Skip to main content

Media, Local Stakeholders, and Alternatives for Nuclear Waste and Energy Facilities

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Stakeholders and Scientists

Abstract

In the early part of the twenty-first century, it appears more likely than ever that the United States will need to consider siting additional nuclear power plants as part of its overall strategy to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. At the same time, there is a continuing need to manage legacy wastes from the nuclear weapon development era, as well as current and future high level wastes from power generation. An important determining factor in the ability to locate and build needed nuclear facilities will be the reaction of the nearby residents. As these proposals and projects are discussed in local arenas, their coverage by local media will serve to inform and possibly shape residents’ views about the facts and issues that are important to ­consider. This chapter discusses the influence of media stories on public perceptions about hazards and risks, and then presents results of a recent content analysis of ­stories about proposed new or expanded projects at existing nuclear power or waste sites. Finally, we describe some implications related to media, local stakeholders, and alternatives for expanding nuclear facilities in the age of the Internet.

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

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
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

References

  • Allen S, Adam B, Carter C (eds) (2000) Environmental risks and the media. Routledge, London & New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansolabehere S (2007) Public attitudes toward America’s energy options: Insights for nuclear energy MIT-NES-TR-08

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball-Rokeach S, Defleur ML (1976) A dependency model for mass-media effects. Comm Res 3:3–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bisconti Research, Inc. (2007) National survey of nuclear power plant communities. For nuclear energy institute. Available at: http:www.nei.org/newsandevents/newsreleases/nuclearpowerplantneighborsaccept.html

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boholm M (2009) Risk and causality in newspaper reporting. Risk Anal 29:1566–1577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breakwell GM (2007) The psychology of risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clay P, Hollister R (eds) (1983) Neighborhood policy and planning. Lexington Books, Lexington

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen BC (1973) The press, the public and foreign policy. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook FL, Tyler TR, Goetz EG, Gordon MT, Protess D, Leff DR, Molotch,HL (1983) Media and agenda-setting: Effects on the public, interest group leaders, policy makers and policy. Pub Op Quart 47:16–35

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Driedger SM (2007) Risk and the media: A comparison of print and televised news stories of a Canadian drinking water risk event. Risk Anal 27:775–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entman RF (1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Commun-ication 43:51–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entman R (2007) Framing bias: Media in the distribution of power. J Comm 57:163–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman DL, Hanahan RA (1996). Public perceptions of a radioactively contaminated site: Concerns, remediation preferences and desired involvement. Environl Health Persp 104:1344–1352

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S, Slovic P, Derby SL, Keeney RL (1981) Acceptable risk. New York: Cambridge University Press

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn J, Slovic P, Kunreuther H (eds) (2001) Risk, media and stigma: Understanding public challenges to modern science and technology. Earthscan, London and Sterling

    Google Scholar 

  • Gertner J (2006) Atomic balm? New York Times July 16:36–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg MR (2009) NIMBY, CLAMP, and the location of new nuclear-related facilities: US national and 11 site-specific surveys. Risk Anal 29:1242–1254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Hollander J, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M (2008) Citizen board issues and local newspaper coverage of risk remediation, and environmental management: six U.S. nuclear weapons facilities. Remediation Journal 18:72–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M, Mayer H (2007) The ultimate LULU? Public reaction new nuclear activities at major weapons sites. J Am Plan Ass 173:346–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg M, West B, Lowrie K, Mayer H (2009) The Reporters Handbook on Nuclear Materials, Energy, and Waste Management. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern-Felsher B, Millstein S, Ellen J, Adler N, Tschann J, Biehl M (2001) Role of behavioural experience in judging risks. Health Psychol 20:120–126

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hernes G (1978) Det mediavridde samfunn. In: Hernes G (ed) Forhandlingsøkonomi og blandingsadministrasjon, Universitetsforlaget, Bergen

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes E, Kitzinger J, Murdock G (2006) The media and risk. In: Taylor-Gooby P, Zinn J (eds) Risk in social science. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Cartee KS (2005) News narratives and news framing: Constructing political reality. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel J, Goble R, Kaperson JX, Ratick SJ (1988) The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Anal 8:178–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenix LJ (2005) A comparison of environmental pollution coverage in the mainstream, african american, and other alternative press. Howard J Comm 16:49–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitzinger J (1999) Researching risk and the media. Health, Risks, Soc 1:55–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kivimaki M, Kalimo R (1993) Risk perception among nuclear power plant personnel: a survey. Risk Anal 13:421–425

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kraft ME, Clary BB (1991) Citizen participation and the NIMBY syndrome: Public response to radioactive waste disposal. West Polit Quart 44:299–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen SC, Brock TJ (2005) Great Basin imagery in newspaper coverage of Yucca Mountain. Geo Rev 95:517–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leading Futurist: Online Influence is Transforming Society (2009). PR Newswire. PR Newswire Association LLC. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-206783545.html. Accessed September 24, 2010

  • Lowrie K, Greenberg M, Waishwell L (2000) Hazards, risk and the press: Newspaper coverage of US nuclear and chemical weapons sites. Risk: Health, Safety, Environ 11:49–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazur A (1990) Nuclear power, chemical hazards, and the quantity of reporting. Minerva 28:294–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCombs ME, Shaw DL (1972) The agenda-setting function of mass media. Pub Op Quart 36:176–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemich C (2006) Boise State survey shows statewide support for INL. http://news.boisestate.edu/newsrelease/032006/0302INLrelease.html. Accessed 26 August 2006

  • Neuman WR, Just MR, Cringler AN (1992) Common knowledge: News and the construction of political meaning. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell C, Rice RE (2008) Coverage of environmental events in US and UK newspapers: ­frequency, hazard, specificity, and placement. Int J Environ Studies 65:637–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Hare M, Bacow L, Sanderson D (1983) Facility siting and public opposition. Van Nostrand and Reinhold, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Opinion: Internet conversations can have valuable print influence (Viewpoint essay) (2007) PR Week (US). Haymarket Media, Inc. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-167247367.html. Accessed 24 Sept 2010

  • Pasqualetti MJ (1987) Decommissioning as a neglected element of nuclear power plant siting policy in the US and UK. In Blowers A, Pepper D (eds) Nuclear power in crisis: Politics and planning for the nuclear state. Nichols Publishing Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavey R (2010) SRS contamination may lead to new procedures. Augusta Chronicle, July 29, 2010, http://chronicle.augusta.com/latest-news/2010-07-29/srs-contamination-may-lead-new-procedures. Accessed 24 Sept 2010

  • Poortinga W, Pidgeon N, Lorenzoni I, et al. Public perceptions of nuclear power, climate change and energy options in Britain; summary findings of survey conducted during October and November 2005. Understanding risk working paper 06–02

    Google Scholar 

  • Portney K (1991) Siting hazardous waste treatment facilities: the NIMBY Syndrome. Auburn House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn O (2008) Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan, London and Sterling

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosa E (2001) Public acceptance of nuclear power: Déjà vu all over again? Physics Soc 30:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosa E (2004) The future acceptability of nuclear power in the United States. Institute Francias des Relations Internationales, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan M (2003) Public relations and the web: organizational problems, gender and institutional type. Pub Relat Rev 29:335–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele DA (1999) Framing as a theory of media effects. J Comm 49:103–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon AF, Jerit J (2007) Toward a theory relating political discourse, media, and public opinion. J Comm 57:254–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer E, Endreny P (1987) Reporting hazards: their benefits and costs. J Comm 37:10–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer E, Endreny P (1993) Reporting on risk. Russell Sage Foundation, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjoberg L (2004) Local acceptance of a high-level nuclear waste repository. Risk Anal 24:737–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Swain KA (2007) Outrage factors and explanations in outrage factors and explanations in news coverage of the anthrax attacks. J&MC Quarterly 84:335–352

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Management (1996) Baseline environmental management report. Available at: http://www.em.doe.gov/bemr/pages/bemr96.aspsx

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Superfund (2009) U.S. DOE Oak Ridge Reservation, Site summary profile. http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/npltn/oakridtn.htm. Accessed 24 Sept 2010

  • U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2008) Expected new nuclear power plant applications, updated March 19, 2008. http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-applications.pdf. Accessed 27 March 2008

  • van der Merwe R, Pitt LF, Abratt R (2005) Stakeholder Strength: PR Survival Strategies in the Internet Age. Public Relations Quarterly. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-853788301.html. Accessed Sept 24 2010

  • Vasterman P, Scholten O, Ruigrok N (2008) A model for evaluating risk reporting: the case of UMTS and fine particles. Europ J Comm 23:319–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venables D, Pidgeon N, Simmons P, Henwood K, Parkhill K (2009) Living with nuclear power: A Q-method study of local communities’ perceptions. Risk Anal 29:1089–1104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wåhlberg A, Sjöberg L (2000) Risk perception and the media. J Risk Res 3:31–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakefield S, Elliott S (2003) Constructing the news: the role of local newspapers in environmental risk communication. Profess Geo 55:216–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Washington State Deparatment of Ecology (2008) Cleaning Hanford’s groundwater. Ecol Pub 08-05-001

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams B, Brown S, Greenberg M, Kahn M (1999) Risk perception in context: the Savannah River site stakeholder study. Risk Anal 19:1019–1035

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wong LT, Fryxell GE (2004) Stakeholder influences on environmental management practices: A study of fleet operations in Hong Kong (SAR), China. Transportation Journal, American Society of Transportation and Logistics, Inc. from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-125229257.html. Accessed 24 Sept 2010

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karen W. Lowrie .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lowrie, K.W., Kennedy, A., Hubert, J., Greenberg, M.R. (2011). Media, Local Stakeholders, and Alternatives for Nuclear Waste and Energy Facilities. In: Burger, J. (eds) Stakeholders and Scientists. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8813-3_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics