Cultural Models of Radioactive Waste: Who Is Responsible?

Publics are divided over nuclear power in Europe and America. Some see its benefits: they talk about climate change and the need to reduce carbon emissions; in their view, nuclear energy is clean and protects societies from future climate shocks. Others see its risks: they talk about accidents that raise health concerns, weapons that pose security threats, and waste that increases storage costs, and oppose it; in their view, nuclear power is dirty and makes societies more vulnerable to catastrophe and, thus, less resilient. Especially costs to human health and the environment for future generations generate variation in people’s ideas about sustainability. Consequently, governments, too, are divided over nuclear waste. Germany decided to shut down its nuclear plants, while other countries in Europe and America plan to continue generating nuclear power. Meantime, atomic piles are growing, but disposal plans, such as Gorleben or Yucca Mountain, are stalling. Such widespread failure to dispose radioactive waste is striking. Scholars are already exploring shared histories, politics, and economies in postwar Europe and America. This paper adds an anthropological perspective that compares different cultures. Using archived representations of radioactive waste in Germany and the United States, it explores epistemological and methodological questions: How can we elicit cultural domain knowledge? How can we compare cultural views of radioactive waste and environmental resilience? Finally, if there are cultural nuances, especially concerning the question of responsibility, might cultural ideas about radioactive waste help explain the failure of techno-scientific plans for deep-geological repositories?