A few weeks ago I wrote these two sets of questions as possible thesis research:
Framing Question: Is nuclear power a resilient power source?
Focus Question: Is it possible for Japanese communities surrounding nuclear power plants to be resilient? How can disaster resiliency be applied to daily life?
Framing Question: Is nuclear power a resilient power source?
Focus Question: How does Japan’s nuclear power program differ from the country’s use of other power sources?
These are all general questions that are interesting to me, and have the potential to become interesting topics to research for thesis, but they ultimately do not accomplish what I want them to. After being reaching close to the half-way point for both ENVS 330 and my nuclear power independent study, I have come a little closer to being able to more concisely target the arguments I hope to investigate.
When working on my independent study, most information I find relates in some way or another to either Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, or Fukushima. In part, this is because there is still very little that we know about nuclear power, and the disasters they can lead to. These three events continue to have the potential to give us information that can influence perception of the industry, and can directly affect policy decisions.
As part of my third goal – situating my project in Japan – I would like to situate my thesis on Fukushima, Japan, and the 2011 Triple Disaster event that still greatly affects the country (and the world) six years later. I think that in regards to the situated approach and my focus on resilience, it is an excellent context through which to look at theories on risk perception/person-relative-to-event, the disaster recovery process, energy security, basics of nuclear power (including facilities, health, and security), and cultural and political perceptions, just to name a few.
I mention all of these theories because they are what I believe to be some of the important aspects of being resilient to disasters, whether they are human caused or not. Resiliency, as I understand it from the 2014 Benson and Craig article, is a versatile theory because it can be adapted to more than just traditional environmental issues. In more complex issues, the social, economic, environmental, and political resiliency of places and people are all interconnected – it is hard to be address resiliency in one without addressing resiliency (or lack there of) in another.
The framing question that I wrote for my first two sets of question actually continues to frame my ultimate interests: Is nuclear power a resilient power source? My focus question, however, would make mores sense if it were more like: What are the key aspects of the 2011 Triple Disaster in Fukushima, Japan and how do these inform resiliency? These questions still need a lot of work but they are at least headed in a much better direction (for me) than before.
Benson, Melinda Harm, and Robin Kundis Craig. 2014. “The End of Sustainability.” Society & Natural Resources 27 (7): 777–82.