Radiation as social relation

Abstract

A new nuclear power station is currently being built in the Southwest of the UK at Hinkley Point. The construction of the cooling water system for Hinkley Point C is underway but there is controversy over the tunnelling required to install the huge pipes that will run for over 3 kilometres into the Bristol Channel. EDF, the operating company, want to deposit 600,000 tonnes of sediment on the far side of the Channel, at the licensed site for such disposal, the Cardiff Grounds. The Cardiff Grounds are in Wales and there is a public outcry at the prospect of the arrival of this English mud, and the concern that it might carry toxic sediment from the previous, far less regulated material deposits produced over the past 60 years by the adjoining stations at Hinkley Point A (now decommissioned) and Hinkley Point B (currently operational). Earlier disposal of sediment led to protests and a petition that triggered a debate in the Welsh Parliament. EDF have supplied evidence that levels of radiation in the mud are so low as to be not classed as radioactive under UK law. They offer comparisons with naturally occurring radiation: the levels of radiation in the mud would be 10,000 times less than an airline pilot's annual dose, 750 times less than the average dose received by a resident of Pembrokeshire due to naturally occurring radon, equivalent to eating 20 bananas a year. These comparisons do not convince local people. This paper explores the difficulties inherent in producing public trust in radiation measures. Radiation cannot be seen, smelt or felt. It must be detected through instruments, evaluated through calculations and interpreted by experts. Experts are often exasperated by the distinctions that people draw between natural and human‐made radiation. Still, they also miss the point that most people approach radiation as a social, rather than a physical or chemical, relation. The political and social histories through which nuclear imaginaries are produced and reproduced shape understandings of toxicity in ways that lead people to place more trust in correlation than in causality.