journal of Environmental Psychology (1993) 13, 93-109 0272-4944/93/020093+17508.00/0 © 1993 Academic Press Ltd

ENV ONMENTAL PSY{ItOLOGY

TAKING THE DREAD OUT OF RADIATION? CONSEQUENCES OF AND ARGUMENTS OVER THE INCLUSION OF RADIATION

FROM NUCLEAR POWER PRODUCTION IN THE CATEGORY OF THE NATURAL

S. REICHER 1, T. PODPADEC, P. MACNAGHTEN, R. BROWN AND J. R. EISER

Department of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QG, U.K.

Abstract

This paper seeks to demonstrate that radiation from nuclear power production is not necessarily dreaded but rather that evaluations are dependent upon whether the phenomenon is categorized as part of a natural category. In a first experimental study it is demonstrated that radiation is evaluated more positively when defined as 'natural' than when either defined as 'man-made' or else left undefined. A second study uses discursive methods to analyse a series of booklets produced by the nuclear industry and the reactions of anti-nuclear activists to such materials. It is shown that the pro-nuclear materials define radiation as a natural category and that radiation from the nuclear industry is similar to radiation from natural sources in forming part of this category. These materials conclude that nuclear radiation is an insignificant part of the common category. Anti-nuclear activists use a series of arguments to differentiate nuclear radiation (negative) from natural radiation (less negative). However, few of them contest the positive value implied by labelling radiation as natural. It is concluded that rhetorical struggles over the 'naturalness' of radiation are crucial to the way in which the phenomenon is understood.

I n t r o d u c t i o n

Over the last decade, a number of studies have found nuclear power to be an unpopular technology (Kasperson et al., 1980; Nealy et al., 1983; Spears et al., 1987)--this unpopularity being further exacer- bated by the accident at Chernobyl (Eiser & van der Plight, 1988). Moreover, the Oregon studies of Slovic, Fischoff and co-workers show tha t nuclear power is rated as less t rustworthy than most of its competitors. In an earlier study of 30 risk activities and technologies a lay sample adjudged nuclear power as the riskiest despite rating any of the other items as causing more fatalities in the average year (Slovic et al., 1979). A larger study involving 90 items put nuclear power in sixth place, below things such as nuclear weapons and warfare but well above all other energy technologies (Slovic et al., 1980).

However, the a i m of the Oregon studies was not just to measure the overall ratings of different technologies but ra ther to investigate the factors which underly these responses. In both studies, two underlying factors emerge as most predictive of risk ratings. The first, labelled as 'dread risk', refers to

the extent to which events have consequences which were seen as certain to be fatal, often for large numbers of people, should something go wrong. The second, labelled as 'unknown risk' refers to the extent to which hazards are new, unknown, involuntary and delayed in their effects. Whether analysing the 30 or the 90 items, Slovic et al. argue tha t nuclear power has a unique factor structure: other items may be similarly dreaded, but none of these is judged to be as new or unknown.

These findings have had considerable impact and have since been replicated in both Hungary (Englander et al., 1986) and Norway (Teigen et al., 1988). However, the question remains as to whether radiation need necessarily be perceived in terms of unfamiliarity and dread and, if not, what deter- mines the conditions under which it is. Brian Wynne (1989) argues against an interpretation which would explain such perceptions as a neces- sary consequence of the objective physical proper- ties of nuclear radiation. Thus, he shows that it is simplistic to suppose tha t the invisibility of such radiation carries an intrinsic sense of dread. In the paternalistic atmosphere of the 1950s, the fact that radiation 'cannot even be seen' was cited as a positive

93

94 S. Re icher et a l .

attribute, linking with the idea of a technocratic elite mysteriously producing power for the public. By the 1980s, t rust of the benevolent white-coated expert gave w a y to fear of technocratic manipula- tion and the unseeness of nuclear radiation fitted with this fear. What changed over the decades was not the physical invisibility of nuclear radiation but the way in which people regarded the social invisi- bility of radiation technology. Thus, whether the mysterious character of radiation is perceived posi- tively or negatively is tied to the way in which the social relationships involving the nuclear industry are viewed. Wynne concludes that differences in risk perceptions between 'experts' and the 'lay public' should not necessarily be put down to public ignorance or irrationality but rather to differing social beliefs about the institutions that are involved.

In this paper, we too challenge the notion that the physical character of nuclear radiation renders it inherently fearful. Like Wynne, We wish to show that the way in which radiation from the nuclear industry is perceived depends upon the way in which the issue is socially constituted. However, while we have no disagreement with Wynne's argu- ment, our approach differs from his in two respects. In the first place, ra ther than concentrating on the way in which perceptions of radiation are related to perceptions of other aspects of the nuclear industry, our interest is in the way 'industry' radia- tion is related to other radiation phenomena and how the category of radiation as a whole is given meaning. To put it slightly differently, if Wynne concentrates on whether the physical character of radiation leads to dread, we are interested in how the physical character of radiation comes to be constituted in the first place. More specifically, we investigate the ways in which various forms of radiation come to be constituted as 'natural ' or otherwise.

The category of 'nature' has a long history and its usages have been central to the ways in which human beings have organized their relationship to the physical world. Moreover, precisely because of these organizational consequences, the exact meaning of 'nature' has been a mat ter of consider- ably controversy on both a micro-social and macro- social level (Williams, 1972, 1976; Macnaghten, 1992; Macnaghten et al., 1992). For instance, Williams shows how the legitimation and develop- ment o f extractive industries was bound up with arguments as to whether nature should be seen as an active life-giving agent or else as passive and lifeless material. However, in contemporary western society at least, one of the key consequences of

defining something as 'natural ' is to characterize it as unexceptional, as commonplace and as familiar. Conversely, to describe something as 'unnatural ' is to render it as an exception, as intrusive and as alien. What is more, the distinction also carries a clear value implication. As Rosalind Coward has shown, in her analysis of the natural heal th move- ment, a therapy can be validated by being described as natural or rejected by being described as un- natural. The underlying message is tha t 'if it's natural, then it must be good for us' (Coward, 1989, p. 15). Some of our own previous research confirms this analysis. One set of studies (Macnaghten et al., 1992) show that cannabis is perceived more positively and deemed more acceptable when categorized as a 'natural herb' ra ther than a 'drug'. Similarly, changes to the landscape are perceived more nega- tively and deemed less acceptable to the extent that they are defined as disrupting the natural character of the environment. According to widespread usage, then, something categorized as 'natural' is something familiar and benevolent. Conversely, something categorized as 'unnatural ' is something unfamiliar and to be feared. We therefore hypothesize that one of the ways in which the debate as to whether radia- tion from the nuclear power industry is mysterious or not mysterious, threatening or unthreatening, acceptable or unacceptable would be organized around the issue of whether it is to be included in or excluded from the category of the natural.

This takes us to the second way in which our approach differs from that of Wynne (1989). His analysis is essentially historical. He shows how different conceptions of radiation and of nuclear technology succeed each other over a period of decades. For us, however, the different notions as to whether radiation from the nuclear industry is or is not par t of 'nature' co-exist within the same society at the same time. Consequently, rather than analys- ing the progression of ideas over time, our focus becomes the way in which different categorizations are contested in the present.

Such a focus takes us away from trying to mea- sure the meanings associated with radiation or else the factors underlying its evaluation. We recognize that such meanings and factors are variable and dependent upon the way in which radiation becomes constituted as an object of enquiry. Consequently, if we want to unders tand how radiation is evaluated we would not look to inherent qualities of either the physical phenomenon or of human cognition. Rather our interest shifts to the procedures through which the meaning of categories is contested. This shift forms part of a movement towards the analysis of

Getting Used to Radiation 95

rhetorical and argumentative processes in psychology (Billig, 1987, 1991; Billig et al., 1988; Edwards, 1991). In his 1987 book Arguing and Thinking, Billig contests the notion of human beings as involved in automatic processes of simplification and categoriza- tion. Human beings are as adept at particulariz- i n g - the act of stressing how specific instances stand out from general categories--as they are at categorizing. Moreover, the issues of how to define a category, of what instances fall into a particular category and in what category to place particular instances, are all open to debate. Such debate is a key feature of human social activity.

Macnaghten (1992) has demonstrated the practical importance of arguments concerning the category of 'nature'. His s tudy analyses a planning enquiry into the building of a landfill site (or tip) in hilly fields on the outskirts of Exeter. Central to the discussion was what makes an environment na tura l - - i s it that the area is untouched by human activity (nature as virgin territory) or is it that any signs of human activity are in balance with the non-human elements (nature as visual harmony)- -whether the fields could be categorized as natural and whether the proposed site would disrupt the naturalness of these hills. Insofar as a disruption of nature would lead to planning approval being denied, the out- come of the discussion determined whether or not developers came in and altered the contours of the physical environment.

In this study, our concern is to conduct a similar analysis on the nuclear debate That is to say, we predict that constructing radiation as natural would, in general, lead to it being viewed more positively. We further predict that, as a consequence of this relationship, the naturalness of radiation would form one aspect of the nuclear debate. Thus, those who ape pro-nuclear will seek to classify radiation from the nuclear industry as part of a natural phenomenon while those who are anti-nuclear will seek to clas- sify radiation from the nuclear industry as distinct from any natural phenomena.

In making these predictions, we are aware of the danger of problematizing one construction by reify- ing another. To be more concrete, we may be seen to highlight the debate over the naturalness of radiation by taking for granted a view of nature as familiar and as good. This is not our intention. We are aware of the theoretical point that arguments Over categorization are potentially inexhaustible. As well as arguing about the allocation of instances to categories--is radiation na tura l?- -we also argue OVer the meaning of categories--is nature good? (Billig, 1987). We are also aware that competing

constructions of nature as wild, unpredictable, dangerous are available in our society (Wilson, 1992). Consequently we will have occasion in our analysis to note those who are anti-nuclear contest not only whether radiation is natural but may also question whether natural is good. None the less, while we accept that the meanings of 'nature' and all other categories are in principle negotiable, we also argue that certain forms of negotiation do not always happen. In the absence of explicit challenges, certain definitions are more likely to be accepted than others. So, while work may be done to chal- lenge the implication that natural is good, we still argue that defining radiation as natural renders it more acceptable if the work is not done.

In order to investigate our predictions, the analysis is split into two parts. The first par t consists of a quantitative study into the effects of classifying radiation as natural or unnatura l upon its accept- ability. The second part, which itself is divided into two, consists of a qualitative investigation into the place of 'nature' in the discussion of radiation by anti-nuclear and pro-nuclear sources, respectively.

Study 1: Def ini t ions of 'Naturalnesss ' and Ratings o f Acceptabi l i ty

Eiser (1990) has reviewed the substantive literature which shows that the way in which people respond to an att i tude object depends upon the way in which it is labelled. Individuals reject objects associated with a negative label, but accept the same objects when they are associated with a positive label. Macnaghten et al. (1992) showed that association with the category of nature can be seen as a partictflar instance o f this principle. Insofar as to be natural is to be good, the same object (in ~this case cannabis) is viewed more positively when it is seen as natural ra ther than unnatural . The present s tudy simply seeks to extend this finding to the case of radiation by showing that emissions from radon gas are rated as more acceptable when defined as 'natural ' than when defined as 'man-made'. Our decision to use this specific topic was based on two considerations. First, the issue of radon emissions has had consider- able publicity, especially in t h e South Wes t of ~ Britain where the s tudy was carried out. Media reports contemporaneous with the study had reported local levels as four t imes the national average. Consequently we would expect the issue and the judgements as being meaningful for the subjects. Second, given the lack of explicit information about both the origins of radon and the conditions under

96 S. R e i c h e r e t a l .

which it accumulates, it is plausible to define it as both 'natural' and 'man-made'. This lat ter term can properly be criticized for its use of gender-specific language. Our reason for using it is that the term is generally used by the nuclear industry to refer to radiation produced by human activity. In order to produce experimental results that bear upon the actual nuclear debate it was necessary for use to employ the terms of that debate.

Method

Design. There was one between-subjects variable, the definition of radiation, that had three levels. In the first condition radiation was defined as 'man-made', in the second condition radiation was defined as 'natural', in the third condition radiation was left undefined. The numbers of subjects in each cell are given in Table 1.

Subjects. These were 192 adult sunbathers. Sub- jects were selected at random by an experimental assistant who was blind to the hypotheses of the experiment. This was achieved by approaching every other adult who was alone or in a couple and alternately allocating them to conditions 1, 2, or 3. Of those who were approached between 85% and 90% agreed to participate for each condition.

Materials. The stimulus materials consisted of a one page questionnaire consisting of a brief intro- duction followed by five att i tude statements. The questionnaire was identical in all conditions except for the way in which radiation was defined. Thus the questionnaire was titled 'Research on man-made radiation in the South West' in the first version with 'natural radiation' and 'radiation' being sub-

' s t i tuted for the words 'man-made radiation' in the second and third versions, respectively. Similarly, the introduction of the first version read 'This research aims to find out people's concerns, fears, and thoughts about the level of man-made radiation in the South West. Man-made radiation in the South West is substantial ly higher than in the other areas of Britain. This is mainly due to the high levels of Radon emission in the area (10-12 parts per million, approximately four times the national

TABLE 1 Definition of radiation

'Man-made radiation' Natural radiation Radiation

65 66 61

average). Radon is a radioactive gas slowly pro- duced by the radioactive decay of uranium. The second and third versions were identical, except that 'natural radiation' and 'radiation' were substi- tuted for the words 'man-made radiation' whenever they occurred. The five at t i tude s ta tements were alternately: 'Current levels of man-made radiation natural radiation/radiation are not dangerous to health', 'The high levels of man-made radiation/ natural radiation/radiation should become a govern- ment priority requiring urgent action', 'Any level of man-made radiation/natural radiation/radiation is harmful', 'Man-made radiation/natural radiation/ radiation, even at considerable cost, should be reduced to as low a level as is technically possible', 'Man-made radiation/natural radiation/radiation is one of the critical environmental issues facing us today'. All items were answered in a 7-point scale with 1 representing strong agreement and 7 strong disagreement.

Procedure. The experiment was carried out on a warm summer's day amongst a population of sun- bathers on a beach in South West England. Subjects who were alone or in pairs were approached and asked if they would be willing to take part in a s tudy looking at at t i tudes to man-made radiation/ natural radiation/radiation. If they agreed they were given the questionnaires and told how to com- plete them. Those in pairs were asked to complete the questionnaire separately. The experimenter then moved on and returned 5 minutes later to collect the completed forms. Where subjects were interested a full explanation of the rationale and logic of the study was given.

Results

Item scores were recoded such that the lower the score, the higher the expressed concern. Part-whole correlations were then computed for all the items. Correlation coefficients ranged from 0.76 to 0.83. It was therefore considered legitimate to sum the five item means together and divide by five in order to obtain a scale mean for each subject. One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were then com- puted for each of the items as well as the scale mean. Means and results of the F test are given in Table 2.

As can be seen from the table, the differences between conditions are significant to the 0.001 level at the least for each of the scale i tems and for the scale mean. In order to discover exactly where the differences lay between conditions, a series of

Getting Used to Radiat ion

TABLE 2 Means and F-values for separate attitude items and attitude scale

97

Item I Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Scale

Man-made radiation 2.12 1.71 Natural radiation 3.03 2-52 Radiation 2-03 1.42 F2,1sg-value 9.78*** 12.23"**

2.23 1.42 1.97 1.90 3-26 2.42 2.92 2-80 2-24 1.57 1.82 1.79 8-62*** 11.27"** 10.17"** 16-18"**

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

contrasts were carried out using Scheffe's F test. The results of these tests are given in Table 3.

Once again, the pattern of results is identical for all the items and for the scale mean. Man-made radiation is rated as less acceptable than natural radiation. Natural radiation is rated as more accept- able than radiation. There is no difference in the ratings of man-made radiation and radiation.

Discussion

The results of their study are entirely consistent with our predictions. Thus, when radiation emis- sions are described as natural, as opposed to man- made or when left undefined, they are seen as less of a problem, less harmful, less of a priority for action. On each item, the shift is approximately from point 2 to point 3 of a 7-point scale. In terms of the ways the scale points are labelled, this means moving from 'quite agree' to 'slightly agree' with radiation being a problem, being harmful and being a priority for action as the definition shifts from radiation being 'man-made' to radiation being 'natural'. This amount of movement is significant in absolute as well as statistical terms. It suggests a qualitative as well a s a quantitative shift in the seriousness accorded to the phenomenon according to whether it is categorized as 'natural' . Moreover, the results indicate tha t the acceptability of radia- tion phenomena increases only when the categoriza-

t i on as 'natural ' is explicit. When left undefined, radiation is rated as if it were 'man-made'.

Our findings are all the more noteworthy because subjects did not respond to radiation in the abstract but rather to a specific physical phenomenon--radio- activity from radon gas. Of course, the fact that subjects all rated the same physical phenomenon does not exclude the possibility tha t the various category labels affected their assumptions concern- ing its physical makeup. It was quite plausible that subjects were aware the radioactive isotopes carried in different forms may be more or less likely to enter the body and irradiate sensitive tissues. They may also have been aware tha t isotopes vary in terms of the rate and types of particle they emit. Thus, when radon emissions are thought of as natura l they may be associated with the less intru- sive forms and less harmful particles. However, even if mediated by assumptions about the physical characteristics of the phenomenon, the important point remains that subjects characterized a phenom- enon as more benevolent when defined as natural. What cannot be argued is tha t subjects are simply thinking of two different kinds of material when they respond to 'man-made' or 'natural ' radiat ion-- the one being constituted out of such dangerous things as nuclear weapons, emissions from nuclear plants and from nuclear dumps, the other of rela- tively benevolent things like cosmic rays, and such- like. By specifying explicitly tha t the issue has to do with radiation from Radon gas, we can be confident tha t subjects gave different ratings of the same radiation phenomenon as a function of its inclusion or exclusion from the category of the 'natural'.

TABLE 3 Contrasts between conditions for separate attitude items and attitude scale

Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Scale

Man-made vs natural 6.76** 6-39** 6.60** 9.65*** 6.72** 11.60"** Natural vs radiation 7.82*** 11.23"** 6.12"* 6.95** 8.39*** 12.90"** Man-made vs radiation 0-06 0-77 0.00 0.17 0.13 0.07

*P < 0.05, **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

98 S. Reicher et a l .

There is, however, a downside to the specificity with which the object is specified. It could be argued that our findings do not relate to radiation in general, but only to certain phenomena--or even, purely to radon emissions. In other cases, categoriz- ing radiation as 'natural ' may have no effect or even lead to lowered acceptability. This is partly an empirical question to be settled by further research. It could be that we have fortuitously stumbled upon a particular instance in which 'natural ' radiation is seen as more benevolent than 'man-made' radiation. On the other hand, there is no self-evident reason why radon emissions should display this particu- larly. We can therefore conclude by saying that this first s tudy provides at least indicative evidence that the positivity of 'natural ' categorizations extends to radiation phenomena.

Thus, our research took the promotional materials produced by various parts of the nuclear industry on the one hand and then looked at the 'way in which anti-nuclear activists respond to the various arguments contained in these materials. We hypo. thesize that the issue of whether radiation is natural or not will form a important focus in the debate. While the pro-nuclear materials will charac- terize radiation from the nuclear industry part of a natural category, anti-nuclear activists will differ- entiate between natural radiation and the more dangerous radiation from the nuclear industry.

Analys i s : (A) T h e P r o - n u c l e a r P o s i t i o n

Method

S t u d y 2: T h e N a t u r e o f N u c l e a r R a d i a t i o n as a T o p i c o f P u b l i c D e b a t e

The first s tudy allows us to demonstrate the conse- quences of applying categories of nature to radia- tion phenomena. However, while we have been able to find the expected effects, this has no bearing on whether the issue of nature is a topic in the nuclear debate itself. In order to show that this is so, it is necessary to examine the arguments employed by pro- and anti-nuclear sources. However, it is impor- tant to recognize that the debate is highly assymet- rical. The pro-nuclear lobby represents a powerful set of institutional interests and has considerable financial resources. Its position is expressed through intense media advertising and through a variety of mass produced and freely available promotional resources. On the other hand, the anti-nuclear lobby is a network of informal protest groups. Some of these are organized into national campaign groups (Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace), but much of the network consists of small community groups. As a result the nuclear debate tends not to be a mat ter of two protagonists meeting on the same ground, although this may occasionally occur in specially staged television programmes. Rather, the pro-nuclear lobby works through the media; producing and advertising materials on a national scale. The anti-nuclear lobby responds largely through direct communications; public meetings, street leaf- leting and other forms of protest activity.

Insofar as our aim was to analyse the way in which the phenomenon of radiation is argued over, we sought to reproduce the structure of the nuclear debate in the way our research was conducted.

The materials included in the analysis were nine pamphlets produced by various bodies involved with the nuclear industry. These were Nuclear Power and Safety (United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority), Radiation: Effects and Control (United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority), The CEGB and Nuclear Power: Questions and Answers (Central Electricity Generating Board), Radiation: Its Origins and Effects (Nuclear Electric), Nuclear Electricity: A User's Guide (Nuclear Electric), Hinkley Point Power Station (Nuclear Electric), Nuclear Waste: What's To Be Done About It? (British Nuclear Fuels), Nuclear Energy: Don't Be Left in the Dark (British Nuclear Fuels) and BNFL: The Journey of Discovery Into the World of Energy (British Nuclear Fuels). The pamphlets were collected between 1989 and 1991. They do not represent a comprehensive selection of all the materials available from the nuclear industry. Rather they were selected on the basis of availability to the public in general and the anti-nuclear activists we interviewed in particular. Thus, these pamphlets are those that could be obtained free at the Visitors Centre to Hinkley Point Nuclear Power Station, at the sessions of the public enquiry into the building of a third reactor at Hinkley Point which were held in Bristol on 17/18 Ju ly 1989, and those advertised in the national press. It should be noted that these pamphlets, although produced by different agencies, should not necessarily be seen as independent. While we do not have precise details as to their production, the similarities of design, text and illustration suggests some commonality or origin. However, insofar as our interest lies in public forms of pro-nuclear arguments and the extent of their public distribu" tion ra ther than in attr ibuting beliefs to particular

Get t ing U s e d to R a d i a t i o n 99

authors, this does not present a problem for our analysis.

All the pamphlets were read through and those parts (both text, diagrams and illustrations) which referred to radiation were selected for coding. The aim of the analysis was to look for evidence tha t the naturalness of radiation is a topic and to look for the vcays in which radiation from the nuclear industry is related to natural categories. Given this concern with the content of argumentation we have taken a discursive approach to the texts (Potter & Wetherell, 1987; Edwards & Potter, 1992) rather than subject them to quantitative analysis.

Responses

(1) Radiation as a natural phenomenon. Seven of the nine pamphlets start their sections on radiation by stressing tha t it is a natural phenomenon. The other two pamphlets (Nuclear Power and Safety, Hinkley Point Power Station) do not contain a section on radiation. That is because the former is part of a series produced by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and another pamphlet (Radia- tion: Effects and Control) is specifically devoted to the issue of radiation. The latter, as its name suggests, is more concerned with the specific issues surrounding Hinkley Point than the general nuclear debate. None the less, the one paragraph devoted to radiation does stress tha t most radiation is natural radiation and this is accompanied by a pie chart to illustrate the point.

Thus, whenever radiation is touched upon, the category of nature is central to the discussion. For instance, Nuclear Electric's Nuclear Electricity: A User's Guide has a section entitled Radiation. Where it is, what it is. It begins:

[1] Radiation isn't something 'invented' by nuclear power stations. It is, and always has been, a natural part of everyday life, and comes from space, the earth, air, food and drink, and even our own bodies. Indeed, the vast majority of the radiation we receive-- some 87 per cent on average--comes from these natural sources.

The power of this extract derives from its selec- tion of a particular focus as the appropriate level of reality for discussing the phenomenon at hand- - a process which, more generally, has been referred to as 'ontological gerrymandering ' (Woolgar & Pawluch, 1985; Potter et al., 1991). That is to say, the argument is framed by considering the physical Character of ionizing emissions, as opposed to say, the processes by which radioactive isotopes are pro- duced or else the sources of radiation. As Michael

(1991) argues, this framing leads to a maximal abstraction whereby differing origins of radiat ion-- enumerated in a six part list in the extract--are subsumed under its common physical nature. In par- ticular, the institutional bases of risk are obscured since 'risk from ionizing radiation is part and parcel of living in the world' (Michael, 1991, p. 21).

Lest the point has been missed, the section con- cludes by reasserting the naturalness of radiation, though once again this is achieved by concentrating on its character as a physical force:

[2] Radiation in normal life is as unremarked and natural a force, as, say, gravity, and at the levels in which we routinely receive it, it is not considered hazardous.

While the physicalist ontology is central to the arguments in Nuclear Electric's pamphlet, this is not the only way in which the naturalness of radia- tion is established. When the various sources of radiation are enumerated in extract 1, it is notable that the list includes quintessentially natural origins. There are four such examples which are repeatedly used in the different booklets. The first is radiation coming from the earth. This is characteristically stressed as 'the earth itself' being radioactive. The second is radiation coming from the air. Here, the wording repeatedly refers to 'the air we breathe'. The third is radiation coming from food--expressed as 'the food we eat'. The fourth and final example is radiation coming from the human body, which is frequently stressed as 'even our own bodies are radioactive' at the end of a list. What is striking about these various examples is that all are expressed in ways that make them the conditions of human existence: the earth we inhabit, the air we breathe, the food we eat, the bodies which represent our physical being. The implication is that if such life enhancing things are radioactive, then radiation cannot be so antithetical to life.

It is not only that the same list of radioactive sources is found repeatedly in the various booklets, it is also that the different booklets use the same combi- nation of arguments to establish radiation as natural and as unthreatening. Thus the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's booklet Radiation: Effects and Control starts by stressing that 'ionizing radia- tion which will just be called "radiation" for the rest of this booklet--can occur naturally or it can be man- made'. After a discussion of physical properties and applications there is then a section on Sources of Radiation. Part one of this section is Natural Sources and it starts with this paragraph:

[3] The natural world is full of radiation. It comes from outer space and from the earth itself. The air

100 S. R e i c h e r et al .

we breathe and all food and drink are mildly radio- active. This radiation is called a natural background radiation and it has been there since the world began. It has nothing to do with man's activities.

Or again, in a booklet ent i t led Nuclear Waste: What's to be Done About It. Brit ish Nuclear Fuels have a section ent i t led Radiation: the facts within which both a rguments appear repeatedly.

[4] Contrary to popular belief, radiation is not some- thing solely produced by the nuclear industry or nuclear weapons. In fact, about 87% of the radiation dose we receive comes from natural sources. It is all around us, occurring in our homes, in the air we breathe, in the food we eat; even our bodies are radio- active .. .

[5] The earth itself is naturally radioactive, exposing us to radiation from surface rocks and soils ....

[6] Cosmic radiation is also something we are naturally exposed to, coming to us from outer space and to a lesser extent from the sun..

The section ends with a photograph of women paying for a pile of food at a supermarke t checkout desk. The caption reads 'radiation is all a round us, even in the food we eat'.

These var ious af f i rmat ions point to ye t a n o t h e r way in which rad ia t ion is held to be na tu ra l . I f radioact ive emiss ions are all a round us, i f we are inward ly radioact ive f rom our bodies and move in an a tmosphe re t h a t is i t se l f radioact ive, t hen l iving wi th rad ia t ion is the n a t u r a l s ta te of human i ty . This is not only t rue today bu t has always been true, as this section on Radiation: the facts explicitly states:

[7] Radiation is nothing new. It has been around since the earth was formed, some 4,500 million years ago.

While it is possible analy t ica l ly to separa te the var ious ways in which the na tu ra lnes s of rad ia t ion is es tab l i shed i t is i m p o r t a n t to r epea t t h a t the a rguments are not a l te rna t ives bu t character is t ical ly co-occur. The use of all t h r ee a rgumen t s can be seen wi th in a single p a r a g r a p h in the following ex t rac t f rom an 'act ivi ty booklet ' produced for chi ldren by Br i t i sh Nuc lea r Fuels and ent i t led BNFL: The Journey of Discovery into the World of Energy:

[8] Radiation is energy which is sent out naturally in waves or rays and particles from the Earth and its atmosphere . . . . Today we can calculate that, on average, people living in the United Kingdom receive 87% of their radiation dose from natural sources. This radiation is in soil and rocks, and in the air we breathe. Men and women have been surrounded by this type of radiation ever since they walked the Earth.

The impor tance of this mul t ip le a rgumen ta t i on is t h a t the var ious s t r ands re inforce each other: if radia t ion is na tura l , i f na tu ra l objects are radioactive and i f it is n a tu r a l to live wi th radioact ivi ty , then rad ia t ion is pa r t of the n a t u r a l order and par t of the h u m a n condition. Consequen t ly i t makes less sense to d read rad ia t ion as the h u m a n apotheosis.

The ext rac ts p re sen ted res t upon establishing the n a tu r a ln e s s of rad ia t ion in general , and hence implici t ly categorize rad ia t ion f rom the nuclear i n d u s t ry along wi th rad ia t ion f rom o the r sources. This form of a r g u m e n t a t i o n is p r e sen t in all the booklets which address the issue. However , three of the booklets go f u r t h e r and m ak e an explicit state- m e n t of this equivalence. The Cen t ra l Electricity Gene ra t i ng Board 's documen t The CEGB and Nuclear Power: Questions and Answers (1988) discusses ' na tu ra l ' and 'man-made ' radiat ion. It t h e n poses the ques t ion 'which rad ia t ions may be h a rm fu l to people? ' The answer begins as follows:

[9] Almost all sufficiently energetic radiations may be harmful under certain conditions.

I t is no t ewor thy tha t , while this ex t rac t does acknowledge the dangers of radioact ivi ty , the risks are modera t ed in two ways. Firs t , ' indus t ry ' radia- t ion is dangerous , bu t only in the same way as rad ia t ion f rom air, food or h u m a n bodies. Second, the dange r is not inevitable. I t depends bo th on the rad ia t ion being 'sufficiently energet ic ' and upon 'cer ta in condit ions being met' . This is a long way f rom a source of dread. I t is pe rhaps more properly descr ibed as a s l ight d a n g e r - - c o n s o n a n t with the ra t ings produced w h en we expe r imen ta l ly defined radon emissions as natural . This modera ted presen- ta t ion of danger is expressed more graphica l ly by the Un i t ed Kingdom Atomic En e rg y Au tho r i t y in its booklet Radiation: Effects and Control.

[10] When considering radiation, a cell has no way of telling whether the source is from a natural or a man-made source. The effects are exactly the same.

Finally, Nuclear Electr ic expresses equivalence with- out even the h in t of danger in concluding its booklet Radiation: Its Origin and Effects by s ta t ing:

[11] Radiation is a fact of life. It occurs in nature and can be produced artificially. There is no difference between natural and artificial radiation.

(2) The balance between 'natural' and "man-made' radiation. Once i t is es tab l i shed t h a t ' na tura l ' and 'man-made ' r ad ia t ion are member s of a common category, and hence are qua l i t a t ive ly equivalent, it t h e n becomes meaningfu l to m ak e quant i ta t ive compar isons be tween the two. Such comparisons

Getting Used to Radiation 101

are both present and salient whenever radiation is a topic of discussion. They occur in two distinctive forms. In the first place specific instances are related to each other. For example, in the British Nuclear Fuels booklet Nuclear Energy: Don't Be Left in the Dark, there is a bar diagram entitled Radia- t ion-Keeping a sense of proportion. Of the two bars, the larger reads 'This represents radiation you would receive from flying for ONE HOUR'. The smaller reads 'ONE YEAR'S radiation you would receive from the entire nuclear industry' (see Figure 1).

The diagram is therefore comparing 'industry' radiation with a form of radiation not normally considered to be dangerous. However, it does not simply give a numerical specification of the absolute amounts of radiation deriVing from each. On the other hand, a year 's worth (of ' industry' radiation) is textually contrasted with an hour's worth (of radiation from flying). It is most unlikely that the reader could or would rapidly compute the number of hours in a year. Rather, the comparison is between a substantive category and one which, by comparison, is insubstantial and emphemeral. On the other hand, the size of the bars shows that the radiation from a fleeting moment of flying is still ap- proximately twice that from a lengthy period of in- dustrial nuclear production. As Potter et al. (1991) argue in their work on quantification rhetoric, this combination of qualitative and quanti tat ive com- parisons serves to reinforce the contrast between elements: even a big period of 'industry' radiation is half tha t of a tiny period of 'flying radiation'. 'Industry' radiation is therefore reduced twice over. However, in the present case there is a third dimension to the argument: industry radiation is doubly diminished in relation to a source of radia- tion whose danger is itself insignificant. ' Similar forms or argument are used in order to

deal with what is possibly the most potent symbol of nuclear threat in recent times: the Chernobyl incident. Nuclear Electric's Radiation: Its Origins and Effects addresses the issue in the following terms:

[12] Following the reactor accident at Chernobyl in the USSR, radioactive material spread all over Europe to the UK giving the population a small extra radiation dose over the normal level. This is estimated by the NRPB to be 50 microsieverts over a lifetime which should be compared with the annual average dose from natural sources of 2200 microsieverts.

Once again, a qualitative contrast (between a year's radiation dose and a lifetime's radiation dose) is Combined with a quanti tat ive contrast [between 50

Radiation-Keeping a sense of proportion

Z

This represents radiation you would receive from flying for ONE HOUR

ONE YEAR'S radiation you would receive from the entire nuclear industry

/

FIGURE 1. A comparison of'industry' radiation and radiation from flying. (Source: British Nuclear Fuels Nuclear Energy: Don't be Left

in the Dark, reproduced with the kind permission of BNFL).

and 2200 microsieverts (mSv)], and once again a substantive period's worth of ' industry' radiation is but a fraction of a trivial period's worth of 'natural ' radiation. In this way, even the most frightening and publicized instances of radiation released from the nuclear industry are made to seem triVial in relation to even the most mundane examples of natural radiation.

As well as comparing specific forms of 'industry' and 'natural ' radiation, there is a second form of comparison whereby the total amount of man-made radiation or radiation from the nuclear industry is contrasted to the total amount of natural radiation. Every document that deals with radiation, except for the Central Electricity Generating Board's The CEGB and Nuclear Power: Questions and Answers, mentions that 87% of radiation derives from na tu r a l sources. The CEGB document has a table which gives an annual total dose of 1.870 mSv from 'naturally occurring sources' and 0.281 mSv from 'man-made sources'. However, it does not compute the percentages. Apart from the booklet BNFL: The Journey of Discovery Into the World of Energy, all these documents go on to stress the percentage of the total contributed from the nuclear industry.

102 S. Re icher et al .

Once again the CEGB uses absolute figures. Its tables give 'emissions from nuclear plant' as repre- senting 0.002 mSv out of a total annual dose of 2.151 mSv. The other booklets represent the figures in percentage terms. For instance Nuclear Electric's Nuclear Electricity. A User's Guide states that:

[13] Radiation from the nuclear industry accounts for less than 0-1% of the radiation we receive.

As well as using words, six documents (including Nuclear Electric's prospectus for Hinkley Point Power Station) i l lustrate these quantitative points using diagrams. In five of the six cases a pie chart is used. While the exact details vary slightly, most of these charts label a thin slice of the cake as man- made radiation, they then further highlight a sliver within the man-made total which is associated with the nuclear industry. In other words, ' industry' radiation is a small part of a small part of the total radiation pie. This use of multiple categoriza- tions is another way, in addition to combining cate- gorical and quanti tat ive comparisons, of reinforcing the insignificance of such a phenomenon. However,

the quantitative dimension is not entirely absent insofar as the sliver of ' industry' radiation is so thin as to be almost imperceptible within the overall cake. An example of such a chart is provided in Figure 2.

These diagrams represent the logical conclusion of the category constructions employed within the publicity l i terature produced by the nuclear industry. Once radiation produced in the generation of nuclear power is categorized alongside radiation produced from natural sources within a single natural category, it is not only that is negative evaluations are somewhat at tenuated. It is also that it is made to seem insignificant and hardly worth debating, whatever its effects. It is worth noting that, in a school resource book called Finding Out About Nuclear Energy which is produced with the assistance of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and United Kingdom Nirex Ltd . (a body responsible for the disposal of nuclear waste), a pie chart similar to that in Figure 2 is reproduced under the headline 'Is the flame worth the candle?'

Source of radiation exposure of the U.K. population

12% Internal from eating, _ drinking and breathing

14% Terrestrial Gamma Rays - - from rocks and soil

10% Cosmic Rays from outer space

<0.1% Waste from the nuclear industry

0'2% Occupational from medical and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . industrial uses Miscellaneous from weapons mainly from 4% Thoron

mainly from air tests and X-rays inside our homes travel and Chernobyl luminous watches

FIGURE 2.

Source National Radiological Protection Board

Pie chart displaying proportions of radiation coming from different sources (Source: British Nuclear Fuels Nuclear Energy: Don't be Left in the Dark, reproduced with the kind permission of BNFL).

Getting Used to Radiation 103

Analys i s (B): The Ant i -nuc lear P o s i t i o n

Method

The materials used in this analysis consisted of interviews with anti-nuclear activists. All except one of these activists were initially contacted at the sessions of the Public Enquiry held into the pro- posed construction of Hinkley Point 'C' Nuclear Rector which were held in Bristol on 18/19 July 1989. Individuals who defined themselves as pre- sent in order to voice or to support anti-nuclear arguments were given a one page questionnaire. This covered the respondent's reasons for coming to the enquiry, his or her principal objections to nuclear power and whether he or she would be willing to participate in a more extended interview. One hundred and eleven questionnaires were completed and 78 respondents indicated a willingness to be contacted again. Of these, 20 were selected at random for interview. However, for practical reasons, we were only able to interview 12 of the 20. In addition an interview was conducted with an anti-nuclear activist who was unable to attend the Bristol sessions of the Public Enquiry. This gave a total of 13 interviewees.

All the interviews were carried out in the respondent's home during the spring and summer of 1990. With the exception of one couple, everyone was interviewed singly. In order to reproduce the argumentative framework which characterizes the nuclear debate, we constructed a videotape which contained extracts from either print or televisual media in which representatives of the nuclear industry and pro-nuclear politicians put their case. The video was divided into a series of labelled subsections each of which contained a number of clips. After each clip interviewees were asked to comment. However, they were also given a remote control device and given the freedom to pause the tape where they liked and to comment on its contents. The interviews were audio-taped and then transcribed.

Given the focus on how subjects construe radia- tion, our present concern is with the reactions of the respondents to a clip within the subsection on 'Risks in normal operation'. The clip starts with an image of a pie chart as shown in Figure 2 which is accom- panied by a voice-over. This states tha t the chart 'shows tha t 87% of the radiation we receive is natu- rally occurring. Only 13% is made by humans and only 0.1% is from discharges from nuclear power stations'. The second half of the clip is a video of a nuclear scientist from Sellafield nuclear power

station talking to a public audience. The scientist is referring to a bar chart which includes the following bars: 'Natural radiation--average dose in Cornwall, 7 mSv', 'Natural radiation--average dose in the U.K., 2 mSv', 'Sellafield discharges--dose to high rate consumer of shellfish, 0.3 mSv', 'Sellafield discharges--dose to high rate consumer of fish, 0.05 mSv'. He uses the figures to argue that the leukaemia clusters around Sellafield cannot be due to the operations of the power stations. He con- cludes with the words 'people say: "well, the calculations might be wrong. The discharges are there, the leukaemias are there, so the dis- charges mus t have caused it". Again, that ' s not very scientific'.

The comments made in response to this clip formed the basis of our analysis. Since one of the interviews had to be conducted without the video- tape it was discarded for the purposes of the present study. Consequently this analysis is based on the reactions of 12 respondents. As with the t reatment of the pro-nuclear texts, our interest is in the content of a rgumenta t ion and, more specifically, how radiation from the nuclear industry is related to the category of the natural . What is more, we are not so much concerned with differentiating between what is said by different individuals, but rather in differentiating between different arguments, more than one of which may be used by the same indivi- dual. Thus, on theoretical as well as methodological grounds, we have once again adopted a discursive approach to the material. Where extracts are used, the sex (M or F) and subject code number is pro- vided.

Responses

All of our respondents challenged the positions produced in the video sequence. They used four principal arguments in order to do so. First, people simply challenged the figures. On the one hand, it was argued tha t the particular figures presented to the public are misleading. Thus, immediately after the clip, $4 (F) was asked by the interviewer 'what do you think about tha t sort of thing'. She responded tha t many instances of radiation release from nuclear installations are kept secret and even those which are reported are presented in a mis- leading way:

[14] you can say just what you want to say and always find a figure that will say what you want it to say, sort of thing. And often, well I don't now about often, but sometimes if you look under the figures they are using and they're actually doing funny things to them.

104 S. R e i c h e r e t a l .

On the other hand, it was argued that such figures are inherent ly misleading given the inherent ly contingent na ture of scientific knowledge. Such arguments lay stress on the contrast between scientific change and the certainty of scientists at any given time. An older man, S12 (M) responded to the clip by suggesting that, if the Sellafield scientist rejects the connection between nuclear plants and leukaemia clusters, other analyses prove it. The interviewer summarized the point which was then expanded upon by the respondent as revealed in the following extract:

[15] Int: Because for every scientific evidence one way you can have scientific evidence the other way?

S12: That's right. When I did physics at school, chemistry at school, there were neutrons, electrons and protons and that was it. There weren't t h e se other funny little things that I see names mentioned in the papers now. And they thought they'd got that precise scientific theory right.

Or else, in the words of S l l (M) 'we all know tha t their knowledge alters every 10 years'.

Although such arguments contest the actual com- parisons between 'natural ' and 'man-made' radiation which are put forward by the nuclear industry, they do not openly question whether it is meaningful, in principle to do so. However, although nine of our subjects voiced simple distrust of the figures, all but three went on to challenge the principle of compari- son. The second a rgument produced by our respon- dents was tha t radiat ion from the nuclear industry is different in kind to radiation from natural sources. Thus it makes no sense to set the figures against each other. Again, the argument took a number of forms. First, evolutionary grounds were used to dif- ferentiate the two types of radiation. They argued tha t humans have evolved to deal with levels of natural radiation. However, man-made radiation is something new and may just tip the balance towards disaster. The point was most clearly made by S10 (M) who responded spontaneously after the first par t of the clip (the pie chart) was shown:

[16] From a scientific view I suppose you could say that we've just spent an awfully long time evolving to deal with that natural radiation level. The other 13% or whatever it was is probably the crucial level. I mean, all the different speculation, the different theories on why the dinosaurs died out, why mam- mals that evolved at the same time didn't die out in that period. I mean, what tipped the balance? I mean obviously it wasn't something so catastrophic that all life on earth ceased. A slight change wiped out a lot of species.

Second, it was argued that not only the extra level but also the physical character of man-made

radiation made it more dangerous to people thaa natura l radiation. S13 (F), also responded sponta. neously to the pie chart, and asked:

[17] S13: There is a difference, I think I'm right in saying, between radiation that is produced from a nuclear power plant and radiation that comes frora natural, I mean there's a difference in the quality of it. Is that right?

Int: I don't know.

S13: Again, I can't remember where, there's, I mean you can get different, the nucleus or the neutrons or whatever are attracted by it, are slightly different.

She then went on to draw out the consequence of this physical difference when responding, without intervention by the interviewer, to the second half of the clip:

[18] Certainly there are certain types of radiation that a nuclear power plant does produce that cannot be produced by natural sources. So, if all that is true, then I don't see those bar charts help me at all, because, you know, it's a bit like 1 kg of uranium being compared to 22 tons of coal. I mean they aren't compatible

While it was implicit within this argument that nuclear radiation was more dangerous tha t natural radiation (if it were the other way round, the pro-nuclear a rgument would be even stronger than was presented in the video clip) the point was made explicitly by S1 (F) and $2 (M) who were interviewed as a couple. Consider the following interchange as the two respondents discussed between themselves their response to the Sellafield scientist:

[19] SI: They had discovered and have started discovering in science, the more you start dissecting a plant and using the chemical constituents of the drug, the more dangerous side effects there are. So it stands to reason that natural radiation is not going to be as damaging as radiation that's created out of something.

$2: Yes, yes. This is the centre at science. Natural penicillins don't have the side effects that manu- factured penicillin has. They have now discovered-- what's the stuff that diabetics have to use? SI: Insulin. $2: Insulin, natural insulin doesn't have the side effects as the insulin they use.

Despite the differences between these two forms of the argument , both of them share with the pro- nuclear materials a focus on the physical nature of radiation. In other words, if these activists contest the pro-nuclear position, they do so within the onto- logical boundaries set by their antagonists. There was only one respondent who shifted the ontological ground of the debate. S 12 (M) differentiated nuclear

Get t ing U s e d to R a d i a t i o n 105

radiation from natura l radiation by approaching the debate on political/moral grounds. He responded as follows when the interviewer asks, of the CEGB figures 'what do you think of a pie chart like that? Do you think it's convincing?':

[20] It's designed to show you the risk, the relative amount of radioactivity in background. But it's there all the time, always has been there. That's the difference isn't it. You're adding it, but you're adding it in an unnatural way. I mean radon has always been coming out of the earth and people have chosen or not chosen to live near it and man has selected whereas the hadn't chosen somewhere that's gushing out large quantities of radiation into water sources.

The issue here was choice. On the one hand, nuclear radiat ion differs from natura l radiation in that some people have chosen to produce it. On the other hand, nuclear radiation differs from natura l radiation in tha t other people have had no choice as to whether they are exposed to it. In other words nuclear radiat ion is not a fact of life but an act of oppression. Its effects are therefore qualitatively distinct from those of natural radon.

The third argument used against the pro-nuclear position challenges the principle of comparison between 'natural ' and 'man-made' radiat ion but on different grounds to the above. Rather than the two terms being incompatible it is argued tha t they are not independent. If 'natural ' radiation is in par t 'man-made' then it makes no sense to claim tha t the one is bigger than the other. As $7 (F) said, in direct response as soon as the CEGB pie-chart appears on video:

[21] I mean, they are very keen on comparing natural background levels and there's just no way of telling what a natural background level is since all the bomb tests and everything. It's not natural radiation. We're surrounded with a great deal of radiation that's been

produced by people and it may be that it does concen- trate in granite etc. but we should leave it be as much as possible.

The fourth and final a rgument was not to dispute the common categorization of radiat ion from the nuclear industry with radiation from natural sources, but ra ther to reject the idea tha t if radiation was na tura l it was therefore less dangerous. This was clearly expressed by $5 (F) who stopped the video to take issue with the Sellafield scientist when he argued that 'industry' radiation is negligible com- pared with 'natural ' radiation:

[22] I've never understood that argument that because there's a high degree or a varying degree of back- ground variation, we should add to it. Surely, the fact that we've got an additional source of radiation should increase your concern about it, not to say that because this occurs naturally it doesn't matter if we add a bit more.

It is worth noting, however, tha t while a clear majori ty of our respondents challenged the figures (nine out of 12, 75%) or else challenged the principle of comparison in one way or another (eight out of 12, 67%) only three of the 12 subjects (25%) openly challenged the idea of na ture as inherent ly benevo- lent. The relative infrequency of this argument is consonant with our suggestion that, while the mean- ings of 'nature ' may be challenged, on the whole its positivity is taken for granted and the debate there- fore mostly centres on whether objects are 'natural ' or not. Table 4 helps i l lustrate this point by provid- ing a schematic representat ion of the use of the four arguments by the 12 subjects-- though any such table should be regarded with care insofar as it tends to t reat arguments as separate entities ra ther than looking at the connections between arguments.

Discussion

There is a clear assymetry between the pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear materials tha t we analysed. Al- though produced by a var ie ty of different bodies, the pro-nuclear booklets display a remarkable unifor-

TABLE 4 Arguments used by anti-nuclear activists

$1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $7 $8 $9 $10 $11 $12 $13

$ $ • $ $ $ $

$

Argument 1 Argument 2 Argument 3 Argument 4

* Denotes use of an argument. A ~ m " ' ~ ~ ' . . . . . , gu ent 1, distrust of figures; argument 2, natural and man-made radiation quahtat~vely d~fferent; argument 3, natural' radiation as the accumulation of'man-made' radiation; argument 4, all radiation is bad.

106 S. R e i c h e r e t al.

mity. All of them stress the naturalness of radia- tion. They emphasize the common categorization of man-made radiation and radiation from natural sources both as a means of making radiation more familiar and positive and also as a means of display- ing the statistical insignificance of emissions from the nuclear power industry. In contrast, most of the anti-nuclear activists reject the comparisons and go on to dispute the common categorization tha t un- derlies them. In Billig's terms (Billig, 1987, 1991), if the pro-nuclear texts are engaged in a process of categorization, then the anti-nuclear activists dis- pute this through the process of particularization.

In presenting this case, we are not suggesting tha t arguments over the naturalness of radiation are the only grounds of the nuclear debate or even the most important grounds. Clearly, the pro-nuclear pamphlets are trading on other issues as well-- economic arguments, environmental arguments, and so on. What is more, even in terms of the danger constituted by radiation the pamphlets trade on a number of points--most notably the need to accept the scientific authority of experts. Our choice of focus relates as much to the priorities of prior psycho- logical debate as to the priorities of the nuclear debate itself. In other words, it is because we wish to contest the most influential psychological inter- ventions, which have sought to relate opposition to nuclear power to an inherent dread of radiation, tha t we sought to demonstrate the argumentative dimension to the understanding of radiation.

As a consequence we neither had the materials nor did we try to analyse the relationship of argu- ments over the naturalness of radiation to other arguments within the nuclear debate. This is an important issue, but it has not been ours. Similarly, insofar as we sought simply to establish the presence

'of 'naturalness ' arguments we were less concerned than certain discourse analysts with the precise techniques through which the arguments are con- ducted. There is certainly much more fascinating work to be done on such issues as ontological gerrymandering and quantification rhetoric within nuclear controversies which we mentioned only in passing. Once again we do not consider such issues unimportant, it is jus t tha t we have been t ry ing to do something else.

If our approach might fail to match the concerns of a discourse analyst, it is certain tha t much of the analysis will seem strange to the more conventional theorist. In particular, the techniques tha t we used in the interview study may seem decidedly unortho, dox. However, our aim was not so much to make a direct comparison between the positions of pro- and

anti-nuclear respondents but ra ther to analyse the place of certain arguments within the nuclear debate. As we have already said, our aim was therefore to reproduce as far as possible in our research the terms of the nuclear debate. That is why we matched pro-nuclear media against anti-nuclear activists and chose neither to interview pro-nuclear experts nor the non-activist public. Once again, we do not consider the view of these constituencies to be uninteresting. However, both are involved at one remove. The former stand behind the media prod- ucts, the latter are more 'consumers of' ra ther than participants in the debate. Our success in simulat- ing the debate itself can partly be seen from the analysis. Much of what our respondents said was not prompted by questions from the interviewer. Rather, they spontaneously stopped the interview and started arguing with what was said on screen.

Of course, one consequence of our approach is tha t certain aspects of the asymmetry between positions must be put down to the different types of materials tha t we collected from pro- and anti- nuclear sources. One would expect unrehearsed interviews from individual activists to be very different from published materials compiled by professional organizations. This is reflected in the linguistic and logical coherence displayed within the booklets which contrasts strongly with the interview material. Here the material is fragmented, it rarely consists of full or grammatical sentences. Often a variety of arguments are used which rest on mutu- ally exclusive premises. None the less, while such differences of form may be put down to differences of material, there is no reason to suppose that the difference of content can be likewise explained. That is to say, the finding tha t the pro-nuclear sources include nuclear radiation within the category of the natura l and tha t the anti-nuclear sources exclude it cannot be put down to a difference between booklets and interviews. It would be just as easy to be coherent around inclusion and incoherent around exclusion.

However, in using terms such as' 'coherent' and 'incoherent' it is important to guard against a possible misunderstanding. There is a strong ten- dency to distinguish between the expert knowledge of the nuclear industry and the i r ra t ional i ty of the ant i -nuclear movement. Thus, it is claimed that people protest :against the nuclear industry because they make cognitive errors or else they are incap- able of understanding key concepts. Indeed one of the spokespersons for the nuclear industry who is featured on our video dismisses objectors by saying tha t no-one without a physics degree is qualified even to enter the debate. We are not advocating

Get t ing U s e d to R a d i a t i o n 107

such a position. It may be that pro-nuclear planned products may be more coherent than anti-nuclear spontaneous reactions. Had we compared pro- nuclear interviews with anti-nuclear booklets the contrast may well have been in the opposite direc- tion. It may also be that some of the s tatements made by t h e anti-nuclear activists--such as the idea, in extracts 18 and 19, that natural radiation is made up of different particles than man-made radiation, or else the notion, in extract 22, that radon in granite is the concentrated result of human activity--contradict the current scientific consensus. There are, however, three responses to this. The first is tha t the scientific consensus does indeed change. For instance the est imated risk of cancer from body radiation has recently been increased by a factor of 3 (Hughes et al., 1989). The second is that one could also charge the promotional booklets of considerable over-simplification. Simply to assert that the effects of 'natural ' and 'man-made' radia- tion have exactly the same effects on a cell says nothing about the different pathways of different radioactive products and therefore which cells come to be irradiated with what consequences. Third, and most importantly, all these issues of scientific fact are secondary to the rhetoric of categorization.

The nuclear industry seeks to define the category of radiation by stressing that it is natural and that it is associated with quinessentially natural, familiar and benevolent objects. There is nothing actually or logically wrong in locating the essence of the category in this way. However, as Billig (1987) shows, arguing over category essence is not a logical or a factual matter. Why stress the naturalness of the category, why not stress the effects of disturbing organic reproduction? Why focus on familiar radioactive objects, why not focus on the impercepti- bility of radiation? Why the association with life- giving sources such as our very bodies, why not an association with life-taking sources such as the bombs and cancers that destroy our bodies? In each

case the choice of either alternative is equally Sound. The choices are therefore a mat ter of values and priorities, yet they lead to very different defini- tions of what radiation is essentially all about.

For Billig (1987), it is not only the essence of cate- gories but also their boundaries which are a mat ter of rhetorical debate. For the nuclear industry, it is important not only to define radiation more posi- tively, b u t also to define n a t u r a l radiat ion in a COmmon category with man-made radiat~ion due to a COmmon physicality. However, even if one wishes to argue that the two are identical in terms of physical COmposition and biological consequences (and, as

we have shown, that is in itself a mat ter of con- siderable dispute) it is a controversial choice to privilege this level of comparison over others. It would be equally legitimate to suggest other onto- logical levels (such as the origins of the radiation, potential for catastrophe, human responsibility for adverse effects social implications of accepting these effects) in which case the 'natural ' and the 'man- made' would be defined as different rather than similar. Once again, the ontological grounding of this debate cannot be represented through a distinc- tion between the informed and the uninformed, the rational and the irrational. Rather it reflects a difference of values and priorities between pro- and anti-nuclear sources.

Consequently, when anti-nuclear activists are con- fronted by an argument which says that (a) radia- tion from natural sources and from nuclear power generation are comparable as parts of a common category thus (b) the lat ter is of negligible impor- tance, they are displaying no ignorance in challeng- ing both the premise and the conclusion. Our analysis of their responses shows that nine of the 12 activists produced more than one argument and also, tha t some of these arguments rested on contra- dictory premises. For instance, $4 argued both that she felt more secure with natura l radiat ion than with man-made radiation and also that natural radiation was the accumulation of man-made radia- tion. $7 also made the lat ter point, then went on to say that even if natural radiation were a distinct source it would not mat ter since all radiation is bad. As discourse analysts have pointed out (Potter & Wetherell, 1987; Edwards &Pot te r , 1992) this multiplicity and even incompatibility of arguments used by the same person m a k e s i t difficult to identify individuals as having set internal beliefs. Rather, we would argue that respondents are search- ing for culturally available argumentat ive resources in order to challenge a position with which they have jus t been confronted. Subjects may use a variety of such arguments in order to discover where the weak point of their opponent really lies. Some of the arguments may not hang together. Some of the individual arguments may also include scientifically dubious assertions. None the tess, even if some of resources employed in category argu- ments may be based on misinformation, the fact of argument cannot be dismissed in a similar way.

One further point flows from this position. If the activists are deploying culturally available argu- ments, then it should be more common to challenge those aspects of the pro-nuclear position which violate widespread cultural assumptions than those

108 S. R e i c h e r et al .

which rely upon such assumptions. We have argued that, within our society, there is a widespread dis- tinction between the natural as good compared with the man-made as bad. In line with this, we find that one of the main areas in which anti-nuclear activists challenge the pro-nuclear position is where 'natural ' and 'man-made' radiation are equated as par t of a common category. A variety of at tempts are made to distinguish the latter as more objection- able than the former. Equally, only a quar ter of the subjects openly contested the implication that nuclear radiation was less serious by being catego- rized with radiation from natural sources in a natural category.

Thus, qualitative analysis of pro- and anti- nuclear materials shows that the issue of nature is not only of significance when introduced through experimental manipulations. It is also a topic in the nuclear debate. The publicity material from the nuclear industry places great emphasis on nuclear radiation as par t of a natural category--principally through a focus on the physical nature of radiation. Anti-nuclear activists, in response, seek to differen- tiate 'natural ' from 'man-made' radiation. However, their arguments are generally limited in two ways. First, most activists argue within a physicalist ontology. Second, although the evaluative signifi- cance of 'nature' is open to debate, most activists accept the implication that nature is good.

the assumptions up which these positions are based will limit the grounds of democratic debate. If psychology should go further and present value based differences as a contest between rationality and irrationality then the danger to democracy grows.

In terms of the evaluation of nuclear power, OUr study supports the position that there is nothing inherently terrifying in nuclear technology, and its products which renders them particularly terrify. ing. Radiation is not necessarily mysterious nor necessarily familiar. Rather, it is possible to con- strue its mystery or its familiarity. Depending upon the framework in which it is rhetorically placed, nuclear radiation is either a dangerous threat or else an insignificant blip on the background. Thus, before one can calculate the risks from radiation it is necessary to decide upon the categorical frame- work in which it should be placed--which is similar to saying that one must decide what sort of object it is. Such decisions are not the outcome of automatic cognitive processes. Nor are they solely the result of private deliberations. Because of their considerable social and political consequences, the constitution of the category of radiation and its relation to the category of nature is a mat ter of heated public controversy.

A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t

Conc lus ion

The studies reported in this paper provide further evidence of the positive evaluation of the 'natural'. They also confirm that, given the implications of being so defined, the issue of what is to be included within the category of the natural is a key topic of rhetorical debate. In terms of social psychology, this provides support for the argument that the nature of categories should not be taken as given either on a social or an individual level. Rather, they are a focus of argument. Within the process of these arguments both the essence and the scope of the category is up for grabs. What is more, this s tudy reveals the implications of taking categories as if they were given. To take radiation as natural or to reject it from the natural, to categorize nuclear radiation alongside radiation from natural sources or to differentiate the two--both are associated with either a pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear position. While it is par t of a democratic society that people have the right to adopt either position, the danger is precisely that a psychology which reifies some of

This research was made possible thanks to grant no. W104251006 from the Economic and Social Research Council.

Notes

(1) All correspondence should be sent to: S. Reicher, Department of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QG, U.K.

References

Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Billig, M. (1991). Ideology and Opinions. London: Sage. Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D. &

Radley, A. R. (1988). Ideological Dilemmas: A Social PsychologY of Everyday Thinking. London: Sage.

Central Electricity Generating Board (1988). The CEGB and Nuclear Power: Questions and Answers. London: CEGB.

Coward, R. (1989). The Whole Truth. London: Faber. Edwards, D. (1991). Categories are for talking. Theory and

Psychology, 1,515-542. Edwards, D. & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive Psychology. London:

Sage.

Get t ing Used to R a d i a t i o n 109

Eiser, J. R. (1990). Social Judgement. Buckingham, U.K.: Open University Press.

Eiser, J. R. & Van der Plight, J. (1988). Attitudes and Decisions. London: Routledge.

Englander, T., Farago, K., Slovic, P. & Fischoff, B. (1986). A comparative analysis of risk behaviour in Hungary and the United States. Social Behaviour, 1, 55-66.

Hughes, J. S., Shaw, K. B. & O'Riordan, M. C. (1989). Radiation Exposure of the UK Population--1988 Review. London: HMSO.

Kasperson, R. E., Berk, G., Pijawka, D., Sharaf, A. B. & Wood, J. (1980). Public opposition to nuclear energy: retrospect and prospect. Science, Technology and Human Values, 5, 11-12.

Macnaghten, P. (1992). Discourses of nature. In E Burman & I. Parker, Eds., Discourse Analytic Research: Repertoires and Reading of Texts in Action. London: Routledge.

Macnaghten, P., Brown, R. & Reicher, S. (1992). On the nature of nature: experimental studies in the power of rhetoric. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 2, 43-61.

Michael, M. (1991). Discourses of anger and dangerous dis- courses: patrolling the borders of science, nature and society. Discourse and Society, 2, 5-28.

Nealy, S. M., Melber, B. D. &Rankin, W. K. (1983). Public Opinion and Nuclear Energy. Lexington: D. C. Heath.

Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and Social Psychology. London: Sage.

Potter, J., Wetherell, M. & Chitty, A. (1991). Quantification rhetoric--cancer on television. Discourse and Society, 2, 333- 365.

Slovic, P., Fischoff, B. & Lichtenstein, S. (1980). Perceived risk. In R. C. Schwing & W. A. Albers, Eds., Societal Risk: How Safe is Safe Enough? New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S. & Fischoff, B. (1979). Images of disaster: perception and acceptance of risks from nuclear power. In G. T. Goodman & W. D. Rowe, Eds., Energy Risk Management. London: Academic Press.

Spears, S., Van de Plight, J. & Eiser, J. R. (1987). Sources of evaluation of nuclear and renewable energy contained in the local press. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 7, 31-43.

Teigen, K. H., Brun, W. & Slovic, P. (1988). Societal risk as seen by a Norwegian public. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 1,111-130.

Williams, R. (1972). Ideas of nature. In R. Renthall, Ed., Economy, the Shaping Enquiry. London: Longman.

Williams, R. (1976). Keywords: a Vocabulary of Culture and Society. London: Fontana.

Wilson, A. (1992). The Culture of Nature. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Woolgar, S. & Pawluch, D. (1985). Ontological gerrymandering: the anatomy of social problems explanations. Social Problems, 32, 214-227.

Wynne, B. (1989). Frameworks of rationality in risk manage- ment: towards the testing of naive sociology. In J. Brown, Ed., Environmental Threats. Belhaven: London.

Manuscript received 20 August 1992 Revised manuscript received 14 May 1993