ABSTRACT
The third anniversary of the 2011 Fukushima meltdowns occasioned a new round of US media scrutiny. The first basic narrative through which accounts of Fukushima rationalise the disaster argues that its causes were exceptional in ways that limit its relevance to nuclear plants more generally. The second basic narrative through which accounts of Fukushima have kept the accident from undermining the wider credibility of nuclear energy rests on the claim that its consequences were tolerable. Given the intense fact-figure crossfire around radiological mortality, it is unhelpful to view Fukushima purely through the lens of health. Intentionally or unintentionally, assertions about Fukushima’s ‘tolerability’ are misleading in ways that have implications for the political viability of nuclear energy. The sociological mechanisms by which the public confidence in nuclear energy is maintained in the wake of accidents are important and worth exploring; not least because the resilience of the industry’s credibility has complex ramifications for the resilience of its reactors.
