Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

No Particular Place to Go

  • Chapter
The Bedrock of Opinion

Part of the book series: Environment & Policy ((ENPO,volume 32))

Abstract

Shortly after the national referendum, in the spring of 1980, the Swedish Government decided, in accordance with the result of the referendum, to accept the applications from the utilities to fuel another four reactors. Of 12 projected reactors ten would now soon be in operation. After the referendum people were extremely tired of discussing energy issues, nuclear power and nuclear waste. The referendum campaign had been an enormous learning process for Swedish citizens.1 Many people participated in study circles, mostly initiated by the political parties and the People’s Campaign Against Nuclear Power.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Holmberg & Asp (1984: 15) claim that no other issue in the Swedish society after World War II can be compared to the nuclear power issue considering the extent and intensity of people’s engagement.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lidskog 1994; Noresson 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  3. The Kynnefjäll Group guarded the area day and night for almost twenty years, from April 21, 1980, to February 8, 2000. After the Swedish Minister of the Environment guaranteed that the Kynnefjäll area would be of no further interest for the nuclear waste siting–process the group ended the watching. See Göteborgs–Posten, 2000–02–05.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lidskog 1994: 57.

    Google Scholar 

  5. For the concept of co-production see Jasanoff & Wynne 1998; cf. Chapter 2.

    Google Scholar 

  6. SFS 1984:3.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Carleson & Hultgren 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  8. KBS 2 was a technical concept developed, in parallel with KBS 1, in order to manage final storage of unreprocessed spent nuclear fuel (while KBS 1 concerned vitrified reprocessed waste). KBS 2 was, however, never used as part of an application to get permission to fuel new reactors. When the last two reactors were completed, 4–5 years later, and their applications were prepared, SKB decided to call the new concept KBS 3. See SKBF 1983: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  9. SKBF 1983: 45.

    Google Scholar 

  10. SKBF 1983: 46–50.

    Google Scholar 

  11. DsI 1984:17, p. 24.

    Google Scholar 

  12. DsI 1984:17, p. 102.

    Google Scholar 

  13. DsI 1984:19, p. 147.

    Google Scholar 

  14. DsI 1984:19, p. 150.

    Google Scholar 

  15. DsI 1984:19, p. 85.

    Google Scholar 

  16. SKB 1986: 85–88.

    Google Scholar 

  17. SKB 1992b: 49.

    Google Scholar 

  18. SKB 1986: 86.

    Google Scholar 

  19. SKB 1989: 27; cf. SKB 1986: 51.

    Google Scholar 

  20. SKB 1986: 88.

    Google Scholar 

  21. SKB 1989: 27.

    Google Scholar 

  22. SKB 1989: 27–28.

    Google Scholar 

  23. SKN 1990a: 27.

    Google Scholar 

  24. SKN 1987; cf. SKB 1989: 26.

    Google Scholar 

  25. SKN 1990b: 91–92.

    Google Scholar 

  26. SKN 1990a: 90.

    Google Scholar 

  27. SKB 1992a: 70.

    Google Scholar 

  28. SKB 1992b: 21.

    Google Scholar 

  29. SKB 1992c: xiii.

    Google Scholar 

  30. SKB 1992b: 40.

    Google Scholar 

  31. SKB 1992c: xvii.

    Google Scholar 

  32. SKB 1986: 51.

    Google Scholar 

  33. SKB 1989: 27.

    Google Scholar 

  34. SKB 1992a: 66. At this time feasibility studies were called pre-studies.

    Google Scholar 

  35. The Government in June 1992 closed down the National Board for Spent Nuclear Fuel (SKN), and its tasks were taken over by SKI.

    Google Scholar 

  36. SKI 1993b: 63–64; italics in the original.

    Google Scholar 

  37. SKI 1993b: 66.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Swedish Government Decision 40, 1993–12–16.

    Google Scholar 

  39. SKB 1992d.

    Google Scholar 

  40. SKI 1993a: 12; italics in the original.

    Google Scholar 

  41. SKB 1994: 24f.

    Google Scholar 

  42. SKB 1994: 20.

    Google Scholar 

  43. SKB 1994: Table 4.5. This sequence was already presented in the 1992 RD&D Programme, see for example SKB 1992a: Figure 9.5. However, feasibility studies were then called pre-studies, and nothing was said about the proper number of these studies.

    Google Scholar 

  44. SKB 1994: 41–42.

    Google Scholar 

  45. SKB 1994: 41.

    Google Scholar 

  46. SKB 1994: 20, 42.

    Google Scholar 

  47. SKI 1995: 1, 28.

    Google Scholar 

  48. SKI 1995:4.

    Google Scholar 

  49. SKI 1995:1.

    Google Scholar 

  50. SKI 1995:4.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Swedish Government Decision 11, 1995–05–18.

    Google Scholar 

  52. The review reports from the government authorities, SKN (1987 and 1990a) and SKI (1993 and 1996) are usually about 100 pages. The Government’s decisions are only a few pages but of great importance as the final decision of the review. In its decision the Government usually emphasizes some arguments from the authority’s review report, or, as this example shows, pass them over in silence. However, the Government usually states in a general way that SKB should consider the arguments raised by the authority.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Swedish Government Decision 11, 1995–05–18.

    Google Scholar 

  54. SKB 1995c: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  55. SKB 1995c: i.

    Google Scholar 

  56. SKB 1995c: 36–37.

    Google Scholar 

  57. SKB 1995e: 122.

    Google Scholar 

  58. SKB 1995f: 118.

    Google Scholar 

  59. SKB 1995f: 119, see also p. 40.

    Google Scholar 

  60. SKB 1995f: 49, see map on p. 48.

    Google Scholar 

  61. SKB 1995f: 37–39.

    Google Scholar 

  62. SKB 1995f: 39.

    Google Scholar 

  63. SKB 1995f: 71–72.

    Google Scholar 

  64. SKI 1996b: 54.

    Google Scholar 

  65. SKB 1995f: 3.

    Google Scholar 

  66. SKI 1996a: 54.

    Google Scholar 

  67. SKI 1996b: 55.

    Google Scholar 

  68. SKI 1996a: 14, 1996b: 54.

    Google Scholar 

  69. SKB 1995f: 72.

    Google Scholar 

  70. SKB 1995f: 70.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Cf. map of Mal&a in SKB 1995f: 41. See also SKB 1995a: 30–31 and SKB 1996a: 3843.

    Google Scholar 

  72. SKI 1996b: 57.

    Google Scholar 

  73. SKB 1996a: 43.

    Google Scholar 

  74. SKB 1995f: 37.

    Google Scholar 

  75. See SKB 1992c: xvii.

    Google Scholar 

  76. SKB 1992b: 61.

    Google Scholar 

  77. SKB 1994: 19.

    Google Scholar 

  78. SKB 1994: 34.

    Google Scholar 

  79. SKB 1994: xi.

    Google Scholar 

  80. The municipalities which responded to the SKB letter of October 1992 showed an explicit interest in nuclear waste management, while SKB expected the five municipalities which are already hosting nuclear facilities to accept feasibility studies, or at least to take a more positive attitude than most of the Swedish municipalities. It is well-known that citizens in those municipalities are more positive to nuclear power than others. See also Chapter 7.

    Google Scholar 

  81. The municipality of Kävlinge hosts the two nuclear reactors named Barsebäck. The location of those reactors has been heavily criticized, not least by the Danes. The distance from Barsebäck to Copenhagen is less than 30 kilometres. This is one reason why the Swedish Government has decided that the Barsebäck reactors should be the first

    Google Scholar 

  82. be phased out (Lidskog 1999). Even if the bedrock was judged as suitable, due to negative opinions it would not have been easy to locate a nuclear waste repository to this area.

    Google Scholar 

  83. SKB 1997a: 11.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Wildaysky 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  85. SKB 1995e: xvi.

    Google Scholar 

  86. SKB 1995b.

    Google Scholar 

  87. SKI 1999: 26.

    Google Scholar 

  88. SKI 1999:11.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Cultural theory is not explicitly part of the traditions of S&TS or SSK (see Chapter 2), but their intellectual roots are similar, not to say the same. One of the founding fathers of SSK, David Bloor, has in several studies used and developed important elements of cultural theory, see Bloor 1982b and 1983. For both SSK and cultural theory Emile Durkheim’s sociology of knowledge is an important source of inspiration, see Bloor 1982a.

    Google Scholar 

  90. See Hollis & Lukes 1982 for a collection of papers discussing rationalism and knowledge criteria.

    Google Scholar 

  91. SKB 1994: 24–32.

    Google Scholar 

  92. It is important to notice that site investigations had been carried out at 10 different sites already during the 80s (SKB 1992b: 49). However, those sites are not part of the current site selection process.

    Google Scholar 

  93. SKB 1992c.

    Google Scholar 

  94. SKI 1992: 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Elster 1988: ch. 6, 1989: ch. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Elster 1988: 72.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Elster 1988: 73.

    Google Scholar 

  98. SKN 1990a: 90.

    Google Scholar 

  99. SKB 1986: 28.

    Google Scholar 

  100. SKN 1987: 97.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Elster 1993: 181–183.

    Google Scholar 

  102. For a critical discussion of the goal paradigm see Sunesson 1985. The best-known example of a rational theory of organizations, based on a rational theory on action, is found in Olson 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Abrahamsson 1994: 14.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Abrahamsson 1986: 50.

    Google Scholar 

  105. For the concepts of internal logic and external forces see Abrahamsson 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Thompson, Ellis & Wildaysky 1990: 55.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Douglas 1978, 1982, 1987, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Thompson, Ellis & Wildaysky 1990: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Thompson, Ellis & Wildaysky 1990: 2, 264.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Thompson, Ellis & Wildaysky 1990: 5–13.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Thompson, Ellis & Wildaysky 1990: 22–23.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Thompson, Ellis & Wildaysky 1990: 208. The discussion about the consciousness of the actor and the unintended consequences of actions is extensive. This discussion is part of the controversy between theories of action and theories of system. The controversial subject of functional explanations in the social sciences is also part of this controversy. See for example Elster 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Douglas (1987) talks about shared values and Durkheim (1912) about collective representations By using these concepts they are focusing on values and beliefs which are stable, collective, shared, impersonal, compelling for the individual and a necessity for the society (culture) of which they are part.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Thompson, Ellis & Wildaysky 1990: 98.

    Google Scholar 

  115. The three other cultures besides the individualistic are called hierarchical, egalitarian and fatalistic. For descriptions of the four cultures see Douglas 1970, 1978, 1982, 1992a, 1996; Thompson, Ellis & Wildaysky 1990; Schwarz & Thompson 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  116. For a discussion on the individualistic culture as an enterprise culture, see Douglas 1992b.

    Google Scholar 

  117. See Rayner 1986 for a comparison of how risks are perceived and given attention to in different ways by the individualistic and the hierarchical culture. The individualistic culture perceives the threats in relation to the safe handling of radioactive material in too many and detailed safety prescriptions. This will lead to a more relaxed attitude among the people who have to handle the material, and moreover that those activities which are not possible to regulate are given less attention: just follow the routines and all will be fine. According to the individualistic culture the world does not behave in this way. The hierarchical culture, on the contrary, perceives threats to safety in careless and unregulated individual behaviour.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Lagercrantz 1989: 50.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of Science and Technology Studies, Göteborg University, Sweden

    Göran Sundqvist

Authors
  1. Göran Sundqvist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sundqvist, G. (2002). No Particular Place to Go. In: The Bedrock of Opinion. Environment & Policy, vol 32. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9950-4_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9950-4_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5958-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9950-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation