Journal of the Economic Geographical Society of Korea (한국경제지리학회지)

The Economic Geographical Society of Korea (한국경제지리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Beyond Nuclear Power: Risks, Alternatives, and Laypersons' Role

원자력발전을 넘어: 위험, 대안, 그리고 비전문가 역할

  • Received : 2021.06.21
  • Published : 2021.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Nuclear power has been an attractive energy efficient and to the pressure with the climate change despite of its risks. There are safety, security, and environmental concerns with the nuclear radiation, but the techno-optimism forms the mainstream by experts and the state to be able to control and manage the risks yet occurred. The disastrous Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents brought about alternative action and thought including renewable energy expansion, efficient energy delivery and use, and enhancing stewardship to environmental carrying capacity. More significant alternative movement is sought by victims of nuclear radiation, technicians, and the general public who realized the pitfalls of expert and state centered policy formation. These laypersons become counter-expertise competent in recognizing local contamination and considering the risks and emotions seriously affecting peoples' everyday lives. They play important roles in the construction and legitimation of alternative knowledge about nuclear power widely realized across regions.

원자력발전은 위험을 안고 있음에도 많은 국가에서 에너지 공급원으로 그리고 지구온난화 대응으로 중요하게 자리잡고 있다. 핵에너지는 방사능 오염의 위험과 핵무기의 위협 그리고 핵폐기물 처리의 문제를 가지고 있으나 효율적인 신기술로 안전 관리가 가능하다는 기술낙관주의가 전문가 그리고 정부 주도로 주류를 이루어 왔다. 그러나 체르노빌 그리고 후쿠시마 원전 사고는 전세계적으로 핵발전의 대안을 모색하는 관심과 노력은 확대되어 대안 모색으로 지속가능한 재생 에너지의 생산을 확대하는 노력, 에너지의 효율적 전달을 위한 스마트그리드와 환경친화적 소비 행태를 통한 에너지 사용 절감, 그리고 핵폐기물의 처리 등을 포함한 환경의 수용능력을 감안한 청지기 정신을 강조한다. 보다 근본적인 대안 운동으로는 대규모 원전 사고를 경험하며 기존 전문가와 정부가 중심이 되어 형성해온 기술주의가 배제했던 지역에서의 피해 사례와 이를 고려하지 못하는 접근에 대한 불만이 보다 광범위하게 피해자, 기술자, 일반인 등이 대안운동을 전개한다. 이들 비전문가들은 지역의 오염을 감지하고 대중의 일상생활에 심각하게 영향을 위험과 감정을 고려하는 능력을 가진 반전문가로 등장한다. 이들은 광범위한 지역에서 원자력에 대한 대안적 지식을 구성하고 합법화하는데 중요한 역할을 한다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by the 2020 scientific promotion program funded by Jeju National University.

References

  1. ABB Inc., 2007, Energy Efficiency in the Power Grid, Norwalk, CT.
  2. Ahn, S. W., 2017, "Change of the Nuclear Energy Policy after Fukushima incident: Focus on the cases of USA and China," The Korean Journal of Area Studies, 35(2), pp.187-214.
  3. Alexander, L., 2011, A Review of Nuclear Safety in Light of the Impact of Natural Disasters on Japanese Nuclear Facilities, US Senate hearing, 30th March.
  4. Alexis-Martin, B. and Davies, T., 2017, "Towards Nuclear Geography: Zones, Bodies, and Communities," Geography Compass, 11(9), e12325.
  5. ASME, 2012, Energy Choices: A Guide to Facts and Perspectives, New York: ASME.
  6. Bickerstaff, K., 2012, ""Because We've Got History Here": Nuclear Waste, Cooperative Siting, and the Relational Geography of a Complex Issue," Environment and Planning A, 44(11), pp.2611-2628.
  7. Brown, A. J., 2018, Anti-Nuclear Protest in Post-Fukushima Tokyo: Power Struggles, London: Routledge.
  8. Cadenas, J. J. G., 2012, The Nuclear Environmentalist: Is There a Great Road to Nuclear Energy, New York: Copernicus Books.
  9. Choi, B. D., 2013, "Urban Energy Transition and Energy Autonomy in Daegu," Journal of the Korean Economic Geographical Society, 16(4), pp.647-669.
  10. Davis, S. and Hayes-Conroy, J., 2018, "Invisible Radiation Reveals Who We are as People: Environmental Complexity, Gendered Risk, and Biopolitics after the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster," Social and Cultural Geography, 19(6), pp.720-740.
  11. Downer, J., 2015, The Unknowable Ceilings of Safety: Three Ways that Nuclear Accidents Escape the Calculus of Risk Assessments, in Behnam Taebi and Sabine Roeser eds., The Ethics of Nuclear Energy: Risk, Justice, and Democracy in the Post-Fukushima Era, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.35-52.
  12. Eden, S., 1998, "Environmental Issues: Knowledge, Uncertainty and the Environment," Progress in Human Geography, 22(3), pp.425-432.
  13. Elizabeth, J., 2009, Woman, Earth, and Creator Spirit, New Jersey: Paulist Press.
  14. Epstein, S., 1995, "The Construction of Lay Expertise: AIDS Activism and the Forgoing of Credibility in the Reform of Clinical Trials," Science, Technology and Human Values, 20(4), pp.408-437.
  15. Ferguson, C. D., 2012, Nuclear Energy: What Everyone Needs to Know, New York, Oxford University Press.
  16. Gardiner, S. M., 2015, The Need for a Public "Explosion" in the Ethics of Radiological Protection, Especially for Nuclear Power, in Behnam Taebi and Sabine Roeser eds., The Ethics of Nuclear Energy Risk, Justice, and Democracy in the Post-Fukushima Era, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.87-118.
  17. Glendinning, C., 1995, Technology, Trauma, and the Wild, in Roszak, T. et al., eds., Ecopsychology: Restoring the Earth, Healing the Mind, Sierra Club Books, pp.41-54.
  18. Google, 2020, Google Environmental Report 2020, https://www.gstatic.com/gumdrop/sustainability/google-2020-environmental-report.pdf.
  19. Greco, A. and Yamamoto, D., 2019, "Geographical political economy of nuclear power plant closures," Geoforum, 106, pp.234-243.
  20. Harris, J., Hassall, M., Muriuki, G., Warnaar-Notschaele, C., McFarland, E., and Ashworth, P., 2018, "The demographics of nuclear power: Comparing nuclear experts', scientists' and non-science professionals' views of risks, benefits and values," Energy Research and Social Science, 46, pp.29-39.
  21. Hasegawa, K., 2012, "Facing nuclear risks: Lessons from the Fukushima nuclear disaster," International Journal of Japanese Sociology, 21(1), pp.84-91.
  22. Hathaway, M. and Boff, L., 2006, The Tao of Liberation, New York: Orbis.
  23. Hester, R. E. and Harrison, R. M. ed., 2011, Nuclear Power and the Environment, Cambridge, UK: RSC Publishing.
  24. Hillerbrand, R., 2015, The role of nuclear energy in the future energy landscape: energy scenarios, nuclear energy, and sustainability, in Behnam Taebi and Sabine Roeser eds., The Ethics of Nuclear Energy: Risk, Justice, and Democracy in the post-Fukushima Era, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.231-249.
  25. IEA-RETD, 2012, Offshore Renewable Energy, New York: Eathscan.
  26. Joo, J., 2018, "Nuclear Power as a Socio-technical Imaginary and Media Discourse Focusing on the News Coverage from the Liberation to Democratization," Korean Journal of Communication and Information, 89, pp.81-118.
  27. Kang, J. S., 2019, "An Analysis of Research Trends on Public Deliberation: Focused on the trends in case studies of Shin-Gori nuclear reactors No. 5 and 6," Government Research, 25(1), pp.165-207.
  28. Kim, J. and Jung, S., 2017, "Risk Communication Effects on the GMO: Laypersons and Professionals Compared," Journal of Korean Public Management, 31(1): pp.207-233.
  29. Klein, N., 2021, How to Change Everything: the Young Huma's Guide to Protecting the Planet and Each Other, Atheneum Books for Young Readers.
  30. Lennon, B., Dunphy, N., Gaffney, C., Revez, A., Mullally, G. and O'Connor, P., 2019, "Citizen or consumer? Reconsidering energy citizenship," Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 22(2), pp.184-197. DOI: 10.1080/1523908X.2019.1680277.
  31. Lovelock, J., 2006, The Revenge of Gaia, New York: Basic Books.
  32. Macy, J. and Gahbler, N., 2010, Pass It On: Five Stories That Can Change the World, Berkeley: Paralax Press.
  33. Macy, J. and Johnstone, C., 2012, Active Hope: How to Face the Mess We're in without Going Crazy, Novato, CA: New World Publishing.
  34. McElroy, M. B., 2010, Energy Perspectives, Problems, and Prospects, New York: Oxford University Press.
  35. Min, E., 2017, "A Study on Local Politics of Nuclear Powerplant Risk: Focusing on Gori no.1 and Wolsong no.1 cases," ECO, 21(1), pp.189-227.
  36. Mori, M., 2015, "Geographies of precarious condition in the post-Fukushima," Dialogues in Human Geography, 5(1), pp.122-124.
  37. Parkhill, K. A., Pidgeon, N. F., Henwood, K. L., Simmons, P. and Venables, D., 2010, "From the familiar to the extraordinary: local residents' perceptions of risk when living with nuclear power in the UK," Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 35(1), pp.39-58.
  38. Pitkanen, L. and Farish, M., 2018, "Nuclear landscapes," Progress in Human Geography, 42(6), pp.862-880.
  39. Polleri, M., 2020, "Post-political uncertainties: Governing nuclear controversies in post-Fukushima Japan," Social Studies of Science, 50(4), pp.567-588.
  40. Power, S., 2011, Storage of Nuclear Waste Gets New Scrutiny, The Wall Street Journal, March 25, accessed October 25, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487033629045762189806oso67662.html.
  41. Ramberg, B., 1980, Nuclear Power Plants as Weapons for the Enemy: An Unrecognized Military Peril, California: University of California Press.
  42. Rho, J. C. and Park, E. H., 2004, "Civil Reflection and Formation of Civil Society in Daegu: Focus on Phenol Pollution of Nakdong River," ECO, 12, pp.8-42.
  43. Robbins, P., Hintz, J. and Moore, S. A., 2014, Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction 2nd ed., New York: Wiley.
  44. Roeser, S., 2011, "Nuclear energy, risk, and emotions," Philosophy and Technology, 24(2), pp.197-201.
  45. Topcu, S., 2008, "Confronting nuclear risks: counter-expertise as politics within the French nuclear energy debate," Nature and Culture, 3(2), pp.225-245.
  46. Yang, G., Kim, E., and Kim, C., 2019, "Extension of Nuclear Power Plant Local Communities and Their Local Residents' Different Attitudes toward the Nuclear Power Plants Risk," GRI Review, 21(3): pp.1-28.
  47. Yun, S., 2015, "From Anti-Nuclear Movements to Post-Nuclear Movements: Changes and Tasks of Korean Post-Nuclear Movements after the Fukushima Nuclear Power Disaster," Civil Society and NGO, 13(1), pp.77-124.
  48. Yun, S., 2018, "Issues and Challenges for the Resolution of Social Conflicts Surrounding Nuclear Energy Policy: Focusing on the Evaluation of Public Discourse on Shingori 5 and 6," Economy and Society, 6, pp.49-98.