By focusing primarily on the USA but also drawing upon examples from Europe and Australia, the author examines the technical, political, and constitutional issues which surround the question of high-level nuclear waste transportation. It is revealed that there are major questions of safety and public perception which are not being addressed by state institutions, and there is a discussion of the ways in which state and professional actors have attempted to limit the political discourse on these and related policy-relevant issues.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BerthierJ, 1984, “Nuclear fuel transport in France”, in The Urban Transportation of Irradiated Fuel Ed. SurreyJ, (Macmillan, London) pp 103–106
2.
BrownJ, 1986, “Professional language: Words that succeed”Radical History Review3433–51
3.
Commission of the European Communities, 1986, “Nuclear safety in the European Community”, Office for Official Publications, Luxemburg
4.
Commonwealth of Australia, 1982Code of Practice for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Substances (Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra)
5.
DowneyGL, 1985, “Politics and technology in repository siting: Military versus commercial nuclear wastes at WIPP 1972–1985”Technology and Society747–76
6.
FitzSimmonsAR, 1987, “The transportation of high level nuclear waste”, Natural Hazard Research Working Paper 59, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309, USA
7.
FoucaultM, 1980Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977 (Pantheon Books, New York)
8.
GrossmanKCassedyGS, 1985, “Cost benefit analysis of nuclear waste disposal: Accounting for safeguards”Science, Technology and Human Values1047–54
9.
IAEA, 1983Seminar on Transport of Radioactive Materials (International Atomic Energy Authority, Vienna)
10.
IAEA, 1985Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials (International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna)
11.
JacobGKirbyAM, 1985, “Transportation of nuclear waste: Complications of siting a nuclear waste repository”Papers and Proceedings of Applied Geography Conferences8182–189
12.
JohnsonJH, 1986, “A model of evacuation decision-making in a nuclear reactor emergency”Geographical Review75405–418
13.
KirbyAM, 1982The Politics of Location (Methuen, Andover, Hants)
14.
KirbyAMJacobGR, 1986, “The politics of transport and disposal: Hazardous and nuclear waste in Colorado, US”Policy and Politics1427–42
15.
KirbyAMJacobGRBrownTGoncharoffN, 1986, “On the road to ruin: The transportation of high level nuclear waste”, working paper, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309
16.
MacgillSM, 1983, “Exploring the similarities of different risks”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design10303–329
17.
MercerJ, 1984, “Unmasking technocratic geography”, in Recollections of a Revolution Eds BillingeMGregoryDMartinR, (Macmillan, London) pp 153–199
18.
MilesELeeKNCarlinE, 1985, “Nuclear waste disposal under the seabed: Assessing the policy issues”, Working Paper, Institute of International Studies, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94270
19.
MillarF, 1984, “Safety problems and government regulations in the US”, in The Urban Transportation of Irradiated fuel Ed. SurreyJ, (Macmillan, London) pp 111–139
20.
MuruaskasTShelleyFM, 1986, “Local political responses to nuclear waste disposal”Cities4157–162
21.
NIREX, 1985, “Radioactive waste: What are the options?”, Fact Sheet, available from Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive, Harwell, Oxon, England
22.
OpenshawS, 1986Nuclear Power— Siting and Safety (Routledge and Kegan Paul, Andover, Hants)
23.
ParkerR, 1978The Windscale Inquiry3 volumes, Department of the Environment (HMSO, London)
24.
PhuongHV, 1979, “Legal aspects of the international transport of radioactive materials”International Atomic Energy Agency Bulletin2113–16
25.
PopperFJ, 1985, “The environmentalist and the LULU”Environment277–11
26.
ResnikoffM, 1983The Next Nuclear Gamble: Transportation and Storage of Nuclear Waste” (Council on Economic Priorities, New York)
27.
RobinsonM, 1985, “Bad news from Britain”Harpers and Queen number 270, February, pp 65–68
28.
RosenM, 1984, “The role of the International Atomic Energy Agency”, in The Urban Transportation of Irradiated Fuel Ed. SurreyJ, (Macmillan, London) pp 55–69
29.
SkowronekS, 1982Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
30.
SolomonBDCameronDM, 1985, “Nuclear waste repository siting: An alternative approach”Energy Policy13564–580
31.
TaylorPJJohnstonRJ, 1984, “The political geography of Britain” in The Human Geography of Contemporary Britain Eds ShortJRKirbyAM, (Macmillan, London) pp 23–39
32.
The Yorkshire Post1987, “Cold convoy”, editorial, 12 January, page 10
33.
US Bureau of the Census, 19811980 Census of the Population (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)
34.
USNRC, 1983, “Population distribution analyses for nuclear power plant siting”, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-3056, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831
35.
USNRC, 1984, “Public information circular for shipments of irradiated reactor fuel”, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0725 (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)
36.
WallaceT, 1986, “Preemption of local laws by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act”University of Chicago Law Review53654–681
37.
WrightMEGlickmanTS, 1984, “A survey of foreign hazardous material transportation safety research”, in Transportation Research Record number 977, National Research Council (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC) pp 39–43
38.
WynneB, 1984, “Public perceptions of risk”, in The Urban Transportation of Irradiated Fuel Ed. SurreyJ, (Macmillan, London) pp 246–259
39.
YuJJuddC, 1985, “Cost-effectiveness analysis of transportation strategies for nuclear waste repository sites”, in Transportation Research Record number 1020, National Research Council (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC) pp 23–30
40.
ZeiglerDJBrunnSDJohnsonJHJr, 1981, “Evacuation from a nuclear technological disaster”Geographical Review711–16
