M. POUMADERE, C. MAYS: FUKUSHIMA FOR YOU AND ME? 3 FUKUSHIMA FOR YOU AND ME? CONTENDING WITH THE SOCIAL DISRUPTION CAUSED BY A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT MARC POUMADERE and CLAIRE MAYS Institut SYMLOG, Paris, France e-mail: poumadere@wanadoo.fr Abstract Social disruption ranks high among consequences of a nuclear accident yet appears not fully understood.TMI, Chernobyl and more recently Fukushima have demonstrated that the severity of a nuclear accident depends on both its technical and social characteristics. The proximity principle is generally applied to frame disasters, but in the case of nuclear energy, the accident's impact extends far beyond the geographic perimeter defined by technological failures and radiological consequences upon health and environment. While the latter are carefully studied, there remains the task of better grasping the nature of the consequences' full impact upon society. We propose a conceptual framework to support better understanding of the underlying mechanisms of social disruption experienced at both the local and global levels. General risk concepts such as stigmatization, risk acceptability, and social amplification of risk, can aid at a first degree of analysis. In addition, we identify characteristics specific to nuclear accidents, such as ″collapse of the safety myth″ and ″removal of distance″ which appear common to Chernobyl and Fukushima. The collapse of the safety myth adds to the shock of the accident which was not supposed to happen. The removal of various distances represents as well a most disruptive experience and generates understandable resistance. Conversely, this effect could enhance a sense of solidarity among countries and among social groups. Integrated into nuclear research, education, and training, this conceptual framework could constitute a contribution to community resilience. Keywords: Nuclear accident, Proximity, Social disruption, Safety myth, Removal of distance Introduction: nuclear power and the proximity principle "Whenever there is a lot of energy in one place and a lot of people in the same place, there is a potential for disaster". This rather straightforward assertion made by physics Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner (1902-1995) and recently reported [1] underlines the principle of proximity between energy and populations related to the risk of disaster. This proximity principle can be associated to a variety of disasters and applies as well to the case of a nuclear accident: a nuclear reactor concentrates high levels of energy, and an immediate set of potential victims is to be found first among operators, rescue personnel, and the neighbouring population. But severe nuclear accidents also give a new meaning to “proximity”. Airborne radiation is a potential vector of exposure for populations far from the source of release; according to meteorological conditions, radioactive material can travel across continents. In this way, different implicit definitions of "proximity" are observed in the literature. In the aftermath of Fukushima, Butler [2] for instance analysed world population exposure to accidental release from the 211 NPP sites across the planet. Using concentric zones extending up to 1,200 kilometres, he concludes that distance does not offer “much of a protection” for most of the world's population. However, a 30-kilometer radius was considered pertinent for the evacuation or sheltering of 88,000 persons living in the vicinity of the Fukushima Daiichi plant. In the study of population around French NPPs to consider evacuation planning in case of a severe accident, analyses are restricted to zones of 30, 75 and 150 km [3]. On that basis, one may ask to which risks are Butler’s populations actually exposed in that 1,200 km radius. Along with these issues of population and environmental radiation exposure associated with geographical distance and meteorology, other variables such as economic costs enter into play. The cost estimates based upon accident scenarios involving either controlled or massive releases in France find the highest share (40%) to be attributable to "Image costs" [4]. Analysed from the point of view of France being impacted, the authors include in their definition of image costs the reductions of exports (agricultural, foodstuffs, and others) and of tourism activity. Needless to say, these exports would be of perfectly clean products, and tourism would be in non contaminated areas. In other words, such levels of impact which appear very important in terms of economic costs, do not relate directly to radiation contamination nor exposure: thus, a nuclear accident's impact cannot be restricted to the definition provided by the proximity factor nor to actual exposure to radiation. It had already been established that the situation of a nuclear accident can trigger health consequences upon the local population, even in the absence of radiation release.