Uncertain Communication: Institutional Discourse in Nuclear Waste Repository Siting

  • Claire Mays
  • Marc Poumadere
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (ASID, volume 86)


Nuclear waste management institutions formerly worked under an authoritarian model, which under public pressure has recently yielded to a socially responsive model. Different means of communicating with the public and distributing decision authority are observed; Britain’s Sellafield Repository Project and France’s Mediation to site underground laboratory are studied. Distinct methods of dealing with scientific and social uncertainty are presented.


Waste Management Risk Perception Radioactive Waste Nuclear Waste Political Risk 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Office Parlementaire d’Evaluation des Choix Scientifiques et Technologiques (1990) Rapport sur la gestion des déchets nucléaires à haute activité par C. Bataille. Paris: Author.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McCombie, C. (1995) Perceptions of problem areas in radioactive waste disposal. Proceedings, Global ‘85, 11–14 September.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    OECD-NEA (1991) Second Collective Opinion: Review of Safety Assessment Methods. Paris: Author.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (1991) Moral and ethical issues related to the nuclear waste disposal concept. Pinawa, Manitoba: Author.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mays, C. and Poumadère, M. (in preparation) La perspective de voisinage d’une installation de déchets radioactifs: Adaptations individuelles et collectives. Report to ANDRA and to CNRS Programme Risques Collectifs et Situations de Crise. Cachan, France: Institut SYMLOG.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    OECD-NEA (1995) Third Collective Opinion: Environmental and Ethical Basis of Geological Disposal. Paris: Author.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kemp, R. (1992) The Politics of Radioactive Waste Disposal. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Slovic, P., Layman, M., and Flynn, J. (1991) Risk perception, trust, and nuclear waste: Lessons from Yucca Mountain. Environment 33, 6–11, 28–30.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., and Lichtenstein, S. (1980) Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk. In R. Schwing and W.A. Albers, Jr. (Eds.) How safe is safe enough? New York: Plenum, pp. 181–214.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mays, C. (1992) Public opinion and radioactive waste management. An international comparison: West Cumbria (UK) and France. Implications for risk communicators. Interim report under CEC DG12 contract F12W-0105. Cachan, France: Institut SYMLOG (December).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sjoberg, L. and Drottz-Sjöberg, B.M. (1994) Risk perception of nuclear waste: Experts and the public. Rhizikon Risk Research Report no. 16. Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics Center for Risk Research.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Easterling, D. and Kunreuther, H. (1995) The Dilemma of Siting a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Acamedic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Flynn, J., Chalmers, J., Easterling,D., Kasperson, R., Kunreuther, H., Mertz, C.K., Mushkatel, A., Pijawka, K.D., and Slovic, P. (1995) One Hundred Centuries of Solitude: The Failure of America’s High-level Radioactive Waste Policy and Recommendations for a New Direction. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Poumadère, M. (1995) Enjeux de la communication publique des risques pour la santé et l’environnement. Revue européenne de Psychologie appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology 45, no. 1, 7–16.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Poumadère, M., et al. (199.5) What lies behind public acceptance? Comparison of US and French perceptions of the nuclear power option. Proceedings, IAEA International Conference 59 on the Nuclear Power Option, September 1994. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Allen, P. and Marston, J. (1993) Public information campaign to support a proposed national deep repository for low and intermediate level radioactive waste. Interim report. Baseline survey findings. Guildford, Surrey: University of Surrey, Robens Institute Study no. RII93/PSY/003.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lallement, R. (1993) The “Le Bouchet” affair: Lessons to be learned. In Proceedings, Safewaste ‘83. Paris: Société Française d’Energie Nucléaire.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kasperson, R., Renn, O., Slovic, P., et al. (1988) The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis 8, no. 2, 177–187.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Flynn, J., Slovic, P., and Mertz, C.K. (1993) Decidedly different: Expert and public views of a radioactive waste repository. Risk Analysis 13, 643–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gregory, R., Kunreuther, H., Easterling, D., and Richards, K. (1991) Incentives policies to site hazardous waste facilities. Risk Analysis 11, 667–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kunreuther, H., Fitzgerald, K., and Aarts, T. (1993) Siting noxious facilities: A test of the Facility Siting Credo. Risk Analysis 13, 301–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mission de Médiation sur l’Implantation de Laboratoires de Recherche Souterrains (1993) Rapport du Médiateur. Paris: Author.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Slovic, P., Layman, M., Kraus, N., Flynn, J., Chalmers, J., and Gesell, G. (1991) Perceived risk, stigma, and potential economic impacts of a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Analysis 11, 683–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Daily Telegraph, 24 October 1995.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sellafield Newsletter. (1995) No. 14 (October).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nirex Newsletter. (1995) No. 15 (July).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nirex Newsletter. (1994) No. 8 (December).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mays, C. (1993) What they don’t know can hurt us? In Proceedings, Safewaste ‘93. Paris: Société Française d’Energie Nucléaire.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claire Mays
    • 1
  • Marc Poumadere
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut SymlogCachanFrance
  2. 2.Groupe de Recherche Risque, Information, DécisionEcole Normale Supérieure de CachanCachanFrance

Personalised recommendations