) disposal program, which has also been reformed after the Fukushima Disaster and is widely considered to be dealt with by participatory and ethics-conscious decision-making process, due to its intrinsic nature of super long-term uncertainty and ambiguity. In the recent development of the Japanese HLW program, especially on the consequence of early stage survey for the HLW geological disposal site in two municipalities in Hokkaido region, we have witnessed a big adverse current against the movement and scholarship of STS.
In this paper, the authors would critically review the tendency and try to scrutinize the social compact (Jasanoff et al. 2021) behind it.