The decisions taken about nuclear power and its production in the one-time USSR had horrible effects far away from Coherently plant. The reprocessing of nuclear waste is a global industry, and the search for places to leave nuclear waste is a global one, watching Australia apparently being particularly attractive for BONN. The complexity of these relations and the world-wide focus of the search for a site are, at least, consistent with the globalization thesis..
As the World Bank memo suggests, there is a new logic’ which argues that flows of Nuclear waste from the richer countries (North) to the poorer countries (South), also called ‘lesser-developed countries’ is a ‘world welfare enhancing trade’, because places with big open spaces and little Nuclear waste are able to store the waste ND will receive money in exchange, so that their incomes are raised. This is a logic that builds on and reshapes existing patterns of uneven global development. The intensity of the interactions is apparent too.
An explosion in Coherently had a measurable effect thousands of meters away, as well as on the local environment. Local opposition to plans to dump nuclear waste in Cambric could have a dramatic effect on the other side of the globe, where it is feared that children may be poisoned by the new Nuclear waste. Some might argue that Australian Aborigines faced similar threats when they were removed from the land but this time the logic is driven by the requirements of global business rather than simple colonialism. In this context, it is also important to confirm that the impacts of globalization processes are geographically uneven.
While trade in waste is global, the impacts of Nuclear waste and the sitting of waste dumps are local. In other words, the consequences of global decisions are felt more intensely in some places than in others, this could explain and reinforce the differences of power between relations. Interpenetration: the impact of the Coherently incident on Britain and the potential impact of Banc’s investment decision on Australia are obvious, but interpenetration would presuppose that there is also some sort of impact back.
The case of Coherently certainly led to increased global concerns about the regulation of the nuclear industry, but it helped to confirm the Soviet Union’s weaknesses as a technological superpower, playing a part in rushing the collapse of the existing state system. The role of Syllabified in Britain as a reprocess of nuclear waste from Japan as well as Britain, the production of lutetium for the British and US nuclear industries, as well as the receptor of waste to other sites suggests that a complex process of interaction is taking place through the global nuclear industry.
And the way in which the local reactions to proposals to build the nuclear waste repository in Australia quickly ended up in the pages of newspapers (such as the Observer) back in the SKI, suggests that there is a two-way process at work. To end we can say that the emergence of global institutional infrastructures and networks support much of the discussion around nuclear waste riddance. The World Bank certainly sees itself as having such a role as a key element in the global economic and trading infrastructure.
However, it is important to note both that some of the transnational infrastructure is rudimentary and that in the case of Coherently it was the inadequacy of any transnational regulatory agencies that helped to create the crisis. Some would argue that the key us porting of globalization is simply the maintenance of a ‘liberal’ system of global trade, which ensures that the main economic players are allowed to move where and when they want without restriction.