Nuclear waste and landscapes of risk

Conflict over the nuclear industry now centres on the ‘nuclear oases’, places where the rear‐end activities of the nuclear cycle (reprocessing and nuclear waste disposal) are undertaken. Environmentally and socially these places are peripheral communities, insofar as they tend to be remote, economically marginal, powerless, defensive and environmentally degraded. Four examples, Hanford (USA), Sellafield (UK), La Hague (France) and Gorleben (Germany) are analysed to demonstrate the processes of push and pull that have created these landscapes of risk where industry and community are mutually dependent. In terms of outcomes, the theory of ecological modernization suggests continuing development through adaptation by the industry, whereas the Risk Society thesis takes a more pessimistic perspective indicating that the very survival of the industry is at stake. Neither theory accommodates the problem of inequality that is at the heart of conflicts over nuclear industry. It is concluded that it is in the nuclear oases, at once both vulnerable and powerful, that the future of the nuclear industry will be decided.