[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/omXT5slKHGs" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
For decades, when the proposition of siting a nuclear power plant or waste facility in a certain community is presented the first reaction is absolutely not. This is known as nuclear stigma and has numerous effects including economic, social, and political (Marshall, 2005). There are numerous reasons why people would not want a nuclear site in their backyard, but safety is always the number one reason. The disasters at Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island have polarized the American public to the point where it may be impossible to site a large depository in the future. But for those communities that are susceptible to environmental injustices, they may have no choice.
The big problem surrounding siting issues is that often those making the decisions are not the ones most affected and those most affected often cannot defend themselves. When it comes to nuclear waste siting the science and complexity behind it can be a daunting subject for a low-income community. Benefits and dangers may be misconstrued to those who may be affected and a knowledge gap is likely to exist. Yet, other communities tend to fall into the NIMBY syndrome and thus these sites are pushed to less advantaged communities. Given this coercive method of siting nuclear facilities, it straddles the ethical line of whether or not a community made their own decision or if they were forced into it (Marshall, 2005).
Link back to Waste main page