Uniformity or polarization? The nuclear power debate in Japanese newspapers and political coalitions, 1973–2014

ABSTRACT

The image of Japanese mainstream media reporting is dominated by the institution of “press clubs”. Critical researchers argue that these restricted and institutionalized links between mainstream media and their sources lead to uniformity in media reporting. Other researchers contend that Japanese journalists play diverse roles and frame issues in diverse ways. These contrasting theses are explored through an analysis of three major newspaper's framing of nuclear power in article series (rensai). First, we construct a set of frames of the nuclear power issue out of materials from two political alliances: the pronuclear alliance (the so called “nuclear village”), and the antinuclear alliance. We apply and adapt these frames using a sample of newspaper article series from 1973 to 2014. The comparison shows that there are significant differences of reporting both between newspaper organizations as well as between different periods. Especially for the phase after 2011, reporting turns pronouncedly nuclear-skeptical in two newspapers. While not denying press club influence, the analysis cautions against mechanically applying a distinction between “insider” and “outsider” media and calls for new analytical categories to explain the substantial differences of framing between journalists of various “insider” media organizations.

KEYWORDS:

• Framing
• press clubs
• journalism
• qualitative content analysis
• Fukushima
• nuclear power

Introduction

Research on the political role of Japanese media is often concerned with the institution of the press clubs (Hayashi & Kopper, 2014, p. 1142). Press clubs are spaces for journalists installed in various ministries, party headquarters and big companies or business federations. Major media companies dispatch journalists to the most important press clubs to cover important sources (for instance, the Prime Minister’s Office) around the clock. The journalists receive briefings and reports from public relations managers and gain access to sources directly in press conferences and informal background meetings (Freeman, 2000). Freeman argues that the restriction of access to major media companies and the benefits journalists receive in these clubs lead to a strong pro-elite bias of media reporting. Other authors challenge this view and see a more diverse or oppositional role of Japanese mass media (e.g., Kabashima et al., 2010).

Table 1. Pronuclear frames. The “Japanese frames” are displayed in italics

Frames
Progress
Economy
Nuclear Education
Energy Independence
Green Nuclear
Regional Development

Table 2. Antinuclear frames

Frames
Accountability
Runaway
Soft Path
Not-Cost-Effective
Resistance

In this article we explore both theses by analyzing the framing of nuclear power by two political coalitions and comparing it with the framing in Japanese newspapers. We outline the historical development of the political alliances a) promoting nuclear power in Japan, and b) opposing it. In terms of control of press clubs, the pronuclear alliance is much stronger than the antinuclear coalition. To see how this dominance plays out in media framing, we construct a set of frames. We follow Gamson and Modigliani (1989, p. 3) defining a frame as a “structuring principle that journalists use when producing news”. A frame is a cluster of symbols, arguments, images and reasonings showing up repeatedly in a text or movie. To test the press club hypothesis we construct the frames out of materials from the two political groups (appendix one). These frames differ to some degree from existing content analyses of the Japanese nuclear power debate. We argue that analyzing framing on the basis of statements by political coalitions and comparing these frames with the framing in newspapers (instead of only relying on newspaper content to construct the frames), enables us to more precisely depict key cleavages in the nuclear power debate over a long period of time. Comparing these frames with different newspapers’ framing enables us to assess which coalition was able to dominate the news. The construction of the frames as such is a contribution. We also added new “journalistic frames” which were not found in the statements from the political coalitions, when the frames from the political actors did not seem to adequately reflect the newspapers’ framing. The comparison shows that the influence of political coalitions on framing differs by newspaper, especially after 2011. To enable us to limit the sample over a long period of time, the newspaper articles (appendix 3) were limited to article series (rensai), a category mixing news and background reports. We do not claim to show that press clubs do not have any influence, since we would expect their influence most strongly in straight news (for a detailed discussion see section 5). However, the analysis shows that press clubs cannot be regarded as the decisive influence on the framing in article series on nuclear power, because all newspapers in the sample are represented in the same press clubs.

Theories of the political role of Japanese mass media

Studies of Japanese mass media differ in their assessments of the media’s political role. A large body of research is critical of close relations between elites in government, business and the conservative Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). Besides Freeman (2000), many media researchers,¹ media critics² like Iwase (1998), but also journalists,³ criticize uniformity or lack of a critical stance.

Others challenge this view, arguing that Japanese media play different roles in debates concerning different policy issues. Pharr (1996) develops the notion of journalists as “tricksters” adapting to different roles in different situations. Pharr and Krauss (1996) scrutinize the role of journalism in the (short-lived)⁴ fall of the long-term LDP government in 1993. They identify journalism as one major factor that contributed to this development. Multiple researchers argue that since the 1990s the media became a driving force of a more open and pluralistic political system (Kabashima & Steel, 2010; Martin & Steel, 2008). Earlier studies similarly developed models of either media-pluralism (Kabashima & Broadbent, 1986; Reich, 1984), or, in a negative twist, criticized the media for “leftist bias” (Packard, 1966).

Nuclear power reporting in Japan

Similar arguments have been exchanged about nuclear power reporting. The debate intensified after the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi accident. Multiple researchers argue that nuclear power was portrayed too positively during the accident (Mamoru Itō, 2012; Hanada, 2012; Kamide, 2016; Segawa, 2011; Yamada, 2013) and before 2011 (H. Itō, 2002). Others contend that Japanese media were relatively (Ōyama, 1999) or overly critical of nuclear power (Scalise, 2012; Tanaka, 2004). However, many of these assessments are not based on systematic content analyses. Most of the studies based on content analysis focus on editorials (shasetsu). The analysis of editorials indicates that a long-term shift towards more critical reporting took place from the 1950s to present in the Asahi Shinbun (H. Itō, 2005, 2005, 2009; Ōyama, 1999). A limited number of studies focusing on straight news show that reporting was relatively uniform during the immediate crisis of the Fukushima Daiichi accident (for TV: M amoruItō, 2012; for newspapers: Kamide, 2016; Segawa, 2011), but afterwards, polarization increased between different newspapers' editorials (Abe, 2015; H. Itō, 2012).

How do these differences fit with the press club literature? There are different positions in this literature on the stances of newspaper editorials. While Wolferen, 1989, p. 97, as cited in Takekawa, 2007, p. 63) argues that editorial stances differ (but only to conceal broader consensus), Hall argues that:

“The collaboration (and mutual monitoring) among club members themselves contributes to that virtual identity of layout and that bland, noncontroversial conformity of reportage and interpretation so often noted among Japan’s competing news organizations.” (Hall, cited in Freeman, 2000, p. 170)

So, while some authors writing about press clubs acknowledge variation in editorials, but assert uniformity in news coverage, others make us expect uniformity across different formats and titles. To explore these relations we constructed a set of frames to understand the Japanese nuclear power debate. For this purpose, we used materials from the pronuclear and antinuclear coalitions and a sample of newspaper articles.

The pronuclear and antinuclear coalitions

To determine the corpus from which the frames were constructed it is necessary to first describe the political alliances engaging in the nuclear power debate. The Japanese civil nuclear program officially started in 1954 at the initiative of a group of politicians including Shōriki Matsutarō, the owner of the Yomiuri newspaper group who became the first Minister of Science and Technology, as well as later Prime Minister Nakasone Yasuhiro. They forged an alliance for developing nuclear power spanning across parties (the two precursors of the conservative LDP, Socialist Party, and even Communist Party; Katō, 2012) and sectors (scientists, politicians, journalists; Arima, 2008). This became the core of the so-called “nuclear village”, the network of companies, bureaucratic agencies, researchers, and private groups active in building a nuclear industry and promoting nuclear power (Kingston, 2012). Yoshioka (2011) points to the closed character of this network, comparing it to a military-industrial complex. In 1956, they created the Japanese Atomic Industrial Forum (JAIF). The emerging “nuclear village” included utility companies (TEPCO and others), manufacturers (like Toshiba), politicians and bureaucratic bodies (Science and Technology Agency (STA); Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI)) and coordinating forums (Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)) (Yoshioka, 2011). While there was no substantial political group arguing for abandoning civil nuclear energy production until the 1970s (this is true not only for Japan; Radkau, 2011), Japan was in a special situation because it had experienced the atomic bombings. This was one of the reasons why the nuclear power coalition put substantial effort in promoting civil nuclear power.

At the same time, a strong social movement against nuclear weapons developed in alliance with the Socialist Party (JSP) and the Communist Party (JCP). The movement split later and the parties built rival anti-nuclear-weapons organizations (Honda, 2005). A challenge to the Japanese civil nuclear power program emerged with the spread of the antinuclear movement to Japan in the 1970s. The JSP-affiliated anti-nuclear-weapons group (Gensuikin) positioned itself against the civil use of nuclear power (Katō, 2012). In this phase the antinuclear group Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center (CNIC) was formed by critical scientists, most prominently physicist Takagi Jinzaburō, for instance. The antinuclear coalition was supported by the JSP-affiliated Sōhyō Union as well as various women’s groups (Honda, 2005). They organized lawsuits against the construction of nuclear power plants (which had increased since the 1960s). The antinuclear alliance was influenced by the new left student protests of the late 1960s and 1970s and published their views in magazines like Technology and Human (Gijutsu to Ningen; cf. Suga, 2012). The antinuclear coalition benefitted from a wave of citizen protests and environmentalism in the 1970s (Hasegawa, 2004). This trend coincided with the oil crisis of 1973 leading the pronuclear coalition to put increased effort into public relations campaigns. In 1969 the Japanese Atomic Energy Relations Organization (JAERO) was created by the former secretary of the JAIF (JAERO, 1994). Beginning in 1973 the Japan Productivity Centre (JPC), a public foundation based on an alliance between MITI, the business federations and the conservative (Dōmei) labor unions joined the efforts to market nuclear power (Weiss, 2019, pp. 111–179). With the increasing construction of nuclear power plants the JAIF also built up local Atomic Forums (Genshiryoku Kondankai) serving as communication and marketing bases.

From the 1980s on, a “new wave” of the antinuclear movements emerged. This time mobilization of women from the consumer movement, for example, organized in consumer cooperatives (Seikyō), contributed to the movement. Besides criticism by “citizen scientists” like Takagi, popular nuclear-critical books by Hirose Takashi and Kansha Taeko circulated widely (JAERO, 1994). From the 1990s on, environmental protection groups like Greenpeace Japan and FOE Japan joined the antinuclear coalition. Reacting to these trends, the pronuclear alliance used its existing network and financial resources to create a number of pronuclear “citizen groups” (Weiss, 2019). In the world of politics, the JSP had extended its opposition to nuclear weapons to include civil nuclear power after the Chernobyl accident in 1986. The JCP renounced its principally pronuclear stance in 2004 (Katō, 2012).

The 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident led to a revitalization of the antinuclear movement. Now, domestic environmental groups like the alliance Energy-Shift as well as entrepreneurs like Softbank CEO Son Masayoshi joined the effort to promote renewables and replace nuclear energy (Cassegard, 2018). Within both the DPJ and LDP, antinuclear groups gained strength. Consumer activists, critical scientists and environmentalists took to the streets in large scale-demonstrations (Masaaki Itō, 2012).

The framing of nuclear power by the political coalitions

With this landscape of movements and organizations in mind, we proceeded to construct a set of frames out of their statements and materials. We used a qualitative approach to framing, combining deductive and inductive elements. To ascertain some comparability we used the frames constructed by Gamson and Modigliani (1989) in their influential paper on the nuclear power debate in the US. Because of differences in the cultural and political economic environment, it would be insufficient to simply try to find the US frames in the Japanese material. The cultural background in which the frames are used can be expected to differ to a considerable extent. Thus, we adjusted Gamson and Modigliani’s frames wherever they appeared insufficient to display significant aspects of the Japanese debate and constructed new “Japanese frames”. Because we do not use quantitative validity tests, we described the frame elements in depth and provided a codebook (appendix 2) to make the coding of the frames as transparent as possible (Matthes, 2007, p. 64).

Frames of the pronuclear coalition

The pronuclear frames were constructed out of PR material published by the pronuclear coalition from 1973 to 2014. This timeframe was chosen because the antinuclear coalition formed in the 1970s and the accidents of Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011 might have triggered significant changes. Of course, the coalitions published numerous materials during this period, but by combining existing analyses and primary sources we hope to achieve some degree of saturation.

For the pronuclear coalition we constructed six major frames, two of them having direct corresponding frames in Gamson and Modigliani’s codebook.

Gamson and Modigliani see Progress as one of the important frames in the nuclear power debate. Gamson (1992, p. 240) underlines that this frame includes both a vision of steady development towards a better world aided by the development of new technologies, nuclear power being one of them, and the discursive separation of atomic bombs and electricity generation. Important symbols in this frame include records like numbers of kilowatt/hour of electricity production, the conquest and control of natural phenomena through science and technology (kagaku gijutsu) (for instance, the use of radiation in medicine and research), as well as heroic characters like scientists and technicians (in particular, the local workers in nuclear power plants frequently appear in PR materials). Another element of pronuclear PR is safety. Here the pronuclear coalition uses phrases like “multi-level-protection” (tajū bōgo) and “take all possible measures” (banzen wo kisu). Figure 1 shows a newspaper advertisement containing some of these symbols.

Figure 1. JAERO advertisement showing Progress elements, for example the separation of nuclear bombs and nuclear power (AS, 1974)

Gamson and Modigliani (1989) also include arguments concerning economic growth and electricity prices in this category. We did, however, code this as a distinct frame and labeled it Economy. The pronuclear coalition often underlines the danger of erosion of the industrial base of Japan as a construction superpower (monozukuri taikoku). Also the threat of price hikes (neage) for consumers is a recurring theme in PR materials by the pronuclear coalition (see figure 2 for an advertisement visualizing elements of this frame). In a positive twist of this frame, the pronuclear coalition underlines the chances of increasing exports by building up a dynamic nuclear industry.

Figure 2. JAERO advertisement with Economy elements. The letters on the iceberg say “high price”

A second pronuclear frame identified by Gamson and Modigliani is Energy Independence. This framing underlines the scarcity of natural resources. In this context, Japan is often labelled a “resource-poor country” (shigen shōkoku). The advertisement by JAERO from 1974 displayed in figure 3 contains many Energy Independence elements:

Nuclear power is indispensable as a new energy source that replaces oil. Our country is scarce in resources (shigen ni toboshii) and always had to import large parts of its energy from foreign countries to keep its standard of living. But recently the oil price has risen and the world energy supplies could be used up within 30 years (…). New energy sources like solar power, nuclear fusion and hydrogen are promising, but they need much time and effort to be put to use. That’s why we have to gain a large part of our energy from nuclear power. (AS, 1974)

Figure 3. JAERO advertisement with Energy Independence elements. The bear symbolizes Russia as a threat to Japanese energy security (YS, 1975b)

Another important aspect of this framing are warnings of blackouts. Besides autonomy in terms of raw materials, autonomy in terms of technology is a recurring theme. In a 1977 newspaper interview with two managers from the nuclear industry they ask:

Has the Japanese nuclear industry developed the bad habit of depending on the US, and can it never become independent? (…). We must build more plants and gather experience to improve reactors. (AS, 1977)

Especially the fast breeder reactor, which is designed to produce plutonium out of uranium, and can re-use the plutonium produced in this way as fuel, was thought to create a nuclear fuel cycle (kaku nenryō saikuru) opening the path towards a completely independent energy production. It was often referred to as the “reactor of dreams” (yume no genshiro) by the pronuclear coalition (e.g., Arima & Sano, 1999, p. 83).

Besides these two frames, we identified three pronuclear symbol clusters that cannot be found in Gamson and Modigliani’s study of the US debate. We labelled one of them Nuclear Education. A central argument in this framing is that because of the historical experiences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese developed an irrational “nuclear allergy” against anything nuclear. Prime Minister Satō in 1969 used the metaphor to discredit protests against the stay of nuclear powered US military ships in Japanese harbors (referring to an allergy against nuclear weapons). Later, the pronuclear coalition used this metaphor to dismiss sentiments against nuclear electricity production (Hook, 1984). To cure the “allergy”, the pronuclear coalition calls for various kinds of Nuclear Education. Buzzwords are “radiation education” (hōshasen kyōiku) and “the right knowledge” (tadashii chishiki). A pronuclear NPO called Radiation Education Forum, founded in the 1990s with support from the pronuclear coalition, claims in its founding document:

Our aim is to strengthen the righteous judgement of citizens, build human capital in this field and improve school and social education. We will spread the right knowledge (tadashii chishiki) and contribute to the public good. (Radiation Education Forum [REF], 2010, p. 1)

Recurring themes in “radiation education” are also the existence of natural radiation and radiation in everyday life. Besides “radiation education,” the pronuclear coalition argues for “energy education”. The Japan Productivity Center for example, argues that especially housewives should be targeted with energy education. They should know how much energy they use and have sufficient knowledge about energy problems (Japan Productivity Center [JPC], 1996, pp. 22–23). Connections to everyday life serve as an educational device. The pronuclear coalition conducts energy cooking events pointing to the constant need for electricity in modern everyday life, for instance (Weiss, 2019). The Nuclear Education frame is based on the assumption that the spread of “the right knowledge” will lead to public acceptance of nuclear power and foster a general pronuclear consensus. If this idea does not materialize, the blame is put on either “the Japanese”, who are deemed ignorant, or on troublemakers like the antinuclear coalition:

(…) all of us first have to correctly understand what the problem of nuclear power means. The stance of the Japanese is to reject knowing about this right from the start. That’s why the nuclear power problem is not a simple energy problem, but a social problem. (S. Yamamoto, 1976, p. 1)

Connected to the idea of achieving consensus through Nuclear Education of the people is also a negative view of those who, in the view of the pronuclear coalition, pose obstacles to consensus, i.e. the antinuclear coalition (a picture symbolizing the negative view of conflict contained in Nuclear Education frames is shown in figure 4):

The quarrel (sawagi) about freedom of information (jōhō kōkai) (…) when the opponents clamor that information isn’t disclosed, or that the construction of a power plant is pushed through by force. All these are excuses helping them to find a reason for being against everything. (JAERO, 1994, p. 41)

Figure 4. JAERO advertisement showing Nuclear Education elements. The two characters of the word freedom form two fists, one labelled “pro” and the other one “anti”. The underlying assumption is that freedom without guidance or “education” by those who are in charge only leads to unnecessary quarrels (YS, 1975c)

Green Nuclear is another frame that does not appear in Gamson and Modigliani’s survey. The pronuclear coalition argues that nuclear power is a clean energy source, because it does not emit CO2 and does not cause oil leaks or the like in the process of energy production. A TEPCO newspaper advertisement from 1973 (figure 5) shows a kid with a dog walking on a shoal. The sun is reflected on the shallow water, in the background a coastline is visible. The text says:

This ocean is my irreplaceable mother. Nature is irreplaceable. Home is irreplaceable. Even during the necessary production of electricity we won’t let nature be polluted. We work for clean energy production with full power. Clean nature shall stay clean! (cited in Honma, 2014, p. 42)

Figure 5. TEPCO advertisement showing Green Nuclear elements described above (from Honma, 2014, p. 42)

The advertisement shows that from a relatively early period, the pronuclear coalition marketed nuclear power as clean energy in Japan. The Green Nuclear frame became more prominent with the rise of the issue of global warming and climate change. Since 1990, the “Nuclear Almanac” published annually by JAIF underlines the utility of nuclear power against climate change (JAIF, 1990). In a plan drafted by METI (Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry, the successor of MITI) in 2010 envisaging Japan as an “established nuclear nation” (genshiryoku rikkoku) with 50% of energy supply delivered by nuclear power plants, the pronuclear coalition argued that nuclear power is an “ace” in the struggle against climate change (Sōgō Shigen Enerugī Chōsakai, 2010, p. 3).

Another important framing by the pronuclear alliance is Regional Development. This frame is also not present in Gamson and Modigliani’s survey. In this framing, building nuclear power plants is connected to the economic and cultural development of peripheral regions in Japan. These are the regions where nuclear power plants are located. Yoshimi cites a PR movie about Japanese nuclear power plants:

Futaba on the coast of Fukushima was in the past called “the Tibet of Fukushima” and was afflicted by severe depopulation. This has clearly changed. The population has grown, streets, sports facilities and schools were built. The municipal and the per-capita income increased. The nuclear power plant lives and develops together with the people of the region. (cited in Yoshimi, 2012, p. 267)

This frame could also be categorized as part of the Progress frame. However, we distinguished the two because at the core of Regional Development is an argument about creating equal development between periphery and center, or sharing benefits. This was part of the political debate in the early 1970s when Prime Minister Tanaka Kakuei introduced subsidies for nuclear power plant locations. Tanaka argued:

The main reason why the construction of power plants doesn’t take off due to the antinuclear movement is that the construction of plants doesn’t bring any profit to the regions. (cited in Fukui Shinbunsha, 2012, p. 80)

The pronuclear alliance emphasizes the “tradition of coexistence” (kyōson) of local people with nuclear power plants:

Over 40 years ago [the village] Ōi took the decision to invite the nuclear power plant of Kansai Electric Power, even though the village was split in half over this question. The region has painstakingly developed through coexistence with the plant. (Fukui Shinbunsha, 2012, p. 120)

This argument can also be turned into a weapon against the antinuclear alliance by claiming that they ignore the tradition and livelihood of the people from peripheral regions. Such a reasoning can be found in comments by “pronuclear citizens” in the discussion forums sponsored by the AEC:

The (main) energy consuming areas should try harder to understand the pain of the energy producing areas. The inhabitants of consuming areas should become more aware of their energy and electricity consumption. The people from the metropolitan centers, who consume large amounts of energy should not easily say “pro” or “anti”. (AEC, 1999, point 4.3)

Keeping in mind that the antinuclear movement in Japan is stronger in metropolitan areas (compare for example, Machimura & Satō, 2016, p.9, Figure 4⁵), this frame challenges the antinuclear coalition’s Soft Path frame (see section 4 below), which portrays nuclear power plants as having been forced on peripheral communities. Figure 6 shows an advertisement with elements of the Regional Development frame. Table 1 lists the frames of the pronuclear coalition.

Figure 6. JAERO advertisement showing Regional Development elements. The characters on the electricity cable mean Kashiwazaki, an − at the time the sketch was published − contested location designated to host Japan’s largest nuclear power complex. The caption says: “Japan’s energy becomes the energy of the peripheral regions” (YS, 1975a)

Frames of the antinuclear coalition

From materials of the antinuclear coalition, we constructed five frames. Four of them can also be found in the Gamson and Modigliani survey.

One central argument by the antinuclear coalition is the attribution of Accountability to the “nuclear village”. Gamson (1992) describes this frame as a justice argument and sees it as key factor for the mobilization of the antinuclear movement.

Scientists and progressives questioned the motives and integrity of politicians suspected to aim at building nuclear weapons as early as the start of the nuclear program, but since the 1970s an Accountability framing began to be directed against the civil use of nuclear power (Radkau, 2011). Gamson (1992, p. 240) distinguishes between a softer and a harder version of Accountability. In one version, accidents and trouble in nuclear power production are criticized, but without assuming bad intentions. In the other version, actors of the pronuclear alliance are portrayed as malevolent and irresponsible. Recurring themes are the cover-up of accidents and dangers posed by radiation. In journals like Technology and Human speakers influenced by the student and new left movements criticized the nuclear industry. This can be seen from headlines like “the nuclear administration has begun to run amok” (Shimizu et al., 1974), “the true extent of contamination in Tsuruga and Fukushima”, “the strategy of the nuclear rulers”, and “nuclear power subsidies and information fascism” (Gijutsu to Ningen, 1976). Popular nuclear power critics from the antinuclear “new wave” of the 1980s like Hirose Takashi, and critical scientists like Takagi Jinzaburō both use the strong version of the Accountability framing. Hirose for example, talks about the alleged killing of people recruited by force to help contain the radioactive debris in Chernobyl (Hirose, as cited in Noguchi, 1988, p. 268) and labels a nuclear waste facility in Aomori prefecture as “the devil of the Shimo-Kita peninsula” (Suga, 2012). Takagi claims that the Japanese government handled nuclear accidents and disclosure of information similar to the Soviet government’s handling of the Chernobyl accident (Takagi, 1987). Iida Tetsunari, a former METI bureaucrat who became a prominent critic of nuclear power, coined the term “nuclear village” for the pronuclear coalition, because of its closed and collusive character:

By working in the field of nuclear power a kind of closed class consciousness and group coherence is developed. Forums like the Atomic Energy Commission and advisory councils are nothing but an excuse for the government to appear neutral. (Iida in Shūkan Asahi, 2002, p. 140)

Words like “cover-up” (inpei), “hiding” (kakushi), “manipulation” (kaizan), “nuclear money” (genpatsu manē), “sleaze” (yuchaku) and “waste of (tax) money” (mudazukai) indicate the strong version of the frame, when used in the context of nuclear power.

The weaker version is more often used by allies of the pronuclear coalition. One of their speakers for example, argues that instead of the terms Accountability and information disclosure (jōhō kōkai), the softer wording “responsibility to explain” (setsumei sekinin) should be used (Shimabayashi et al., 2008, p. 169). Actors with a more positive view of the pronuclear coalition use words like task (kadai) and lesson (kyōkun) when talking about accidents. Figure 7 shows bureucrats of the Nuclear Industry Safety Agency (NISA) that became a symbol of lack of Accountability during the Fukushima accident.

Figure 7. A picture of the Nuclear Industry Safety Agency (under the umbrella of METI) during a press conference in the midst of the Fukushima Dai'ichi accident. The agency was widely criticized for lack of Accountability during and after the accident (Utsukushii chikyū kankyō wo mamoru tame ni ikimono jakusha ni shien wo, 2012)

Runaway is a key frame used by the antinuclear coalition to question the legitimacy of energy production based on nuclear power. This framing emphasizes the risk of science and technology running out of control and turning against its creators. It assumes that nuclear power poses an unparalleled risk to mankind (and the environment) because of its power and the silent and invisible danger of radiation accompanying it. Wider cultural references for this framing in Europe include for example, Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” and Goethe’s “Sorcerer’s Apprentice” (Dahinden, 2002; Gamson & Modigliani, 1989, p. 20). It includes religious criticism of science but also more rationalistic arguments like the observation that accidents necessarily happen (Perrow, 1984). Gamson (1992, p. 240) notes that in this framing the separation of civil use and nuclear weapons is neglected. The (essentially) same technology brings the same risk, which is a grave one.⁶ This frame was used by the antinuclear movement from the 1970s onward. It can, for instance, be found in the writings of Takagi Jinzaburō:

If an accident on the scale of Chernobyl happens, this is not a problem that could be dealt with by an apology. No, we will all be dead then and also the nuclear power managers will be dead. Nobody will complain and nobody will be held accountable. Maybe that is actually what scientists, politicians, managers and PR people think, who claim that nuclear power is safe. (Takagi, 1987, p. 21)

Hirose Takashi also uses this frame frequently, for example, when he speaks of “the day, when Hokuriku will disappear from the map” (Hirose, 1987). Perhaps the most influential formulation of this frame is Takagi’s critique of the inability of the nuclear industry to come up with a feasible plan of nuclear waste management. He coined the metaphor of an “apartment without a toilet” (toire naki manshon), where rubbish keeps piling up, to describe nuclear power (Takagi, 1987). The Runaway frame was also reformulated by seismologist Ishibashi Katsuhiko, who coined the term “nuclear earthquake catastrophe” (genpatsu shinsai), and, after the Kobe earthquake in 1995, warned that an earthquake could trigger a nuclear accident (Ishibashi, 1997). Figure 8 shows a picture emphasising Runaway elements.

Figure 8. A picture showing the alleged contamination of the Pacific Ocean after 2011 (http://radioactivetokyo.seesaa.net/upload/detail/image/ASRE7A4BEE6B5B7E6B48BE6B19AE69F93E59CB0E59BB3-thumbnail2.jpg.html)

Soft Path is another prominent frame used by the antinuclear alliance. In Gamson’s codebook the core arguments are that large-scale technological projects and waste of resources destroy the environment and are not sustainable. This is connected to the call to change one’s own lifestyle by saving resources and using renewable energy. Figure 9 shows a famous picture contaning Soft Path elements. Criticism of centralization as essentially undemocratic and the call for decentral energy solutions are also important (Gamson, 1992, p. 240). From Gamson’s codebook it becomes clear that he sees Soft Path in contrast to Runaway as focusing not on the unique danger from nuclear power, but its embeddedness in an idea of protecting a wider environment. A point that does not appear in Gamson’s codebook but in his quotations is the connection between society and nuclear power. The yes or no to nuclear power is interpreted as a fundamental choice influencing the development of society. In Japan, the antinuclear alliance took over the Soft Path frame from the 1970s onward. At an annual meeting of Gensuikin for example, a speaker argued:

The atom should be rejected, be it the peaceful use or the military use. Otherwise mankind has no future. Now is the time to conduct a radical value change and to reject nuclear civilization and build an antinuclear civilization opening a beautiful, thorough way of life for humans. (…) develop alternative energy sources (…) return the way of life to natural simplicity. Return from the conquest of nature to a life listening to nature. (Katō, 2012, p. 21)

Figure 9. A picture from the cover of the magazine published by the famous anime production company Studio Ghibli, showing Soft Path elements. In the front, celebrated director Miyazaki Hayao walks with a sign saying “no nukes”. The caption says “Studio Ghibli wants to make movies without nuclear power” (https://img.cinematoday.jp/a/byAHfsoKXEGd/_size_640x/_v_1314277457/main.jpg)

This “democracy argument” can also be discerned in Takagi’s writings:

First, because large-scale science (kyodai kagaku) produces discrimination (sabetsu), between citizens on the one hand and scientists on the other hand, equality has to be established. Second, large-scale scientific research may not be conducted top-down with hierarchical pressure. (AS, 1979)

In this framing, an often idealized countryside is contrasted with the invading nuclear power plant forced upon the local people by the metropolitan center. In an inversion of the Regional Development frame, nuclear power is portrayed as threatening the livelihood and harmony of marginalized land-dwellers:

Since I started engaging in activism against nuclear power I traveled the whole country, and, strangely, I came to see the most beautiful places of Japan. This is really strange, but they try to build nuclear power plants in the most beautiful places in Japan. (Hirose, 1987, p. 61)

[In communities where pronuclear and antinuclear groups organize] people say: “This house is pro, this house is anti”. The village community splits into two. “I won’t carry the portable shrine with these people”. In this way the regional culture is destroyed. (Anzai et al., 2012, p. 16)

Finally, references to life (seimei, inochi), motherhood and children figure prominently in Japanese versions of the Soft Path frame. Especially the motherhood references might be specific to the Japanese antinuclear movement (compare Lam’s (1999) book on the green movement in Japan). Kansha Taeko, herself a mother-turned-antinuclear activist from Kyushu, uses Soft Path elements in an influential book published during the “new wave” of the 1980s:

The trees are radiant in verdant green. You hear the chirping of the birds. Everything looks so peaceful. I can hardly believe that in secrecy such a thing [the construction of nuclear power plants] is being done. We mothers wish nothing more than for our children to grow up healthily. We cannot forgive somebody threatening their life (seimei). (…) To protect the life of my unborn child I want to scream out loud “Away with nuclear power!” (Kansha, 2011, pp. 154–157)

The rejection of the cost-efficiency argument is another frame frequently used by the antinuclear movement. In the Not-Cost-Effective frame the antinuclear coalition argues that nuclear power is actually more expensive than other energy sources. Figure 10 shows a picture visualizing the financial burden from nuclear power. Critics of nuclear power underline that alternatives like renewables create green growth, and sticking to nuclear power is inhibiting future growth potentials. To limit the power of the utilities, the antinuclear alliance argues for a separation between energy production and transport (hassōden bunri) and a liberalization of the energy market (jiyūka). Takagi for example, claims that by building up nuclear power quickly on the basis of wrong projections of electricity demand, the utilities actually ended up with an over-supply of electricity:

Since 1982 nobody is talking about saving electricity anymore (…). We have an overproduction of electricity. Now the utilities even try to expand the sale of electric household appliances even though this is really the business of the electronics industry. (Takagi, 1987, p. 25)

Figure 10. A picture published in the newspaper Tokyo Shinbun showing Not-Cost-Effective elements. On the bottom, normal citizens carry trillions of yen for decommissioning the wrecked Fukushima Daiichi reactors (Tokyo Shinbun Web, 2016)

Iida Tetsunari argues to quickly introduce mechanisms to foster the growth of renewable energy:

Germany (…) has become the largest producer of wind power plants in the world (…). Most wind power plants were built after a feed-in-tariff system was introduced. In Denmark the production of wind power systems became an export industry and brought 20,000 jobs. (AS, 1999)

Finally, in some parts of the antinuclear movement the call for Resistance follows from the Accountability and Runaway frames. Before 2011, this frame was influential in groups affiliated with the new left. For instance, a poem published in a book by the antinuclear movement and written by elementary school students from the village Mutsu, a place where prominent protests against the maiden voyage of a nuclear powered ship took place, says:

From the boat, the fishermen are screaming: Resistance! The Mutsu Bay is ours! The nuclear ship is dangerous (…). Even if we die, we will fight the nuclear ship! We will defend the scallops! (Genbaku no Taiken wo Tsutaeru Kai, 1975, p. 40)

Resistance is the only antinuclear frame in our sample not relating to any frame in the Gamson and Modigliani study. After the Fukushima Daiichi accident, Resistance frames gained prominence not only in calls for action, but also in calls for democratizing energy policy Figure 11. Table 2 shows the frames of the antinuclear coalition.

Figure 11. The cover of the catalogue of a retail company calling for a referendum on nuclear power after the Fukushima Daiichi accident (It’s a New World (Blog), 2011)

Political frames and journalistic frames

All researchers cited above agree that the pronuclear coalition is far more powerful than the antinuclear one. In terms of media control, they are in charge of key press clubs like the Energy Press Club run by the utility federation, METI’s and other government institutions’ clubs as well those of TEPCO (cf. Uesugi & Ugaya, 2011). So we would expect this control to show up in the newspaper framing.

Sample and methods for the newspaper content analysis

To test this thesis, we compared the political frames in the debate with the media framing. We conducted a frame analysis of the newspapers Asahi Shinbun, Mainichi Shinbun, and Yomiuri Shinbun. These newspapers were chosen because they had the highest circulations during the period from 1973–2014. The currently largest newspaper, Yomiuri Shinbun, had a circulation of 5.51 million in 1970 and stood at slightly over 10 million in 2008, dropping to 8.09 million in 2019. The second largest, Asahi Shinbun, stood at 5.99 million in 1970 and 8.03 million in 2008, dropping to 5.59 million in 2019. The third largest, Mainichi Shinbun, stood at 4.66 million in 1970 and 3.8 million in 2008, dropping to 2.43 million in 2019 (Hirobay (Blog), 2009; J-Cast, 2019; both based on data published by the Japan Audit Bureau of Circulations).

To limit the article population we only focused on the genre of article series (rensai). In this way, we arrived at a total of 2,846 articles on the topic of nuclear power published in article series from 1973 to 2014. The focus on article series widens the scope from editorials (shasetsu), which have been the focus of most systematic analyses of framing of nuclear power in Japanese newspapers (Abe, 2015; H. Itō, 2004, 2005, 2009, 2012; Ōyama, 1999), but at the same time allows us to limit the sample to trace reporting over a long period of time. Article series range from mini-series of three articles to long-term series with up to several hundred articles (see appendix 3).⁷ They usually provide background reports, but mostly relate to recent events considered important by journalists and editors. Some article series are written by senior editors (henshū i’in) who have more freedom in their choice of topics than young reporters in press clubs. Others are written by teams of reporters, some of them stationed in press clubs, reporting incidents like nuclear accidents, the start-up of new power plants or facilities, or recent political or economic developments. Some article series also explicitly aim at producing straight news.

While the format is usually not (or not only) the report from an official source (happyō) generated in press clubs, the journalists contributing to article series retain press club membership, and at times, series are initiated through press clubs, for example, when journalists are invited for a tour of nuclear facilities (interview with Makino Kenji, Mainichi Shinbun). Series can also take the form of tie-ups initiated directly or indirectly (via the newspaper company management) by government agencies or companies, often coupled with symposia and advertisements (interview with Matsuzawa Hiroshi). While article series leave more room for independent agenda-setting than straight news, they display the whole range of reporting from business- or government-initiated reporting to independent journalistic agenda-setting. It is thus perhaps safe to say that – while less indicative of press club influence than straight news – article series provide us with a measure of reporting closer to everyday news than editorials, which are usually written by senior editors and published after being discussed with other senior journalists.

The search was conducted in the newspaper databases using multiple keywords like “nuclear power”, “reactor”, and names of various nuclear accidents and organizations involved in nuclear policy. We identified the full set of article series dealing with nuclear power over the period in question. Out of this sample we analyzed every third article for the period before 2011 and every fifth article after 2011 (only every tenth article of average length for the Asahi Shinbun due to the high number of overall articles in this newspaper after 2011).⁸ We analyzed 687 articles in total. For the period after 2011 we used not the number of articles but the average number of characters in an article to sample. This serves to adequately represent the differing length of articles during that period.⁹ We coded single passages and phrases with the frames explicated above. From the sum of these passages we coded up to three main frames for every article. We also kept the option to code articles as “without mainframe” when they did not fit any of the frames. In both the “political corpus” and the “newspaper corpus” we used open coding, adapting codes (and constructing new frames) when necessary (Gläser & Laudel, 2010).

Newspaper frame analysis

First, the number of articles varies by year. The numbers by newspapers show some contrasting trends but also similarity (Figure 12).

Figure 12. Article numbers from 1973 to 2010

In general, the Asahi published by far the most article series. The Yomiuri and the Mainichi published similar overall numbers, but with different distributions over time. Overall article numbers rose in the mid- to late 1970s, but to quite different degrees. Then, all newspapers’ article numbers dropped to nearly zero in the first half of the 1980s. From the mid- to late 1980s, article numbers rose again, and stayed at a relatively constant level afterwards. The Mainichi showed a peak in 1990 but before and afterwards coverage remained lower than that of the other two newspapers. From the mid-1990s through 2010 the article numbers of the Asahi and the Yomiuri stayed on a roughly similar level. Figure 13 shows the overall distribution of article numbers.

Figure 13. Article numbers from 1973 to March 2014

In the three years after the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi accident the articles in all three newspapers increased rapidly. The numbers for the Asahi rose to 1,413 articles in three years compared to slightly fewer than 300 articles respectively for the other newspapers. Of course we would expect an increase of coverage after a major event such as the Fukushima Daiichi accident, but still from the perspective of agenda-setting, at least for some periods press clubs do not seem to be the most important factor influencing the quantity of article series. Besides these differences between time periods, the differences in quantity of coverage between the newspapers are notable. But what about the framing of nuclear power? From the newspaper analysis we constructed two genuine journalistic frames of nuclear power, which we did not find in the political corpus. We named one frame Hurdles because it depicts difficulties and obstacles that have to be overcome to develop nuclear technology in the future, without questioning the technology as such. It can be seen as a softer form of Progress framing and it often accompanies the softer version of Accountability, but is not very prominent on the whole. It appears most often in the Asahi from the 1990s onward. We also coded one additional neutral frame after 2011. We labelled it Victims because it focuses on the plight of victims of the nuclear accident (mainly evacuees), but it avoids any attribution of Accountability or general verdicts about nuclear power. This frame is most prominent in Yomiuri, but also appears in Asahi and Mainichi.

In the Asahi during the early phase of reporting until the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986, a positive framing of nuclear power remains dominant. Progress and Energy Independence figure most prominently. After 1986, the coverage becomes more balanced. Antinuclear frames like Runaway and Accountability gain prominence. On the whole, the balance in the Asahi rests slightly in favor of pronuclear framing. Figure 14 shows the framing in the Asahi before 2011.

Figure 14. Framing in the Asahi Shinbun, 1973–2010

The Yomiuri is more clearly pronuclear. Here the frame balance is on the pronuclear side over the whole period, with one small exception in 1989. In contrast to the Asahi, framing of nuclear power plants becomes increasingly positive from the mid-1990s through 2010. In the Yomiuri, Progress, Nuclear Education, Energy Independence and Green Nuclear frames make up 81% of the main frames before 2011. Figure 15 show the framing of the Yomiuri before 2011.

Figure 15. Main frames in the Yomiuri Shinbun, 1973–2010

The Mainichi builds a contrast to the two other newspapers for the period before 2011. Here the framing of nuclear power is more often negative than positive. Accountability (21%) and Runaway (15%) frames appear most frequently. On the other hand, Progress (12%), Nuclear Education (10%), and Regional Development (9%) are also prominent. Figure 16 shows the framing of the Mainichi before 2011.

Figure 16. Main frames in the Mainichi Shinbun, 1973–2010

The impact of “Fukushima”

From the article numbers alone it becomes clear that the impact of the nuclear accident on media reporting was high. In the three years after the Fukushima Daiichi accident the newspapers published 57 times as many articles as in the three years before.

The most dramatic change can be observed in the Asahi. Here, positive framing disappears almost completely. Now Accountability, Runaway, and Soft Path together add up to 72% of all frames. Figure 17 shows the framing in the Asahi after 2011.

Figure 17. Main frames in the Asahi Shinbun, 4/2011–3/2014

Figure 18. Main frames in the Mainichi Shinbun, 2011–3/2014

The Mainichi shows a similar trend, but it is less pronounced since the overall tendency was antinuclear well before 2011. Here, a margin of about 10% of frames remain pronuclear, but the rest resembles the framing in the Asahi. Figure 18 shows the framing in the Mainichi after 2011.

Figure 19. Main frames in the Yomiuri Shinbun, 2011–3/2014

The Yomiuri is the only newspaper in the sample still framing nuclear power in a positive way after 2011. The most important change is that neutral frames rise from nearly zero to about one third. Figure 19 shows the framing in the Yomiuri after 2011¹⁰ Among the pronuclear frames, Green Nuclear (from eight to only one percent) declines. Nuclear Education becomes the most prominent frame (20%) followed by Progress (18%). Victims adds up to 15% of frames in the Yomiuri.

Conclusion

From analyzing the political and journalistic statements, we can see that the press club thesis hardly explains the media framing of nuclear power in article series. Figure 20 shows the overall tendency of framing before 2011.

Figure 20. Tendency of main frames, 1973–2010

While there is arguably some extent of “uniformity” and pro-elite bias before 2011 in the Asahi and especially the Yomiuri, for the sample from the Mainichi this does not hold. For the period after 2011, a polarization between the Yomiuri on the one pole and the Asahi and the Mainichi on the other pole can be observed. Figure 21 shows the overall tendency of framing after 2011.

Figure 21. Tendency of main frames after 2011

These findings are in line with existing research based on the analysis of editorials (Abe, 2015; H. Itō, 2012). Because of the specific character of the sample, the differences do not disprove the claims concerning press clubs and uniformity, but they allow for a more nuanced evaluation especially for the period after 2011. Commentators concerned with the political economy of the media (Honma, 2014; Lill, 2017) note that press clubs are not the only mechanism for controlling the media. Historical studies of the press club system note that in the prewar phase, press clubs often served as a means for journalists to protect their freedom against the interests of powerful sources and newspaper managers (Kawasaki, 2009, pp. 1–2). Also, in the postwar era at times press clubs came into conflict with power holders. For example, in 1976 the conservative Ishihara Shintarō, then head of the Environmental Agency, clashed with the agency’s press club (Saitō, 2003). The newspapers of Okinawa also have very different standpoints on a variety of issues while still being represented in press clubs.¹¹ We do not wish to deny the function of press clubs limiting independent reporting and constraining outsiders’ access to important sources. Most researchers and practitioners of journalism agree that the Japanese press club system in its current form is problematic. However, distinguishing between “bad” “insider mass media” and “good” “outsider media” is not always a useful perspective to explain the outcomes of media reporting. Obviously, our results allow us only to make sense of reporting on one limited issue, the nuclear power debate, so it would be useful to include other issues.

If the press clubs are not always the main factor influencing framing, what other factors are important? This question cannot be dealt with here exhaustively, but some possible factors can be identified. Media critics and some journalists have noted the extraordinary amount of advertising money for nuclear power PR channeled into the media before 2011 (e.g., Honma, 2014). How did this influence reporting? From the analysis of article series we can guess that there are pronounced differences between the effects of pressure through advertising money in different newspapers (see Honma, 2014). A distinction between “outsider” and “insider media” does not help to explain these differences. For the period after the Fukushima accident, especially from the start of the second Abe administration, observers note a decline in press freedom and increased government efforts to silence critical reporting (see Lill, 2017). This pressure, however, is primarily (though not exclusively) directed against influential “insider media”, not against outsiders of the press club system. A political struggle over nuclear power reporting of the Asahi Shinbun in 2014, for instance, was characterized by eventually successful right-wing attacks on the Asahi directed against the “special reporting unit” (tokubetsu hōdōbu) (Fackler, 2016), a section the newspaper had created to focus on investigative reporting. This happens to be the section responsible for a substantial part of the nuclear-critical article series analyzed here (see appendix).

Too much emphasis on the “insider-outsider” dichotomy can obfuscate the analysis rather than clarifying the problems at hand. Analysts should aim to develop models and indicators able to transcend this relatively simple dichotomy, comparing for example, how political and economic influences impact reporting in different organizational environments (for such an approach to classical media see, for instance, Benson, 2013). Given the recent decline of influence and political efficacy of “insider media” worldwide, analysts should aim to understand how the transformation of the power balance between newspapers, etc. and online media is impacting the framing of issues. The worldwide rise of online hate speech and political propaganda should caution us against assuming that “outsider media” necessarily report news in a more open, just and fair manner.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Humer Foundation for Scientific Talent, Forschungskredit of University of Zurich, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (GR16108) and the University of Zurich Alumni Research Talent Development Fund.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [GR16108]; University of Zurich Alumni Research Talent Development Fund [No Grant Number]; Humer Foundation for Scientific Talent [No Grant Number]; Forschungskredit of University of Zurich [No Grant Number].

Notes on contributors

Tobias Weiss

Tobias Weiss is assistant professor (akademischer Mitarbeiter) at University of Heidelberg. He studied Japanese studies at University of Hamburg and earned a PhD at University of Zurich. He published a book on the reporting of nuclear power in Japanese journalism. His work also appeared in the journalsPoetics and Journal of Civil Society.

Notes

¹ Compare Asano (1993), Feldman (1993, 2011), Hall (1998), Krauss (2000), and T. Yamamoto (1989).

² Uesugi and Ugaya's (2011) criticism reached a large audience for instance.

³ For example Shibata (2013).

⁴ The LDP came back to power in a coaliton in 1994 and eventually recaptured the position as long-term ruling party.

⁵ Kainuma (2012) echoes the pronuclear alliance when asserting that the antinuclear alliance illegitimately claims to represent the Japanese countryside. While this is not necessarily true, it is probably safe to say that the antinuclear movement is stronger in the metropolitan areas (with post-3.11 Fukushima as a possible exception; Machimura & Satō, 2016, p. 9). Hasegawa (2004, p. 160) also notes that an antinuclear referendum in a more urbanized setting had a better chance of success than one in a very rural setting dependent on supporters from more distant towns and the prefectural capital.

⁶ Gamson and Modigliani (1989) see fatalism as a key aspect of the Runaway frame. They underline that, because of this fatalism, Runaway does not encompass a rejection of nuclear power. However, we see the reason why they see fatalism as an element characteristic for this frame in the sample they use to construct it. They use caricatures, which is an art form based on exaggeration and sarcasm. To describe the Japanese framing of nuclear power it seems more useful to separate this aspect and redefine the frame based on the points mentioned above.

⁷ Articles concerning nuclear power from article series about wider topics, for example, energy, were included in the sample. In these cases, the number of articles in a series in the appendix can be one, but the articles are still part of an article series.

⁸ We made the change in the sample frequency because the number of articles increased rapidly from 2011, especially in the Asahi (see appendix). The sampling method is stratified random sampling.

⁹ In the Mainichi, only 22 articles of 291 after 2011 account for a third of the character count. If we had counted only the number of articles without taking into account their length, this would have led to longer articles being underrepresented when counting the frames. More relatively long feature series were published after 2011. Differences in article length do exist before 2011, but they are less pronounced.

¹⁰ We included Accountability attributions to the DPJ and Prime Minister Kan Naoto, which could also reasonably be included in the pronuclear section, in the neutral category. That the framing still remains strongly antinuclear in two newspapers should support our point about differences in reporting.

¹¹ This does not imply that Okinawan and national, Tokyo-based newspapers operate under the same conditions, our point is only that both gather information through reporters in press clubs.

Appendix 1

Table

Political Corpus: Materials from actors directly involved in the political discussion about nuclear power used to adapt and construct the frames
Year/Date of publication	Author or Group (Names are in Japanese Order: Surname First, then Given Name)	Medium; Publisher; Issue	Title	Page	URL
Primary Sources: 1973–2010: Pronuclear Coalition
1972	Japan Productivity Center	Book: Nihon Seisansei Honbu	Kankyōmondai Sangyō Kaigi kiroku: seichō to kankyō
10/26/1974	JAERO (Japan Atomic Energy Relations Association)	Asahi Shinbun (Advertisement)	Jūgatsu 26nichi ha genshriyoku no hi	10
3/29/1975	JAERO	Yomiuri Shinbun (Advertisment)	Jimoto no hito ga kakukaku shikajika	16
4/27/1975	JAERO	Yomiuri Shinbun (Advertisment)	Hantai haichō	10
6/28/1975	JAERO	Yomiuri Shinbun (Advertisment)	Hidezō-San ni kiku Hidezō	14
7/27/1975	JAERO	Yomiuri Shinbun (Advertisment)	Nihon no naka no Kashiwazaki	13
9/27/1975	JAERO	Yomiuri Shinbun (Advertisment)	Genshiro uchi-soto	15
12/20/1975	JAERO	Yomiuri Shinbun (Advertisment)	Kondō Hidezō, enerugī wo kangaeru	6
1975	Atomic Energy Commission	Book: Genshiryoku I’inkai	Heisei 51nen genshiryoku hakusho		http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/about/hakusho/wp1976/sb20105.htm
2/29/1976	JAERO	Asahi Shinbun (Advertisement)	Naze gokai sareru kono nite kotonaru mono	6
9/25/1976	JAERO	Yomiuri Shinbun (Advertisment)	Tatoeba genshiryoku ha umi	6
10/11/1976	JAERO	Asahi Shinbun (Advertisement)	Minna de kangaeyō, enerugī no mondai, genshiryoku	14
1976	Yamamoto Shichihei	Book: World of Press	Nihonjin to genshiryoku
1977	Japan Productivity Center Shakai Keizai Kokumin Kaigi Enerugī Kaihatsu Sokushin I’inkai	Book: Shakai Keizai Kokumin Kaigi	Atarashii sōgō enerugī seisaku no juritsu to kokuminteki gōi keisei no kadai
8/23/1977	Sakaya Taichi	Mainichi Shinbun	80nendai enerugī no chōsen. Mirai shōsetsu Haiiro no Kazoku	8
10/28/1979	Asahi Shinbun	Asahi Shinbun	Genshiryoku sakubun no nyūsensha kimaru	21
1979	Japan Productivity Center Shakai Keizai Kokumin Kaigi	Book: Shakai Keizai Kokumin Kaigi	Shin-dankai no enerugī seisaku II. Enerugī seisaku no suishin to rōdō kumiai no yakuwari
1980	Japan Productivity Center Shakai Keizai Kokumin Kaigi	Book: Shakai Keizai Kokumin Kaigi	Rōdōkumiai to enerugī mondai
10/26/1981	Science and Technology Agency	Asahi Shinbun (Advertisement)	Hōshasen no monosashi	22
1981	Shakai Keizai Kokumin Kaigi	Book: Ise Shinbunsha	Sentaku no toki. Kokuminseikatsu to enerugī mondai
1983	Hashimoto Seinosuke	Book: Nihon Genshiryoku Sangyōkaigi	Gendai bunmei engi
1983	Shakai Keizai Kokumin Kaigi	Book: Shakai Keizai Kokumin Kaigi	Shōhisha undō to enerugī mondai. Enerugī mondai ni kansuru shōhisha dantai he no kōkai shitsumon
1983	Suzuki Tatsuru	Book: Nihon Kōgyō Shinbunsha	Denryoku sangyō no atarashii chōsen
5/1/1987	Tokyo Electric Power Company	Yomiuri Shinbun (Advertisment)	Gogatsu ha genshiryoku hatsuden anzen gekkan. Hitori hitori no ketsui mo arata ni	8
4/27/1988	Federation of Electric Power Companies (FEPC, Denjiren)	Yomiuri Shinbun (Advertisment)	Genshiryoku hatsudensho, watashitachi ha „“anzen” wo mamotte imasu	15
1990	Japan Productivity Center	Book: Nihon Seisansei Honbu	Seisansei undō to ha
1991	Genshiryoku PA Hōsaku I’inkai	Online Document	Genshiryoku PA hōsaku no kangaekata		http://labor-manabiya.news.coocan.jp/shiryoushitsu/PAhousaku.pdf
1994	JAERO	Book: Nihon Genshiryoku Sangyōkaigi	25nen no ayumi. Genshiryoku bunka wo mezashite
1996	Japan Productivity Center	Book: Shakai Keizai Seisansei Honbu	Enerugī Kankyō Seisaku Honbu. Genshiryoku genjō no kadai to sono shōrai wo kangaeru symposium kōenroku
10/16/1998	Genshiryoku Hōdō wo Kangaeru Kai	Newsletter	Dai ippō
1999	Atomic Energy Commission	Online Document	1. Genshiryoku to enerugī no sentakushi 1.1. Genshiryoku no sentakushi		http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/iinkai/entaku/H11/teigen/ronten.html
1999	Arima Akito, Sanai Satoshi	Enerugī Forum 539	Interview: mirai aru enerugī to shite wakaku yūshū na jinzai wo genshiryoku ni	82–85
1999	Japan Productivity Center Enerugī Mondai Tokubetsu I’inkai	Book: Shakai Keizai Seisansei Honbu	Teigen: genshiryoku ni kansuru gōi keisei no arikata
1999	Komatsu Sakyō	Book: Kadokawa Haruki Jimusho	Yoru ga aketara
2000	Japan Productivity Center Shakai Keizai Seisansei Honbu Media Kenkyūkai	Book: Shakai Keizai Seisansei Honbu	Hōkokusho
4/21/2000	Genshiryoku Hōdō wo Kangaeru Kai	Newsletter	Dai 14hō
2002	Hokuriku Genshiryoku Kondankai	Book: Hokuriku Genshiryoku Kondankai	25nenshi
2003	Asuka Energy Forum	Statute	Teikan
2003	Atomic Energy Commission	Online Document	Shiryō sa 3–4 gō. Dainikai Genshiryoku Hatsuden, Cycle Senmon-Bukai gijiroku (an)		http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/senmon/cycle/siryo/cycle03/siryo4.pdf
2003	Japan Productivity Center	Book: Shakai Keizai Seisansei Honbu	Enerugī kankyō kyōiku handbook
2005	Japan Productivity Center	Book: Nihon Seisansei Honbu	Seisansei undō 50nenshi
2005	Masano Sumiko	Online Document	Danjo kyōdōsankakushakai no jitsugen ni muketa Fukui-ken no genjō to seisaku kettei ni kakawaru shakaisankaku wo mezashite		http://www.gender.go.jp/international/int_syogaikoku/int_relationship/global/pdf/masano.pdf
2007	Atomic Energy Commission	Online Document	Kore made no bukai girontō no tsuika setsumei shiryō		http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/senmon/seisaku/siryo/seisaku16/siryo1.pdf
2007	Atomic Energy Commission	Online Document	Genshiryoku I’inkai Shokuhin Shōsha Senmonbukai. Shokuhin Shōsha Senmonbukai hōkokusho. Shokuhin he no hōshasen-shōsha ni tsuite (an) ni kansuru goiken wo kiku kai gijiroku		http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/senmon/syokuhin/siryo/syokuhin10/siryo9.pdf
2008	Asuka Energy Forum	Online Document	Talkshow: enerugī to cooking		http://www.asca-ef.org/public/contents/seminar/2008/enecook08_rep.html
2008	Thinking about the Earth Group	Online Document	Introduction		http://enecon.netj.or.jp/index.html
2010	Atomic Energy Commission	Book: Genshiryoku I’inkai	Genshiryoku hakusho 2009
2010	Ministry of the Economy, Trade, and Industry	Online Document	Sōgō Shigen Enerugī Chōsakai Denki Jigyō Bunkakai Genshiryoku Bukai. Genshiryoku rikkoku keikaku		http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/about/hakusho/hakusho2009/1.pdf
2010	Ministry of Education, Agency for Natural Resources and Energy	Book: Ministry of Education, Agency for Natural Resources and Energy	Wakuwaku genshiryoku land. Worksheet
2010	Radiation Education Forum	Online Archive Document: Hōshasen Kyōiku Forum	Teikan		Tokyo Metropolitan Government NPO Database
Primary Sources since 2011: Pronuclear Coalition
2011	Sawa Akihiro	Online Document	Nikō tairitsu no kōzu ga enerugī seisaku wo teitai saseru		http://ieei.or.jp/2011/07/opinion110727/
11/29/2012	Kadota Ryūshō	Online Document	Kizen to ikita Fukushima no hitobito		http://www.kadotaryusho.com/blog/cat34/
2012	Radiation Education Forum	Online Archive Document: Hōshasen Kyōiku Forum	Jigyō hōkokusho		Tokyo Metropolitan Government NPO Database
7/9/2013	Kadota Ryūshō	Online Document	Hongi ni ikita Yoshida Masao		http://www.kadotaryusho.com/blog/cat34/
12/10/2013	Kadota Ryūshō	Online Document	Genpatsu no kankōchika to iu gyakuten no hassō		http://www.kadotaryusho.com/blog/cat34/
2013	Takeuchi Junko	Online Document	Doitsu no denryoku jijō 10. Saisei-ene zenryō kotei kakaku baishū seido, green sangyō, datsugenpatsu wo aratamete kangaeru		http://ieei.or.jp/2013/08/expl130820/3/
2013	Tōhōku Energy Forum	Online Document	Heisei 25nen jigyō hōkoku		http://www.t-enecon.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/meetingh26-02.pdf
2014	Matsuda Eizō	Online Document	Hinichijō no naka no nichijō. Fukushima Daiichi genshiryoku hatsudensho wo shisatsu shite		http://www.ett.gr.jp/think/matsuda.html
2014	Masano Sumiko	Atmos 2014.7	Kamishibai de no keihatsukatsudō: hōshasei haikibutsu no chisōshobun ni tsuite manabu	44–47
2014	Nakamura Hiromi	Online Document	Genshiryoku no fukken		http://www.ett.gr.jp/think/nakamura2.html
2014	Sawa Akihiro	Online Document	Enerugī kihon keikaku ni genshiryoku wo dō ichizukeru ka. Gen’an no jūyō na point to kaiketsu subeki mittsu no kadai		http://ieei.or.jp/2014/02/sawa-akihiro-blog140217
2014	Sawa Akihiro	Online Document	Genshiryoku he no shinrai saikōchiku ni mukete		http://ieei.or.jp/2014/04/sawa-akihiro-blog140404/
2014	Shinohara Hidekazu	Online Document	Tsuruga JC: ricchi kara no hatsugen		http://ieei.or.jp/2014/12/opinion141216/http://ieei.or.jp/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/opinion141216_a02.pdf
2015	Agency for Natural Resources and Energy	Book: Shigen-Enerugī-chō	Shigen enerugī hakusho 2015		http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/about/whitepaper/2015pdf/whitepaper2015pdf_1_3.pdf
2015	Ashino, Eiko (ETT, belongs to Japan Productivity Center)	Online Document	Tadashii chishiki wo		http://www.ett.gr.jp/think/ashino3.html
2015	Kainuma, Hiroshi; Takeda, Tōru	Online Document	Sengo Nihon no fūkei ha kimyō na aikyōshin ni yotte tsukurareta. Fukushima wo meguru giron no shuppatsuten wo. Kainuma Hiroshi, Takeda, Tōru ryōshi ga kataru		http://logmi.jp/85305
3/11/2015	Kadota Ryūshō	Online Document	Fūhyō higai to no tatakai ga tsuzuku “shinsai 4 shūnen”		http://www.kadotaryusho.com/blog/cat34/
2015	Takeuchi Junko	Online Document	Taidan denryoku system kaikaku ni tsuite. Dare no tame no jiyūka na no ka		http://www.ett.gr.jp/information/2015/n20160204.html
2015	Tōhōku Energy Forum	Online Document	Enerugī wo kangaeru hint		http://www.t-enecon.com/hint/hint1.html
2016	Ashino, Eiko (ETT, belongs to Japan Productivity Center)	Online Document	Hyakubun ha ikken gotokazu		http://www.ett.gr.jp/think/ashino4.html.
2016	Denki Jigyō Rengōkai	Electricity Review Japan 2016	Decarbonization of energy on the supply-side		https://www.fepc.or.jp/english/library/electricity_eview_japan/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2016/08/24/2016ERJ_full.pdf
2016	Ishii Takaaki	Twitter Message	No title		http://twilog.org/ishiitakaaki/date-160313
2016	Nikkan Kōgyō Shinbun	Online Document	Fukushima iryō-kiki kaihatsu shien center kaijo. Sekai no hub kyoten keisei mezasu Fukushima-ken		https://www.nikkan.co.jp/articles/view/00407364
2016	Ochi Sae	Online Document	Genshiryoku saigai ni okeru hattenteki fukkō, sono ichi. Gensai to hattenteki fukkō		http://ieei.or.jp/2016/02/opinion160201/
2017	ETT	Online Document	Introduction		http://www.ett.gr.jp/.
2017	ETT	Online Document	Chiiki ni okeru katsudō		http://www.ett.gr.jp/information/index.html
2017	ETT	Online Document	Enkaku		http://www.ett.gr.jp/about/office.html
2017	Fukkōchō	Online Document	Fukushima innovation coast kōsō no omo na project		http://www.reconstruction.go.jp/topics/main-cat1/20170427_huhyou-higai-husshoku_J.pdf
2017	Ishii Takaaki	Online Document	Kōdō no mae ni, chotto matte! Enerugī-seido-zukuri de hitsuyō na koto		http://www.enercon.jp/topics/10528/?list=contribution
2017	Japan Energy Conference	Online Document	Okite iru koto – ashita ni mukete kangaerubeki koto		http://www.enercon.jp
2017	Kawauchi-Mahn Emi	Online Document	Hakkinin. Kawauchi-Mahn Emi		http://enercon.jp/originators/川口マーン惠美
2017	Kansai Electric Power	Online Document	Denki no anzen antei kyōkyū		https://www.kepco.co.jp/energy_supply/supply/
2017	Radiation Education Forum	Online Document	Introduction		http://www.ref.or.jp
2017	PR Center of Ikata Nuclear Power Plant	Online Document	Introduction		https://www.ikata-dr-sada.or.jp
Additonal Primary Sources: Homepages of Pronuclear Groups (without date), Pronuclear Coalition					Homepage
	“Don’t worry” Safety Acedemy (Anzen Anshin Academy)				http://anshin-kagaku.news.coocan.jp
	Association for the Future of Japan (Nihon no Shōrai wo Kangaeru Kai)				http://ioj-japan.com/xoops
	Asuka Energy Forum (Asuka Energī Fōramu)				http://www.asca-ef.org/
	Atomic Energy Society Japan Senior Network (Nihon Genshiryoku Gakkai Senior Network)				http://www.aesj.or.jp/~snw/
	Chubu Nuclear Forum (Chūbu Genshiryoku Kondankai)				http://www.chugenkon.org
	Chugoku Area Energy Forum (Chūgoku Chiiki Enerugī Forum)				http://cef.jp/category/act/haken/
	Earth Feel (Chikyūkan; Niigata)				http://chikyukan.net
	Ene Female 21				http://www.enetalk21.gr.jp/ef21/ef21_index.html
	Energy Square (Enerugī Mondai ni Hatsugen Suru Kai)				http://www.engy-sqr.com
	ETT - Energy Think Together (Fōramu Energī wo Kangaeru)				http://www.ett.gr.jp
	Forum for the Peaceful Use of Nuclear Power Fukui (Fukui-ken Genshiryoku Heiwa Riyō Kyōgikai)				http://www.mitene.or.jp/~genhei-t/
	Fukui Environment and Energy Group (Fukui Kankyō Enerugī Konwakai)				http://www.fukui-kan-ene.net
	GENKI Network for Sustainability (Jizoku Kanō na Shakai wo Tsukuru Genki Nettowāku)				http://www.genki-net.jp
	Happy Road Net (Happy Rōdo Net)				http://happyroad.net
	Hokkaido Energy Environment Education Research Council (Hokkaidō Energī Kankyō Kyōiku Kenkyū Iinkai)				http://www.enetalk21.gr.jp/ek/ek_index.htm
	Hokkaidō Energy Talk 21				http://www.enetalk21.gr.jp
	Hokuriku Nuclear Forum (Hokuriku Genshiryoku Kondankai)				http://www.h-genkon.jp
	International Environmental Energy Institute (Kokusai Kankyō Keizai Kenkyūjo)				http://ieei.or.jp
	Ishikawa Energy Meeting (Ishikawa Ene no Kai)				http://www.enenokai.net
	Japan Energy Conference (Nihon Enerugī Kondankai)				http://www.enercon.jp
	Japanese National Nuclear Conference (Genshiryoku Kokuminkaigi)				http://www.kokumin.org/
	Japanese Society of Mainteneology (Nihon Hozen Gakkai)				/http://www.jsm.or.jp/jsm
	Kansai Nuclear Forum (Kansai Genshiryoku Kondankai)				http://www.kangenkon.org/link/
	Kyushu Energy Issue Forum (Kyūshū Enerugī Mondai Kondankai)				http://www.q-enecon.org/outline/index.html
	Net Journalist Association (Net Journalist Kyōkai)				http://www.netj.or.jp
	NPO Vision 21st Century (21Seki Kōsō Kenkyūkai)				http://www.kosoken.org
	Nuclear Salon				http://www.ns-fuji-ie.jp/npo_index.html
	Public Outreach (Paburikku Autorīchi)				http://ponpo.jp
	Radiation Education Forum (Hōshasen Kyōiku Fōramu)				http://www.ref.or.jp
	Radiation Safety Forum (Hōshasen Anzen Forum)				https://www.rsf.or.jp
	Roundtable on Food Security (Shoku no Anzen Entakukaigi)				http://food-entaku.org/
	Smart Human Capital Network Einstein (Chiteki Jinzai Einstein Network)				http://jein.jp/activity-report.html
	Thinking about Radioactivity and Health Group (Hōshasen to Kenkō wo Kangaeru Kai)				http://www.iips.co.jp/rah/
	Thinking about the Earth Group (Chikyū wo Kangaeru Kai)				http://enecon.netj.or.jp/
	Thinking about the Environment and Energy Women’s Group Toyama (Kankyō to Enerugī wo Kangaeru Toyama Josei no Kai)				http://www.toyama-enenokai.jp
	Tohoku Energy Forum (Tōhoku Enerugī Kondankai)				http://www.t-enecon.com
	Tohoku Radiation Science Center (Tōhoku Hōshasen Kagaku Center)				http://www.t-radisci.com/outline/index.html
	WEN Women in Energy				http://www.wennet.jp
	Women in Nuclear Japan (WIN)				http://www.win-japan.org/about/index.html
Primary Sources: 1973–2010: Antinuclear Coalition
1961	Kawai Takeshi	Book: Kadokawa Shoten	Fushigi na kuni no genshiryoku. Nihon no genjō
3/13/1973	Takeuchi Naokazu	Asahi Shinbun	Shōhisha no tachiba kara. Musekinin na maker	4
10/10/1974	Gijutsu to Ningen	Gijutsu to Ningen
11/30/1976	Gijutsu to Ningen	Gijutsu to Ningen	Tokushū: genshiryoku hatsuden no kikensei
1977	Genbaku Taiken wo Tsutaeru Kai	Book: Agune Shoten	Kaku-seminar, genbaku kara genpatsu made
10/26/1977	Asahi Shinbun	Asahi Shinbun	Genshiryoku kaihatsu kangaenaosō. Bunkajinra appeal	3
12/22/1979	Tsumura Takashi	Mainichi Shinbun, evening edition	Miushinawareta tamashi no kaifuku	4
8/19/1981	Takeuchi Naokazu	Asahi Shinbun	Kanryō no dokusen yaburu hitsuyō	2
1987	Hirose Takashi	Kōkoku Hihyō; Tokushū: akarui ashita ha genpatsu kara; Amano, Yūkichi (ed.)	Ima Nihon de okite iru koto	56–69
1987	Nosaka Akio	Kōkoku Hihyō; Tokushū: akarui ashita ha genpatsu kara; Amano, Yūkichi (ed.)	Genpatsu wo eranda no ha bokutachi ka	47–55
1988/2011	Kansha Taeko	Electronic book: Jiyūsha	Mada ma ni au no nara. Watashi ga kaita ichiban nagai tegami
1997	Ishibashi, Katsuhiko	Kagaku 67 (10)	Genpatsu-shinsai – hametsu wo sakeru tame ni	720–724
4/9/1999	Iida Tetsunari	Asahi Shinbun	Shizen-enerugī: hiromeru rippō isoge. Iida Tetsunari, rondan	4
2000	Hiroshimapeacemedia.jp	Online document	Gunji tenyō ni hadome. Kagakusha no “hansei” utsusu		http://www.hiroshimapeacemedia.jp/abom/00abom/ningen/000430.html
2003	Tanpoposha	Online document	Daijiko no mae ni genshiryoku kara tettai wo (Koide Hiroaki-cho)		http://www.tanpoposya.net/main/index.php?id=325
2003	Wakase Rentai Kōdō Net	Online document	Pluthermal kyōkō suishin seisaku to sōgō gakushū he no genshiryoku suishin kyōiku dōnyū		http://wakasa-net.sakura.ne.jp/pre/news/68/68-3.pdf
2009	Satō Eisaku	Book: Heibonsha	Chiji massatsu, tsukurareta Fukushima-ken oshoku jiken
Primary Sources since 2011: Antinuclear Coalition
9/12/2011	E-Shift	Online document	Kugatsu action: 9.18 datsugenpatsu symposium kōshite tsukuru, genpatsu no nai shakai		http://e-shift.org/?p=1151#more-1151
6/10/2011	E-Shift	Online document	Enerugī jōhō. Katte ni misshitsu de kimeru no ha yamete kudasai. Enerugī seisaku no nakami ha kore made no enchō!? Press release		http://e-shift.org/?p=807
2011	Fuji Tetsuzō	Book: Nihon Kyōsantō Chūō I’inkai Shuppankyoku	Kagaku no me de genpatsu saigai wo kangaeru
6/9/2011	Greenpeace Japan	Online document	Greenpeace hōshasen chōsa, Fukushima-shi to Iidatemura de jisshi – Fukushima-shinai no monitoring-post shinraisei ni gimon, press release		http://www.greenpeace.org/japan/ja/news/press/2012/pr20121023/
2011	Higuchi Kazuo	Online document	Daihon’ei happyō” wo tsuzukeru masumedia no daizai		http://blogos.com/article/23760/?p=7
2011	Ishikawa, Eiichi	Online document	Hoan’in-kanren Twitter matome		http://www.mk2010.net/Hoanin.html
2011	Kan Naoto	Online document	Sankei Shinbun 2011nen 5gatsu 21nichi chōkan no kyogi hōdō no zenbun		http://blogos.com/article/151935/
2011	Kawamura Minato	Book: Gendai Shokan	Fukushima genpatsu jinzaiki
2011	Nihon Kyōsantō Chūō I’in Shuppankyoku	Book: Nihon Kyōsantō Chūō Iin Shuppankyoku	Genpatsu zero no Nihon wo
2011	Nuketext.org	Online document	Sōkatsu genka hōshiki		http://www.nuketext.org/mondaiten_cost.html
2011	Sataka Makoto	Book: Mainichi Shinbunsha	Genpatsu bunkajin 50ningiri
2011	Tanaka Ryūsaku	Online document	Bōsō keikaku teiden. Mukashi Kantōgun, ima Tōden		http://tanakaryusaku.jp/2011/03/0002095
2011	Uesugi, Takashi; Ugaya, Hiromichi	Book: Gentōsha Shinsho	Media saigai, genpatsuhen
2011	3.11 Sayonara Genpatsu Fukui-ken Shūkai in Tsuruga Hōkoku Bunshū Henshū Iinkai	Pamphlet	3.11 Sayonara Genpatsu Fukui-ken Shūkai in Tsuruga Hōkoku Bunshū
2012	Akahata Henshūkyoku	Book: Nihon Kyōsantō Chūō I’inkai Shuppankyoku	Genpatsu no nani ga mondai ka
2012	Anzai Ikuo; Iida Tetsunari; Ōshima Ken’ichi; Hasegawa Uiko	Book: Kamogawa Shuppan	Genpatsu zero. Watashitachi no sentaku
12/15/2012	FOE Japan	Online document	Datsugenpatsu-sekai kaigi 2: “kenkō higai mizenbōshi ha tassei dekiru ka?” Fukushima-ken kenkō kanri chōsa to genpatsu jiko kodomo, hisaisha shien-hō		http://www.foejapan.org/energy/evt/pdf/121215_m.pdf
2/18/2012	Fukushima Bar Association	Online document	Fukushima Daiichi Genshiryoku Hatsudensho-jiko ni yoru kōgaihigai kara no seikatsu to kankyō kanzen kaifuku wo motomeru ketsugi, 18.2.2012. Fukushima Bengoshikai, kaichō, Kanno Akihiro		http://www.f-bengoshikai.com/topics/t1/128.html
2012	Genpatsu Zero no Kai	Online document	Genpatsu Zero no Kai ni tsuite		Online verfügbar unter http://blog.livedoor.jp/gempatsu0/archives/203981.html
10/23/2012	Greenpeace Japan	Online document	Greenpeace hōshasen chōsa, Fukushima-shi to Iidatemura de jisshi – Fukushima-shinai no monitoring-post shinraisei ni gimon, press release		http://www.greenpeace.org/japan/ja/news/press/2012/pr20121023/
2012	Kōriyama Masaya; Ōno Takuo	Book: Honnoki	Mō genpatsu ha iranai
8/11/2012	Shinbun Akahata	Pamphlet	Sokuji genpatsu zero no jitsugen wo – Nihon Kyōsantō no teigen	1–4
9/25/2012	Midori no Tō – Kickoff	Pamphlet	Wadai no osanpo demo. Hyōgen no jiyū, kenpō ikashite kigaru ni tanoshiku ikinagaku	12
2013	Blue Water World	Online document	Tokushū: sabakarerubeki seifu to Fukushima-ken-chiji no taizai		http://bww.jp/r/特集/特集-－-裁かれるべき政府と福島県知事の大罪/
2013	Fukushima Soshō Genkokudan Bengodan	Online document	Furusatō soshitsu soshō no mokuteki. Nariwai wo kaese, chiiki wo kaese! Fukushima genpatsu soshō genkokudan, bengodan website		http://www.nariwaisoshou.jp/soshou/about/entry-99.html
2013	Imanishi Noriyuki; Shūkan Asahi Shuzaiban	Book: Asahi Shinbun Shuppan	Genshiryoku mura no inbō
2013	Koide Hiroaki	Online document	2013nen 2gatsu futsuka ni hōsō sareta “Radio Forum Dai 4kai” bangumi de no “Hiroaki Journal” no naiyō wo mojiokoshi itashimashita		https://hiroakikoide.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/radioforum-2013feb2/.
1/24/2013	Shinbun Akahata	Online document	Tenuki josen – teate pinhane. Kasai giinra Fukushima chōsa		http://www.jcp.or.jp/akahata/aik12/2013-01-24/2013012401_03_0.html
2014	Hitorashiku	Online document	Zettai yurusanai goyō-gakusha. Genpatsu-maker kara no kenkin ichi’i ha “mister bakuhaben” Sekimura Naoto (Tōdai-kyōju)		http://blog.goo.ne.jp/hitorasiku/e/06f2d64fd73f2952e416d4c1a9642283
2015	Koide Hiroaki	Online document	Tōden no inpei taishitsu “jōhō no subete wo nigiraseta mama kichitto hōkoku shite kureru to kitai suru hō ga mushiro machigaete irunda to, mina san ni mo kangaete itadakitai to omoimasu”. Dai 118kai Koide Hiroaki Journal, 4.11.2015		https://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/ht_sue/32027066.html
2015	Koide Hiroaki Hikōshiki Matome	Online document	Koide Hiroaki hikōshiki matome		https://hiroakikoide.wordpress.com
2015	Mina de Kimeyō! Genpatsu Kokumin Tōhyō	Online document	Gaiyō		http://kokumintohyo.com/kokumintohyo
2015	Voices of Fukushima	Online document	Bangumimei: Fukushima kara Hiroshima he. 70nenme no tabi		http://fukushimavoice.net/2015/08/1951
2016	Bulettin of the Japan Council against A & H Bombs	Online document	Yoshii Hidekatsu moto-shūgiin-giin ni kiku: Kaku-heiki to genpatsu. Watashitachi no kurashi		http://www.antiatom.org/Gpress/?p=12341
2016	Metropolitan Coalition Against Nukes	Online document	Shutoken Hangenpatsu Rengō: statement, 2016nen Tōkyō-chijisen ni tsuite		http://coalitionagainstnukes.jp/?p=8687
2016	NPO Kirakira Hatsuden	Online document	Kira Kira Hatsuden: shimin kyōdō hatsudensho no setsuritsu made. Watashitachi no omoi		http://kirakirahatuden.com
5/15/2017	FOE Japan	Online document	Genpatsu no jiko baishō, hairo hiyō wo takusō ryōkin de kaishū? Giron no sonogo		https://foejapan.wordpress.com/2017/05/15/hairobaisyo/
2017	Kikō Net	Online document	Chiiki de enerugī ni tsuite kangaeru. Schönau no omoi jishu jōeikai		http://www.kikonet.org/local/local-activities/schoenau-rental
2017	Kinoshita Kōta	Online document	Kinoshita Kōta no blog. Journalist de chojutsuka, Kinoshita Kōta no Blog		http://blog.goo.ne.jp/nagaikenji20070927
Additonal Primary Sources: Homepages of Antinuclear groups (without Date), Antinuclear Coalition					Homepage
	Citizen’s Nuclear Information Center				http://www.cnic.jp
	Energy Shift				http://e-shift.org
	FOE Japan				http://www.foejapan.org
	Greenpeace Japan				https://www.greenpeace.org/japan/
	Gensuikin				http://www.peace-forum.com/gensuikin/
	Kikō Net				https://www.kikonet.org
	Metropolitan Coalition against Nukes				http://coalitionagainstnukes.jp
	Tanpoposha				https://www.tanpoposya.com
Secondary Sources (Pronuclear Coalition)
1987	Takagi Jinzaburō	Kōkoku Hihyō; Tokushū: akarui ashita ha genpatsu kara; Amano, Yūkichi (ed.)	Genpatsu kōkoku no tadashii yomikata	23–45
1992	Ebina Kenzō	Book: Nishida Shoten	Inaba Hidezō. Gekidō no Nihonkeizai to tomo ni 60nen
1997	Tanaka Yasumasa	Genshiryoku Kōgyō	Masukomi to genshiryoku	38–43
2008	Shimabayashi Yūko; Hayashizaki Noriyosu; Torii Hiroyuki	Kenkyū Gijutsu Keikaku 23 (2)	Setsumei sekinin ga shōjiru kyokumen no tankyū	163–175
2012	Fukui Shinbunsha	Book: Fukui Shinbunsha	Genpatsu no yukue
2012	Honma Ryū	Book: Akio Shobō	Genpatsu kōkoku	Nuclear power advertisements
2012	Yoshimi Shun’ya	Book: Chikuma Shinsho	Yume no genshiryoku. Atoms for dreams
2014	Honma Ryū	Book: Akio Shobō	Genpatsu kōkoku to chihōshi	Nuclear power advertisements and local newspapers
2015	Honma Ryū	Book: Iwanami Shoten	Genpatsu propaganda	Nuclear power propaganda
Secondary Sources (Antinuclear Coalition)
7/21/1971	Asahi Shinbun	Asahi Shinbun	Hito Takeuchi Naokazu	5
4/24/1979	Asahi Shinbun	Asahi Shinbun	Takagi Jinzaburō: Kagaku ha kawaru. Taiken tōshita kyodai kagaku hihan	25
3/14/1982	Mainichi Shinbun	Mainichi Shinbun	Wagauchi naru ecology. Takagi Jinzaburō	8
1988	Noguchi Kunikazu	Bungei Shunjū 66 (9)	Detarame darake no Hirose Takashi “kiken na hanashi”	262–283
2012	Katō Tetsuo	Online document	Hangenbaku to hangenpatsu no aida: genzetsu shiryōshū
2012	Suga Hidemi	Book: Chikuma Shobō	Hangenpatsu no shisōshi
2012	Yamamoto Akihiro	Book: Jinbunshoin	Kaku enerugī gensetsu no sengoshi 1945–1960
2013	Katō Tetsuo	Book: Iwanami Shoten	Nihon no shakaishugi: genbakuhantai, genpatsu-suishin no ronri
Secondary Sources used for both Corpora					http://members.jcom.home.ne.jp/rikato/120526atom.pdf
10/26/1976	Asahi Shinbun	Asahi Shinbun, evening edition	Gekitsotsu taidan. Kyō genshiryoku no hi. Genshiryoku suihin: ze ka hi ka	3
2004	Itō Hiroshi	Poole Gakuin Daigaku Kenkyū Kiyō 44	Genshiryoku kaihatsu riyō wo meguru media gidai, -jō	63–76
2005	Itō Hiroshi	Poole Gakuin Daigaku Kenkyū Kiyō 45	Genshiryoku kaihatsu riyō wo meguru media gidai, -chū	111–126
2009	Itō Hiroshi	Poole Gakuin Daigaku Kenkyū Kiyō 49	Genshiryoku kaihatsu riyō wo meguru media gidai, -ka	101–116
2011	Doi Yoshihira	Book: Henshū Kōbō Saku	Genshiryoku mafia. Genshiryoku riken ni muragaru hitobito
2011	Yoshioka Hitoshi	Book: Asahi Shinbunsha	Shinban genshiryoku shakaishi
2012	Itō Hiroshi	Poole Gakuin Daigaku Kenkyū Kiyō 52	Fukushima daiichi genpatsu jiko igo no genshiryoku hōdō	199–212
2012	Jōmaru Yōichi	Book: Asahi Shinbun Shuppan	Genpatsu to media. Shinbun journalism nidome no haiboku
2012	Karasudani, Masayuki	Book: Ōishi, Yutaka (ed.). Sengo Nihon no media to shimin ishiki. Ōki na monogatari no henyō. Minerva Shobō	Sengo Nihon no media to shimin ishiki. Ōki na monogatari no henyō	183–240
2013	Yamada Kenta	Book: Transview	3.11 to media. Shinbun, terebi, web ha nani wo dō tsutaeta ka

Appendix 2

Codebook

The following questions were used to code the frames. Gamson and Modigliani’s codes are taken from Gamson (1992, pp. 234–243). In the beginning of every frame section there is a condensed statement of the core assumptions.

Progress: “Technological progress steadily improves our lives. Nuclear power is essentially safe, though minor problems might have to be resolved. Radiation exists everywhere, it is a problem of managing the dose. Nuclear accidents are normal and should be seen as a chance to improve safety measures.”

Gamson:

• There is no practical alternative to nuclear power; we need it.

• Nuclear energy can provide a lot of power, we can’t do without it.

• Other sources of energy all have serious problems.

• Officials will protect the public from harm, are concerned with protecting the public. The situation is under control.

• The TMI or Chernobyl accident was not that serious; media coverage exaggerated the risk.*

• Nuclear power isn’t so different from other forms of energy.

• Nuclear energy hazards are just another of life’s many hazards; not that different.

• Underdeveloped nations can especially benefit from peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

• Nuclear energy can (will) liberate us. Although it can be used to destroy (with weapons), it can also give us the abundant energy we need for the good life.

• Nuclear power is necessary for economic growth, maintaining our way of life, standard of living; the choice is between nuclear energy and going back to a more primitive time of technological backwardness. We owe it to future generations to develop nuclear power.

• The problems of nuclear power are solvable ones; they will be solved by effort and research; the question isn’t whether to rely on nuclear power but at how fast a rate; nuclear power can (will) become more cost-effective.

• TMI shows that the system works; a serious accident didn’t happen because the backup systems functioned to prevent it.

• Nuclear power opponents are “coercive utopians” or a “new class” trying to impose their values and vision on others; nuclear protesters are protesters in search of a cause.*

• Nuclear power opponents are hysterical, afraid of change, opposed to technological progress, naive and panicky, neo-Luddites, pastoralists.*

• “Too cheap to meter” quote.

• Safety record of nuclear power plants is excellent.

• Chernobyl is contrasted with TMI to make the point that radiation was contained at TMI; Chernobyl couldn’t happen here.

• U.S. plants are different from and safer than Soviet plants.

• Lessons for a safer future can be learned from TMI and Chernobyl; new procedures will be instituted that will reduce future risks.

* I included these codes under the “Education” frame.

Adapted/complemented:

Progress

Technology, quality of life

• Is nuclear power being associated with advances of the quality of life?

• Are new and amazing technological developments and/or opportunities (related to nuclear power technology) being presented?

• Do records like unprecedented reactor sizes, kilowatt per hour production of electricity or general electricity output appear?

• Is nuclear power being depicted in the context of new discoveries and frontiers like the exploration of space or the cultivation of the seas?

• Is the importance of scientific progress (related to nuclear power) being emphasized?

• Are nuclear power plants being related (in a positive way) to symbols of power like professional sports?

• Is the fast breeding reactor depicted as a way towards unlimited energy supply?

• Is the high level of Japanese nuclear power technology being underlined?

• Are there references to the Astro Boy comic (Atomu) when talking about nuclear power?

• Are there references to the nuclear flame (genshi no hi ga tomoru) or “the third flame” (daisan no hi) being lightened?

• Is the progress/development of nuclear power being portrayed in historical perspective (in a positive way)?

• Is electricity connected to progress/“a good life”?

• Are positive impacts of nuclear power on fish breeding presented?

• Are prospects of nuclear technology (for example, the fast breeder) for becoming more advanced and safer/more competitive being portrayed?

• Are the prospects or achievements of technological progress being underlined?

• Japan’s nuclear power is at the peak of development.

• Is the use of technologies like mixed nuclear fuel portrayed in terms of progress?

Peaceful use

• Is the peaceful character of nuclear electricity production being underlined?

• Is Japan’s right or obligation to work on the peaceful use of nuclear power (as an atomic bomb victim) being underlined?

• Are differences between the bomb and electricity generation being underlined?

• Japan chose the peaceful use (heiwa riyō) of nuclear power.

• Are calls for the peaceful use of nuclear power being made/referred to or conditions for it being referred to?

• Are the differences between nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons being emphasized or assumed?

Safety, radiation

• Is the usefulness of radiation in everyday life and its applications in fields like medicine and engineering being emphasized?

• Is the existence of natural radiation being underlined?

• Are examples being given, how much radiation stems from different natural and unnatural radiation sources (to underline that unnatural radiation is not safe)?

• Are there references to the safety of nuclear power in general, the strict rules and safety controls or the improvements of safety as a consequence of lessons learned from accidents (jiko no kyōkun)? Are such measures depicted in a detailed (and positive) way?

• Are there (positive) references to the attainment of safety (anzenkakuho)?

• Are there references to the high level of safety standards and safety technology in Japan or in general?

• Are there (positive) references to multi-level protection (tajū bōgo), the emergency practices of “stopping, cooling, containing“ (tomeru, hyasu, tojikomeru), or safety culture (anzen bunka).

• Is the need to continue building up knowledge and experience with nuclear power being underlined?

Nuclear renaissance

• Are the good chances of a new demand for nuclear power plant construction being pointed out?

• Is the need to build more and new reactors being underlined?

• Are projections of increasing nuclear plants being presented?

• Is progress concerning the storage of nuclear waste being presented or suggested?

• Are increases of nuclear power supply being presented?

• Are the plans or prospects of foreign countries investing in nuclear power being underlined?

Reconstruction

• Is the reconstruction after the Fukushima nuclear accident (fukkō) being portrayed as smooth and successful (in the context of nuclear power)?

• Are the consequences of the Fukushima accident being depicted as minimal and as being portrayed in an inflated way (by the media, etc.)?

• Is the heroic role of plant workers stopping the Fukushima nuclear accident being presented?*

• Are the chances of learning from the Fukushima accident and developing new economic niches or technologies out of this being pointed out?

• Is the progress of various measures of containment and reconstruction in Fukushima being underlined?

• Is the successful reconstruction work by local workers and residents being emphasized?

• Is the recovery of farming and fishing in areas affected by the accident/contamination being emphasized?

• Are robots being presented as a solution to solve the problems in contaminated areas after a nuclear accident?

• Is the development of decontamination technology and its success portrayed in a positive way?

• Are successes of decontamination and the return of activity and liveliness to affected areas being emphasized?

• The heroic descriptions of plant workers were only coded as “Progress” when they were accompanied by positive descriptions of nuclear power.

• Education: “People have to be educated about the advantages and safety of nuclear power. Antinuclear activists are backward troublemakers.”

• Are there calls to improve the understanding (rikai) and knowledge (chishiki) of the people about nuclear power?

• Is the need to build or gain trust in nuclear power being emphasized?

• Is there an assumption, that if people learn to know about nuclear power, they will accept it?

• Are scenes of educating people about nuclear power being depicted in a positive way? Examples of people having “studied” nuclear power and now accepting it.

• Are there references towards a “nuclear allergy” (genshiryoku arerugī)?

• Are there calls for explanation and education measures like public hearings and school lectures about nuclear power in general or specific policy measures?

• Are measures to disseminate information (about the safety of nuclear power) being portrayed or called for.

• Is the need to convey the right knowledge (tadashii chishiki) about nuclear power being stressed?

• Are there calls for more marketing of nuclear power?

• Are discussions and arguments about nuclear power or specific aspects of it depicted as useless or leading nowhere (fumō)?

• Are there references to fears or anxiety (fuan) of the people towards nuclear power and the need to address these (with measures of education, PR and other forms of communication, persuasion)?

• Are there calls to foster the power of judgement about radiation and nuclear power among the people?

• Is the need for energy explained through examples and references from everyday life?

• Is the need for consensus on “the energy question” being underlined?

• Are there explanations about radioactive substances being normally present in the human body, in the food or the life environment?

• Is the need or responsibility of normal people to learn about energy, nuclear power or radiation being stressed?

• Are there references to celebrities learning about or studying nuclear power?

• Are there calls for the state, the government to take responsibility (sekinin wo motte) regarding nuclear power.

• Are there calls to establish trust (shinrai) of the people towards nuclear power?

• Are the workers and technicians “on site” being portrayed as trustworthy and heroic?

• Is energy education or radiation education being called for?

• Is the lack of coordination/cooperation in handling nuclear accidents and other problems of nuclear power being criticized?

  • Is the building of trust between authorities and residents/citizens being called for?

• Is the need to convince local people and governments and gain their trust, being underlined?

Negative view of protests/renewables

• Are protests and conflict (regarding nuclear power) being portrayed as needless, useless or irresponsible?

• Is protest against nuclear power portrayed as irrational, emotional or hysteric?

• Is the “backwardness of Japanese society” being depicted as a reason for resistance to nuclear power development?

• Are “the media” or journalists being criticized for stirring up antinuclear sentiment, or depicting nuclear power too negatively?

• Are the disadvantages of renewable energies being emphasized and/or they are presented as being portrayed too positively?

• Are the disadvantages of the German “energy shift” (the shift from nuclear power to renewables) or of abandoning nuclear power being portrayed?

• Is fear of nuclear power portrayed as irrational, or only occurring because people don’t have “real” things to worry about?

• There is nothing to worry about (in context of nuclear accidents; problems with nuclear power facilities).

• Are people promoting renewables presented as irresponsible or corrupt?

Harmful rumors, radiation limits

• Is the need to fight harmful rumors (fūhyō higai) about health or radiation damage being emphasized?

• Are negative effects of rumors being described?

• Are problems in Fukushima mainly described in terms of lack of knowledge or harmful rumors?

• Is the significance of official radiation limits being downplayed; are limits being depicted as mere marks, which don’t mean any real danger?

• Is transcending official radiation limits being put into perspective by pointing out that one needs to be exposed for a (long) period of time to actually exceed the boundary for one person.

• Is the aim of radiation tests/research being portrayed as assurance or ease of mind of the people/consumers/residents etc.?

• Are radiation doses from nuclear accidents/facilities being compared with or explained in relation to everyday activities like receiving an X-ray or flying (with the aim of relativizing the danger from radiation from accidents etc.?

• Are examples being presented, which show that the dangers of radiation were exaggerated and turned out to be no problem?

• Is the need for people to attain literacy regarding risks/radiation being stressed?

• Are measures called for against the stress caused by accidents or rumors (with the emphasis being on psychological problems instead of physical dangers)?

• Are there references to the dangers of deciding policy based on public opinion?

• Are “the media” or certain media being accused of being sources of harmful rumors and causing the problems of nuclear power?

• Energy Independence: “Japan is a resource-poor country and needs nuclear power to be independent. Japanese nuclear technology should also be independent from other countries.”

Gamson:

• Rising oil prices have put a premium on nuclear power and other energy sources; have made them more attractive.

• Nuclear power is a better alternative than foreign oil (reasons implied rather than spelled out).

• The choice is between nuclear power and dependence on foreigner (especially Arabs).

• Nuclear power protects us from being blackmailed and exploited by others (especially Arabs).

Adapted/complemented

• Resource independence

• Is Japan’s reliance on foreign energy or resources mentioned?

• Is Japan called a resource poor country (shigen shōkoku, enerugī/shigen ni toboshī)?

• Are there calls for self-reliance (jiritsu, jikyū) in energy or for attaining energy safety (enerugī anzen hoshō) or is it pointed out that without nuclear power, Japan won’t have enough energy?

• Are there projections or warnings of running out of energy or of resources, especially of oil?

• Are the negative consequences of restrictions of energy use being portrayed?

• Is the rapid growth of energy demand being underlined (in the context of nuclear power)?

• Is the nuclear fuel cycle depicted as a way to attain energy independence, or as a (semi-)national energy source ((jun-)kokusan-enerugī).

• Is the possibility of unlimited energy production through nuclear energy or the safe supply (antei kyōkyū) mentioned?

• Is nuclear technology depicted as a way to escape Japan’s “precarious energy situation”?

• Is the importance of nuclear power to Japan’s energy supply/production being underlined?

• Are numbers about the energy demand of Japan from foreign countries or of oil imports being cited?

• Is the international situation depicted as instable and nuclear power as way of balancing risks?

• Are there calls for independence from raw material imports?

• Are references to the summer peak (natsu peak) in electricity connected to the need for nuclear power?

• Are there references to an energy or electricity crisis (enerugī/denryoku kiki)?

• Is the liberalization of the electricity market being associated with chaos and/or blackouts?

• Are arguments for the restart of reactors being connected to dangers of blackouts (stopping machines in hospitals, impact on the economy and the like)?

• Are electricity shortages and its everyday life consequences depicted in detail (in the context of nuclear power)?

• Are threats from reliance on foreign resources or technology being depicted?

• Is the loss of Japan’s nuclear technology connected with a weakening of the industrial base, unemployment, reduced growth etc.?

• Is it being emphasized that with small amounts of uranium, large output of energy can be produced.

• Is not processing/reusing nuclear fuel being depicted as a waste of resources?

Technological independence

• Is the need for technological independence (jiritsu) emphasized?

• Are the invasive demands of other countries (mainly the US) on Japan’s nuclear technology being portrayed or criticized?

• Are the successes of attaining technological independence from the US being depicted?

• Is giving up parts of nuclear technology (for example, the nuclear fuel cycle) being connected to losing expertise and technological knowledge?

• Are limitations of uranium supply like the non-proliferation treaty being criticized?

• Economy: “Nuclear power is the only economic alternative. Nuclear power is a cheap energy source and creates jobs.”

• Is nuclear power portrayed as cheap compared to other energy sources?

• Are price hikes (neage) being connected to scenarios in which the share of nuclear power is reduced?

• Is economic competitiveness being connected to the use of nuclear power or the restart of nuclear power plants?

• Are cost advantages of nuclear power in comparison to renewable energies being underlined?

• Are there references to nuclear power’s (positive) effects on competitiveness?

• Are the chances or tasks of exporting nuclear power being referred to?

• Are concrete successes of exporting nuclear technology being presented?

• Are there references to positive effects of nuclear power for the national income or the profits of companies?

• Are calls made to simplify safety procedures and regulations or make them faster for economic reasons?

• Are the negative economic consequences of reactors being not in operation underlined?

• Are possible economic benefits of exporting decontamination technology being referred to?

• Are alternative energy sources like solar power portrayed as expensive (in the context of nuclear power)?

• Are renewables portrayed as economically inferior to nuclear power?

• Are there references to a nuclear renaissance and its economic chances?

• Are potential economic benefits of technologies used for rebuilding and decontaminating the areas affected by the Fukushima accident being depicted?

• Are there statements emphasizing that nuclear power is still cheaper, even when including costs of the Fukushima accident?

• Green Nuclear: “Nuclear power is a clean energy source and is needed to reduce Co2 emissions.”

• Are the positive effects of nuclear power for fighting climate change being underlined?

• Are nuclear power plants referred to as not producing CO2 emissions?

• Are Co2 savings through nuclear power plants or additional Co2 emissions due to stopped reactors being pointed out?

• Is the need to discuss the nuclear issue in the context of global warming/Co2 reduction being stressed?

• Is the (re-)use of plutonium being portrayed as recycling; as an environmental-friendly technology?

• Is the use of nuclear power being portrayed as prerequisite to the fulfillment of international treaties on climate change?

• Is nuclear power described as a way of energy production not bringing environmental degradation (mukōgai)?

• Is the reduction of nuclear energy (for example, in Germany) presented as damaging the environment?

• Are there calls for subsidies for nuclear power to save the environment?

• Regional Development: “Nuclear power plants help peripheral regions to prosper. They have become one with the local communities.”

• Are the benefits of nuclear power plants for regional development being underlined?

• Are nuclear power plants represented as integrated harmoniously into local communities?

• Are there examples of the positive effects of payments/subsidies from the building of nuclear power plants for local communities?

• Are fishing or fish breeding facilities supported by nuclear power companies being depicted?

• Is the past backwardness of regions hosting nuclear power plants being highlighted, and/or are nuclear power plants presented as a way of overcoming backwardness/stagnation?

• Is the need for exchange (of opinions etc.) between energy-producing areas and energy-consuming areas being underlined?

• Is the high trust between nuclear operators, authorities and the local communities being underlined?

• Is the “local tradition” of coexistence between nuclear facilities and the community being emphasized?

• Is the need for local communities to come to terms with nuclear power being underlined?

• Is the contribution of nuclear power sites to national energy production emphasized?

• Is the restart of reactors called for in order to relieve pressure from local budgets or to improve the local economic situation?

• Are other measures called for to support the finances of host communities (within the framework of keeping nuclear power)?

• Is the antinuclear movement being criticized for not respecting the contribution of the rural population to energy production?

• Are citizens from the metropolitan areas being criticized for being indifferent towards the problems of rural people when opposing nuclear power?

• Is criticism of nuclear power being equated to criticism/disrespect of “the countryside” or peripheral regions?

• Is the strong wish of evacuees from Fukushima to return to their villages and rebuild their communities being underlined?

• Is the need to rebuild a healthy society based on the model of Fukushima being underlined?

• Is the reconstruction of Fukushima being portrayed in an idealized way (and connected in some way to nuclear power)?

• Is the use of Fukushima as a symbol by opponents of nuclear power being criticized as disrespectful, harmful or patronizing?

• Accountability (hard): “Actors managing and controlling the nuclear industry can’t be trusted. They try to hide and conceal the problems and dangers.”

Gamson:

• Initial reports underestimated the seriousness of the TMI accident; the TMI company misled the public about the possibility and/or seriousness of the accident; information on safety hazards has been consistently underestimated.

• TMI company lax, incompetent, too slow to react.

• TMI company trying to escape responsibility for errors, passing on costs to consumers. Class action suits charge company with liability.

• Company officials are more concerned about their public image than they are about the public’s safety.

• Russian secrecy about Chernobyl was comparable to American secrecy about TMI.

• There is insufficient public accountability by those who control nuclear power.

• Corporate greed led to cutting corners, sloppy construction, rushing into operation prematurely; profits emphasized at the expense of safety.

• Government regulation is ineffective, part of the problem; regulators are dominated by industry, have buddy-buddy relationships.

• Nuclear companies are arrogant, contemptuous of the public, and insensitive to legitimate concerns.

• Nuclear power companies have a conflict of interest; private nuclear companies generally have an incentive to withhold negative information about nuclear power to protect their interests.

• Karen Silkwood is used as an exemplar to draw the lesson of a company covering up safety violations.

• United States is trying to keep benefits of nuclear power technology from other nations to make profits bigger for American companies.

Adapted, complemented:

• Gamsons’s codes reformulated in a general way:

• Reports from responsible agencies and companies running nuclear power plants are being put into doubt. They underestimate/cover up accidents and mislead the public.

• It is emphasized that the companies running nuclear plants want to escape responsibility and pass it on to consumers.

• The companies running nuclear power plants are being portrayed as incompetent.

• The companies running power plants are only concerned with their own image.

• The lack of public control of the nuclear industry is being criticized.

• It is being warned that profit-seeking is more important than safety for the companies running nuclear plants.

• The inefficiency of regulating authorities and their close relations with the industry are being underlined.

• Arrogance and lack of sensibility of companies in the face of the public is being criticized.

• It is pointed to the conflict of interest of the nuclear industry: it is better for them to hold back information than to disclose it.

• It is claimed, that companies pursue profits at the expense of people (workers/inhabitants).

Dimension 1: actors blamed:

Which actors are being criticized:

Pronuclear:

• TEPCO and/or other utility companies (Tōden, Denryokugaisha, others).

• Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (Keizai Sangyōshō, Keisanshō, former Tsūshō Sangyōshō)

• Nuclear Industry Safety Agency (NISA, Genshiryoku Hoan’in)

• Ministry of Education (Monbu Kagakushō, Monkashō)

• Ministry of Environment (Kankyōshō)

• Science and Technology Agency (Kagaku Gijutsuchō, Kagichō)

• Japan Atomic Industrial Forum (Genshiryoku Sangyō Kyōkai; former Genshiryoku Sangyō Kaigi, JAIF)

• Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (Nihon Genshiryoku Kenkyūjo)

• Japanese Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA; Nihon Genshiryoku Kenkyū Kaihatsu Kikō); its predecessor Dōnen (Dōryokuro Kakunenryō Kaihatsu Jigyōdan)

• Atomic Energy Commission (Genshiryoku I’inkai)

• Atomic Energy Safety Commission (Genshiryoku Anzen I’inkai)

• Other related companies

• Foundations and subgroups of the nuclear industry and bureaucracy (Japan Atomic Energy Relations Association, Genshiryoku Bunka Shinkō Zaidan; Japan Productivity Center, Nihon Seisansei Honbu; others)

• “The government” (seifu)

• Liberal Democratic Party (Jiyū Minshutō, Jimintō, or single politicians)

• Host prefectures

• Local host governments

• “Pronuclear scholars” (goyō gakusha)

• IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)

• Nuclear Regulation Authority/Committee (Genshiryoku Kiseichō, Genshiryoku Kisei I’inkai)

• Foreign government or authorities

• “Politicians”

• Local agricultural cooperative

• “The nuclear village” (genshiryoku mura)

Neutral:

• Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ)

• Prime Minister Naoto Kan and DPJ politicians

• “Mainstream media”, “the media”

Dimension 2a: accountability: Cover-ups and conflicts of interest

• Are there calls for respecting the three principles of autonomy, democracy, and publicity of nuclear power development?

• Are cover-ups (inpei) being criticized or referred to?

• Are there calls for release of information or freedom of information (jōhō kōkai)?

• Are contradictions between different speakers or between different statements of one speaker (of the pronuclear coalition) being pointed out?

• Is the credibility of statements and reports being questioned?

• Are there references to conflicts of interest?

• Is the waste of taxes (zeikin) and money from the electricity fees (denki ryōkin) being criticized?

• Are there references to “nuclear money” (genpatsu money) and its corrupting effects?

• Are there references to authorities and companies misleading the public or treating it as ignorant?

• Is the closed nature and lack transparency of the nuclear power community being criticized?

• Are there references to cover-ups (kakushi, kaizan) and corruption (yuchaku)?

• Are actors (of the pronuclear coalition) suspected of aiming to develop nuclear weapons?

• Are there references to radiation effects being covered up or systematically disregarded?

• Are there references to a safety myth (anzen shinwa)?

• Are there references to lies about nuclear safety?

• Is the nuclear power community blamed for the Fukushima accident?

• Is structural corruption, misinformation in nuclear power being criticized?

• Is the gap between foreign and Japanese authorities in judging the danger of the Fukushima accident or other important developments being pointed out?

• A conflict of interest of nuclear power experts is underlined.

• Are there references to donations and financial support from nuclear industry to scientists, authorities?

• Are phony (detarame, kyogi) reports and announcements being criticized?

• Are there references to nuclear power being autocratic; Japan being a “nuclear state” (genpatsu kokka), or increasing control of opponents?

• Is the one-sidedness of reports/announcements regarding radiation risks being criticized?

• Are lacking efforts to grasp the real amount of radiation risks being criticized?

• Are increasing cancer rates being connected to nuclear energy/the Fukushima accident?

• Is the effect of decontamination measures being doubted, are its limitations being pointed out?

• Is mistreatment/health damage of workers in power plants being criticized?

• Is Fukushima labelled a man-made/catastrophe (jinzai)?

• Is the word imposition, or forced … (oshitsuke) being used in connection to the building, the start, or use of nuclear power facilities?

• Are the actors linked to nuclear power being associated with or compared to the military or the culprits of World War 2?

• Are the actors linked to nuclear power being associated with criminal dealings?

• Are there connections to conspiracy (inbō) or darkness (yami) or surveillance of opponents (kanshi) with regard to nuclear power?

• Is nuclear power depicted as “evil”?

• Accountability (soft): dimension 2b) incompetence and lack of effort: “The actors managing and controlling nuclear power have made some mistakes. They need to improve their performance.”

• Is the communication of an actor being portrayed as clumsy or ineffective?

• Are the policies regarding nuclear power being portrayed as ineffective?

• Are there calls for increased efforts to convey information to the public or explain more thoroughly?

• Is the performance of actors being criticized as insufficient or yet insufficient and it is called for improvements?

• Is the need (for officials, companies) to release more information being emphasized?

• Are speculations being made about how to improve things (for example, organization or communication)?

• Are there references to the need or responsibility to explain things (setsumei sekinin)?

• Is it being pointed out that the conditions for a restart of reactors are not yet being fulfilled.

• Is it being pointed out that the responsible managers/authorities don’t sufficiently understand the feelings of local communities.

• Is a disciplined and sound management of safety/communication being called for?

• Is the amount of time needed for decisions, measures, or release of information being criticized?

• Is the need for thorough management of the Fukushima accident being called for?

• Is the risk of losing trust by causing an accident or the like being pointed out?

• Is it pointed out that there is no clear schedule for restart of reactors, or other measures to be taken?

• Are authorities being criticized for being unprepared (fubi)?

• Is lack of attention (yudan) by authorities being criticized?

• Runaway: “Nuclear power is out of control. Nuclear energy is not simply one of several energy sources, but an elemental threat to mankind.”

• Gamson:

• TMI problems are new, unexpected ones, not something we have under control and understand.

• Nuclear technology is so complicated that one can’t anticipate all of the problems that will arise.

• Links to nuclear bombs, destruction, Hiroshima, mushroom clouds.

• TMI is like the movie China syndrome.

• Officials may think (or say) that they have nuclear power under control, but they really don’t. Nuclear energy is out of control, has a momentum of its own. We don’t know what we have unleashed.

• Monster metaphor. Nuclear power is a monster (e.g., Frankenstein’s monster) that is lying in wait and may wreak havoc upon us.

• Genie metaphor. Nuclear power is a genie that has been let out of its bottle.

• Dangers of nuclear power are hidden, invisible; like sitting on a time bomb; one doesn’t know even if one has been injured until many years later.

• Jokes about being irradiated and other forms of gallows humor about nuclear catastrophes.

• The only safety is running like hell, praying, using good luck charms, and the like; there is no place to run.

• Play on the concept of the China syndrome.

• Jokes about mutants.

• Dangers are too great to calculate in a cost-benefit analysis.

• It’s ridiculous to say that the system worked at TMI just because the accident wasn’t worse than it was. The system broke down, didn’t work.

• Slogan: “Chernobyl is everywhere.”

• Image of a reactor out of control, spewing dangerous radiation.

Adapted; complemented:

• The unparalleled threat/risks posed by nuclear power is being underlined.

• Coexistence between mankind and nuclear technology is impossible.

• Genetic damage caused by radiation is uncontrollable.

• Depiction of (possible) genetic damage due to radiation, or the risk of it.

• A threshold for increased cancer risk due to radiation or comparisons suggesting such a threshold are being rejected.

• Natural radiation is portrayed as not harmless/potentially dangerous; every additional non-natural radiation should be evaded.

• A worldwide threat from nuclear power is being emphasized.

• Accidents like Chernobyl could or will occur in Japan as well.

• Depictions of death or sickness related to nuclear power.

• Projections of possible deaths and contaminated areas from nuclear accidents are being portrayed.

• Warnings of lack of preparation against nuclear accidents.

• The (high) risks associated with certain (nuclear related) technologies are being pointed out.

• Nuclear facilities are threatening residents.

• Radioactive waste is a threat to the future of our children and grandchildren.

• Damage from radiation could threaten multiple generations.

• Human errors will undeniably occur and in the case of nuclear power this could lead to apocalyptic consequences.

• Nuclear power is unparalleled because it can contaminate whole landscapes and/or because the way radiation spreads is unpredictable.

• The causes of problems with nuclear power plants (often) remain unknown; depiction of official inability to actually find out what went wrong.

• High number of accidents related to nuclear power facilities is pointed out.

• The time nuclear waste needs to be stored are so long, that it’s essentially impossible to know whether it can be kept safe.

• Nuclear power is like a mansion without a toilet (toire naki mansion). There is no solution to the nuclear waste problem.

• Depictions of nuclear waste piling up and the inability to find a solution.

• Terrorist attacks on nuclear power facilities could prove devastating.

• Potential damage for nuclear power plants are so high, therefore no private insurance provider is willing to make an offer. That is why the state steps in.

• Japan is an earthquake-prone country and has an extraordinarily high concentration of population. This multiplies the potential damage of nuclear technology.

• The impossibility of evacuating certain areas in Japan in case of emergency or the high risks associated with such an evacuation are being pointed out.

• Japan or certain regions are being in danger of disappearing, dying, becoming uninhabitable.

• The term “nuclear earthquake catastrophe” (genpatsu shinsai) is used.

• A remaining risk due to earthquakes is pointed out.

• The risk of power plants being located on potential fault lines is emphasized.

• The condition of nuclear facilities is bad, portrayed in a negative way.

• Existing safety mechanisms are not enough, won’t or might not work.

• The whole of Japan is afflicted by the Fukushima accident.

• The nuclear accident showed that nuclear power is beyond control.

• The dangers of radioactivity from the Fukushima accident are depicted as grave/threatening.

• High radioactivity can make it impossible to repair or even check facilities; examples of this.

• Surprise at the vulnerability of nuclear facilities as witnessed in Fukushima.

• The officially designated evacuation zones are too small.

• A variety of health issues (nosebleed, heart attacks) are connected to nuclear power.

• The existence of dangerous “hotspots” of radiation beyond evacuation zones is underlined.

• With any technology there remains a risk. In the case of nuclear power this can have grave consequences.

• Radiation doesn’t respect borders, it can spread over the whole globe.

• The Fukushima accident has destroyed the livelihood of residents.

• TEPCO wanted to evacuate its employees and leave the power plant (or detailed description of such scenes).

• People cannot return to contaminated communities.

• People don’t know where to live after being chased out of their homes (due to radiation).

• The limits of decontamination (josen) are being pointed out.

• The Fukushima facilities remain contaminated.

• Depictions of thyroid cancer and other symptoms possibly related to nuclear facilities/accidents.

• High levels of radioactive materials in food and nature (from nuclear accidents, facilities) are being pointed out.

• The uncertainty of scientific knowledge about dangers/consequences of radiation is pointed out.

• Nuclear technology is fragile, prone to accidents.

• The limits of scientifically understanding health effects caused by radiation are pointed out.

• The lack of understanding about the causes of nuclear accidents are pointed out.

Connection of atomic bomb and civil use of nuclear power

• Warnings of damage by the “ashes of death” (shi no hai; nuclear fallout) from civil nuclear power facilities.

• Civil and military nuclear facilities are being treated equally as existential threat to life and mankind (and/or suggestions that these technologies are bad and should be abandoned).

• The military origins, or the military character of the civil use of nuclear power are underlined.

• The amount of radiation released during nuclear accidents are compared with the power of atomic bombs.

• The victims of Hiroshima/Nagasaki and Fukushima are being treated together.

• Soft Path: We need to change our way of life to save the environment. We need to find new, ecologically sound ways of producing energy. Nuclear power is a symbol of gigantism, anthropocentrism. It produces discrimination and suffering of the weak and peripheral people and threatens human and animal life.”

Gamson:

• If we conserve more and use our energy more efficiently, we won’t have to change our way of life.

• Radioactive wastes are part of the general problem of toxic wastes and environmental pollution plaguing our society.

• Wrong type of technology; contrasted with alternative energy sources such as solar, wood, thermal, and wind energy; contrasted with ecologically safer, renewable, decentralized sources.

• Conservation and changes in lifestyle as alternatives to nuclear energy.

• Nuclear power plants threaten ecology and the environment; threaten marine life.

• If we didn’t have a lifestyle that wasted so much energy on needless gadgets, we wouldn’t be endangering the planet with nuclear energy.

Adapted; complemented:

• Victims of nuclear power*

• Is the suffering of victims of nuclear power plants being highlighted?

• Is the building of nuclear power plants in peripheral/rural regions being depicted as mechanism of discrimination?

• Is the sharing of risks from nuclear power plants being depicted as unfair, discriminatory against local communities?

• Are parallels being drawn between the locations of nuclear power plants and locations of US military bases for instance, in Okinawa.

• Is the fight against nuclear power being portrayed as fight for human rights (jinken tōsō)?

• Are rural citizens being portrayed as a group discriminated against with the building of nuclear power plants?

• Are children being depicted as (innocent/potential) victims of nuclear power?

• Is nuclear power portrayed as a threat to life (inochi/seimei)?

• Mothers need to protect their children from nuclear power.

• Is the role of mothers fighting against nuclear power being underlined?

• Children are especially affected by the Fukushima disaster.

Nuclear power destroys home/the local community

• Is nuclear power portrayed as dirty/unclean or as an external threat encroaching on communities?

• Nuclear power splits the local community, destroys harmony.

• Are the victims of nuclear power portrayed in an idealized way and contrasted with evil or dirty nuclear power?

• Are local dialects being used to describe the (negative) feelings of local citizens towards nuclear power?

• Nuclear power threatens the livelihood of local people (farmers, fishermen).

• Efforts towards sustainability were destroyed by nuclear power.

Change of lifestyle, harmony with nature, renewables

• Are there calls for changing the own way of life or the way of consumption to save energy and thus enable phasing out nuclear power or more generally to not depend on nuclear power?

• Are the advantages of decentral new energy sources like (water-,) solar- and wind power compared favorably to nuclear power?

• Are there calls to reduce energy consumption (in order to not depend on nuclear power anymore)?

• Are there references to threats to animals and plants from nuclear power?

• Are there calls to submit science and technology to serve humans, human living (seikatsu), not the opposite?

• Is the need to live in harmony with nature (shizen) being underlined (in the context of nuclear power)?

• Are there calls to be independent from experts, to build one’s own judgement?

• Are there calls to become independent from technology?

• Is giant science (kyodai kagaku) portrayed in a negative way?

• Science is not an end on its own, we have to decide to what end we want to use it.

• The relation between expert and citizens should be democratized.

• An image of ever-increasing progress is being questioned/neglected.

• Calls for an energy shift/decentralized energy solutions, or emphasis of the need for it and of its possibilities.

• Calls for local production and use of electricity (not from nuclear power;chisan chishō).

• The Fukushima accident is a major environmental disaster.

• Note that in contrast to Gamson, I coded references to victims of nuclear power if they are not connected to the uncontrollable nature of nuclear power (signified by radiation, mutants and the like), as “soft path”.

• Not-Cost-Effective: “Nuclear power is not cheap; its costs are enormous.”

• Gamson:

• It was once said, unrealistically, that nuclear power would produce electricity “too cheap too meter.”

• Nuclear power is not cost-effective. The trade-off between risks/costs and benefits is unfavorable; no sense continuing with it. Hasn’t proved to be as cheap as was originally hoped.

• List of problems, implying that collectively they make nuclear power an impractical alternative.

• Coal and other fossil fuels are more practical, cost-effective alternatives to nuclear power (but no mention of “soft paths” such as solar energy).

Adapted; complemented:

• An oversupply of energy is pointed out.

• The oil price is very low compared to the time of the oil crisis.

• Projections of oil price development and energy demand led to overrating nuclear power’s efficiency.

• Are the hidden costs of nuclear power referred to, for example, the high price of saving excess energy production overnight in pumped-storage power plants?

• Are the high costs of plant construction referred to?

• Are there calls to include hidden costs into the official price calculations?

• Are the high costs of nuclear waste storage and disposal being emphasized?

• Are the high costs for reprocessing nuclear fuel pointed out?

• Are the difficulties with control and long-term surveillance of nuclear waste and the accompanying financial risks being mentioned?

• Are the excessively high costs of the nuclear fuel cycle (the fast breeder program) being mentioned?

• Are there warnings of the costs for decommissioning reactors?

• Are the costs of the Fukushima nuclear accident being portrayed as huge and difficult to even calculate?

• Are the costs for nuclear energy production depicted as high/higher than other energy sources?

• Are the chances of ever making the nuclear fuel cycle profitable being questioned?

• Are the high costs for subsidies for nuclear power plant construction and/or running nuclear plants being criticized?

• Is nuclear power portrayed as generally expensive and as a financial burden for citizens/the state?

• Are there calls to separate grid and electricity production?

• Are there calls to liberalize the electricity market?

• Are the positive economic effects or potentials of fostering renewables being referred to?

• Resistance: “We need to stop nuclear power!”

• Calls for action against nuclear power.

• Positive depictions of people resisting nuclear power (demonstrations, protest actions).

• Categorical rejections of nuclear power (genpatsu hantai).

• Calls for public participation in deciding energy policy.

• Calls for referendums about nuclear power.

• Calls to stop plants or parts of the nuclear power program.

• Negative depictions about mechanisms inhibiting resistance to nuclear power plants; about discrimination of people resisting.

• Positive depictions of instances of resistance; successful resistance.

• The majority is against nuclear power.

• People resisting nuclear power shouldn’t be ignored.

• Lack of resistance in the past is portrayed negatively and/or reflected upon (after the Fukushima accident).

• Hurdle*: “Nuclear power is manageable, but there are a lot of problems to resolve.”

• Is there a catalogue of things needing to be done to address the problems of nuclear power including attracting capital for investments, assuring non-proliferation (at home and in other countries), and the development of technologies to deal with nuclear waste, acquisition of human capital (jinzai), and improvements of safety?

• Are there descriptions of delays in constructing nuclear power plants and other (solvable) problems?

• Are the conditions for holding on to nuclear power plants being listed?

• Are stopped plant projects being depicted as related to difficult conditions?

• Is the situation of nuclear power plants being described as difficult?

• Are difficulties of increasing the share of nuclear power being mentioned?

• Are tasks (kadai) in the development of nuclear power plants or the managing of an accident etc. being referred to?

• Is the lack of technicians; need for nuclear safety research being pointed out?

• Is nuclear power rendered acceptable if safety is guaranteed?

• Are moves by authorities and other actors that lead to negative (mis)perceptions of nuclear power being pointed out?

• Are problems to “maintain the technological level” being pointed out?

• It is pointed out that reactors “aren’t moving” due to solvable problems.

• Are attempts being described aiming to attain safety (anzen kakuho), but difficulties reassuring people are mentioned?

• Is the “difficult environment” (gyakufū) of nuclear power being described?

• Is nuclear power described as “standing at the crossroads?”

• Are doubts and differences within the nuclear power community being depicted (without generally rejecting nuclear power)?

• Are single actors within the nuclear power community (for example, Dōnen, JAEA, NISA) being singled out as problems; are there calls to replace them with more reliable actors.

• Is the need to “learn the lessons” (kyōkun) from accidents and problems being underlined?

• Is the danger of reactors having to be stopped being referred to?

• Are there warnings to not forget the lessons (of nuclear development) of the past?

• It is argued that the antinuclear movement has a check function, which can help to sustain a good development of nuclear power?

• Are there calls for being cautious (shinchō) in promoting nuclear power?

• Are there calls for more safety education, training etc.?

• Are increasing or higher costs being depicted as a (manageable) challenge of nuclear power?

• Are future areas of improvement (in terms of safety, communication) pointed out?

• Is the development of the nuclear power program portrayed as not going as planned?

• Are reoccurring troubles (toraburu) being mentioned?

• Are doubts (kennen) of inhabitants, local communities or other actors being mentioned (all of the above without assuming fundamental, dangerous or irresolvable problems)?

• This frame could be interpreted as part of the “progress” frame (as in Gamson’s codebook), but I have distinguished it here because it doesn’t appear in the materials of the pronuclear alliance.

• Victims: “People in Fukushima went through a lot of hardships, but they’re doing their best (without referring to problems of nuclear energy or accountability).”

• Are activities being portrayed, which help victims in Fukushima?

• Are success stories of recovery of victims/devastated regions being presented?

• Are people’s stories being told, who help the victims/evacuees?

• Is the cohesion and resilience of victims’ communities being described?

• Are the will and efforts of victims to rebuild their community and take their fortune into their own hands being depicted?

• Are tragic hardships of victim’s being depicted (all of the above without connecting them to accountability and structural problems of nuclear power)?

Appendix 3

Table

Asahi Shinbun, 1973–1985
Title	Article	Year	Section	Topic**
Shizen to no wakai (Compromise with nature)	1*	1973	Economy	Technology
Enerugī 73 moetsukiru chikyū (Energy 73, burning earth)	3	1973	Economy	Energy
Asu no enerugī (Tomorrow’s energy)	1	1974	Unknown	Energy
Shiren he no shuppatsu (Take off towards challenge)	1	1974	Science	Economy
Kakunenryō (Nuclear fuel)	48	1976	Science	Technology
Honban matsu kakunenryō saishori kōjō (The reprocessing plant waiting for it’s turn)	5	1977	Science	Technology
Mutsu	60	1977	Science	Problems
Shin-enerugī jijō (New energy situation)	3	1978	Economy	Energy
21seiki he no joso (Run into the 21st century)	2	1979	Science	Technology
Shin Nippon enerugī chizu (New energy map of Japan)	2	1980	Economy	Energy
Takai denki no hamon (The results of expensive electricity)	3	1982	Economy	Energy
Yūjō no rōkaku ha ima (The castle built on oil today)	1	1983	Unknown	Energy
Sum	130

Table

Asahi Shinbun, 1986–2010
Title	Article	Characters	Year	Section	Topic
Genpatsu to ningen (Human and nuclear power)	42	84,000	1986	Science	Problems
Genpatsu ha ima: Chernobyl kara ninen (Nuclear power today, two years after Chernobyl)	5	7500	1988	Science	Problems
Genpatsu ha yasui ka (Is nuclear power cheap?)	3	4800	1988	Economy	Problems
Gonenme no Chernobyl (Chernobyl after five years)	7	11,200	1991	Science	Problems
Document: genshiro kinkyū teishi (Report: reactor emergency shutdown)	12	14,400	1992	Unknown	Problems
Plutonium gap (Plutonium gap)	3	4800	1992	Science	Problems
Nihon no genshiryoku (Japan’s nuclear power)	37	48,100	1995	Economy	Problems
Monju tonza, natrium kasai no shōgeki (The failure if Monju. Shock of the sodium fire)	4	5600	1995	Unknown	Problems
Meiso plutonium, Monju rinkai wo mae ni (Plutonium-maze, Monju before criticality)	5	9500	1996	Science	Problems
Chernobyl chikyū hibaku no 10nen (Chernobyl: 10 years contaminated world)	8	11 200	1996	Science	Problems
Kinkyū hōkoku Dōnen kōjō bakuhatsu (Emergency report: explosion in the Dōnen plant)	3	6000	1997	Social Affairs	Problems
Tettei kenshō: Dōnen kōjō bakuhatsu (Check: explosion in the Dōnen factory)	6	10 200	1997	Social Affairs	Problems
Rupo: sekaiichi no daishō: Kashiwazaki-Kariwa genpatsu no machi (Report: the price of being number one, the town of the Kashiwazaki-Kariha nuclear power plant)	4	6400	1997	Local	Problems
Dō naru genshiryoku anzen (What will become of nuclear safety?)	4	5200	1998	Science	Problems
Ugokidasu Co2-sakugen business (The business of CO2-Reduktion starts)	2	3200	2000	Science	Economy
Yureru genshiryoku (Nuclear power staggering)	23	32 200	2000	Economy	Problems
! Genpatsu ha doko he (Where to with nuclear power?)	3	6900	2000	Science	Problems
! Plutoniumbusiness (Plutonium business)	2	6100	2000	Science	Problems
Kenshō denryoku kiki, kyōkun ha ikaseru ka (Check: electricity crisis. Will the lessons be drawn?)	2	4400	2001	Economy	Energy
Genshiryoku: ugokenu kōzu (Nuclear power, the unmovable structure)	3	5000	2003	Science	Problems
Pluthermal nanawa (Seven pluthermal stories)	7	4550	2004	Science	Technology
Datsu genpatsu no yukue, Ōshu no mosaku (Where to with the nuclear exit, the European probing)	3	4200	2004	Economy	Problems
Chernobyl, osentaichi 20nen (Chernobyl: 20 years contaminated earth)	7	8750	2006	Science	Problems
Genpatsu to jishin (Nuclear power and earthquakes)	6	8000	2006	Science	Problems
Enerugī, yureru sekai (Energy, staggering world)	1	1700	2006	Science	Energy
Asia enerugī saizensen kyōsō no danmen (On the frontline of Asia’s energy. Dissection of the amok run)	4	2000	2006	Economy	Energy
Enerugī anzen hoshō (Energy security)	2	4700	2007	Science	Energy
Genshiryoku wo aruku: Ei, Futsu no kyōkun (Nuclear journey, lessons from England and France)	5	7000	2008	Science	Problems
Genpatsu ha mamoreru ka (Can we protect the nuclear power plants?)	5	7000	2008	Social Affairs	Problems
Tenki no genshiryoku (Nuclear power at the crossroads)	15	22 500	2010	Science	Economy
Sum	233	357 100
Asahi Shinbun, 2011–2014
Genpatsu to media (Nuclear power and the media)	306	275 400	2011	Social Affairs	Problems
Shinwa no kage ni, Fukushima genpatsu 40nen (In the shadow of the safety myth, 40 years Fukushima nuclear power plant)	8	20 800	2011	Social Affairs, Science, Housewive’s, Economy	Problems
Osentaichi kara, Chernobyl jiko 25nen (From the contaminated earth, 25 years Chernobyl)	3	4500	2011	Science	Problems
Sō-ene shin-ene (New energy, creative energy)	4	4000	2011	Science	Energy
Denryoku no sentaku: post-3.11 (The choices of electricity: post-3.11)	9	21 600	2011	Science, Economy, Foreign, Politics, Social Affairs	Energy
Kaku no jidai wo ikite (Life in the atomic age)	7	10 500	2011	Social Affairs	Problems
Genbaku to genpatsu (Atomic bombs and nuclear power plants)	7	14 000	2011	Social Affairs	Problems
Tōden baishō no yukue (What will become of TEPCO’s indemnity)	3	6900	2011	Economy	Problems
Prometheus no wana (The trap of Prometheus)	856	856 000	2011	Special Reporting	Problems
Kosodate to genpatsujiko (Childrearing and the nuclear accident)	2	3000	2011	Social Affairs	Problems
Minami-Sōma nikki (Minami-Sōma diary)	24	23 400	2011	Local	Problems
Genpatsu rettō Nihon (Nuclear island chain Japan)	35	63 000	2012	Social Affairs (Local, Housewive’s, Economy)	Problems
Genpatsu kokka (Nuclear state)	19	34 200	2012	Politics	Problems
Owaranu hairo, Bei-Three-Mile-Tō genpatsu (Never-ending decommissioning. The Three-Mile-Island nuclear power plant)	3	3600	2012	Science	Problems
Genkai Nippon, Fukushima ga tou seifu (Japan at the limit, Fukushima questioning the government)	10	26 000	2012	Economy	Problems
Sunaue no genpatsu, jishin rettō ni 57ki (Nuclear power built on sand, 57 reactors in the earthquake island chain)	5	11 000	2012	Science	Problems
Oshiete! Denki ryōkin (Explain to me: electricity prices)	40	44 000	2012	Economy	Economy
Denryoku no katachi, seido kaikaku no mae ni (The shape of electricty: before the reform)	8	16 000	2012	Economy, Science	Energy
Hōshano to kurashi (Radiation and everyday life)	16	32 000	2012	Housewive’s	Problems
Shoku to hoshanō (Food and radioactivity)	6	8400	2012	Social Affairs, Housewive’s	Problems
Risk shakai (Risk society)	2	2800	2012	Social Affairs	Problems
Doitsu genpatsu, hairo no genba kara (German nuclear power plants: on the site of decomissioning)	2	3200	2013	Science	Problems
Hokorobu kakunenryō cycle (The dissolving nuclear fuel cycle)	4	4000	2013	Economy	Problems
Genpatsu riken wo ou (Tracing nuclear power interests)	11	8250	2013	Special Reporting	Problems
Denryoku wo chiiki no te ni, enerugī jichi (Energy into the hands of the regions, energy self-reliance)	4	4000	2013	Social Affairs	Energy
Kaku to inochi wo kangaeru (Reflections on life and the atom)	19	38 000	2014	Social Affairs	Problems
Sum	1413	1 538 550

* Single or multiple articles concerning nuclear power were taken into the sample also from article series about wider topics, for example, energy. In these cases the article number can be one, but the articles still fall under the category of article series.

** Coding by topic was also done, but not taken up in this article.

Table

Yomiuri Shinbun, 1973–1985
Title	Article	Year	Section	Topic
Enerugī kiki (Energy crisis)	2	1973	Unknown	Energy
Kakunenryō cycle gannen (The year of birth of the fuel cycle)	2	1977	Science	Technology
Genshiryokujidai no sentaku (Choices in the nuclear age)	11	1977	Science, Economy	Technology
Uran wo motomete (Searching for uranium)	3	1978	Foreign	Technology
Genshiryoku: Ōbei no shiren (Nuclear power, Euro-American challenges)	5	1978	Economy	Problems
Sekiyu: yureru sekai (Petrol: the world is staggering)	1	1979	Economy	Energy
Three Mile Island genpatsu jiko no kyōkun (The lessons from the Three-Mile-Island accident)	21	1979	Science	Problems
Shin enerugī ni idomu (The challenge of new energy)	1	1980	Science	Technology
Datsusekiyu he no chōsen, Ōbei no enerugī jijō (Searching for ways out of petrol. The energy situation in the America and Europe)	4	1980	Foreign, Economy	Energy
Sekiyu ga nakute mo daijōbu? (Can we do without oil?)	1	1980	Science	Energy
Sum	51

Table

Yomiuri Shinbun, 1986–2010
Title	Article	Characters	Year	Section	Topic
Genshiryoku Yōroppa jijō (The situation of nuclear power in Europe)	3	3900	1987	Science	Problems
Genpatsujiko no omoni, Chernobyl kara ichinen (The heavy burden of the nuclear accident. One year from the Chernobyl accident)	2	2700	1987	Foreign	Problems
Chernobyl no hitotachi (The people from Chernobyl)	6	6600	1989	Housewive’s	Problems
89 genpatsu genshō (The nuclear power phenomenon 89)	6	6000	1989	Housewive’s	Problems
Denki ga tarinai (Electricity supply is insufficient)	2	2000	1990	Economy	Energy
Chernobyl gonen (Five years since Chernobyl)	5	7000	1991	Science	Problems
Enerugī kyōiku (Energy education)	7	8400	1991	Housewive’s	Energy
Monju rinkai he (Monju on the way to nuclear fission)	3	3600	1994	Science	Technology
Chernobyl saihōmon (Return to Chernobyl)	5	5500	1996	Housewive’s	Problems
Chernobyl to mukiatte (Facing Chernobyl)	3	3750	1996	Housewive’s	Problems
Dō kangaeru genshiryoku (What to think about nuclear power)	10	14 200	1996	Science	Problems
Semaru shinpan 8.4 Maki genpatsu jūmin tōhyō (Before the verdict: the referendum in Maki on April 4)	3	3300	1996	Social Affairs	Problems
Donen jikai, genshiryoku 40nenme no gekishin (Self-destruction of Dōnen,the quake in nuclear power’s 40th year)	3	4500	1997	Social Affairs	Problems
Enerugī 20seiki he no sentaku (Energy, the choices of the 21st century)	39	175 500	1997	Economy	Energy
Yōroppa genshiryoku jijō (The situation of nuclear power in Europe)	3	4200	1998	Science	Technology
Rinkai jiko no shōgeki (The shock of the criticality accident)	3	4200	1999	Unknown	Problems
Denryoku-kō (Energy-reflection)	1	1000	1999	Social Affairs	Energy
Enerugī, 21seiki no sentaku (Energy, the choices of 21st century)	64	225 400	2000	Economy	Energy
Denryoku kiki (Electricity crisis)	3	6900	2003	Economy	Energy
Chernobyl, fu no isan 20nen (Chernobyl, 20 years of bad heritage)	3	3900	2006	Science	Problems
Genshiryoku 50nen (50 years of nuclear power)	5	8000	2007	Science	Technology
Genpatsu chokkagata jishin (Direct quake below the nuclear power plant)	3	3900	2007	Science	Problems
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa saikai ne no michi (Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, the way to restart)	3	4500	2007	Science	Problems
Kyūchi no kakunen (Nuclear fuel in crisis)	3	4500	2008	Science	Problems
Kasoku genpatsu business (Nuclear business taking pace)	3	3000	2009	Economy	Economy
Sum	191	516 450

Table

Yomiuri Shinbun, 2011–2014
Title	Article	Characters	Year	Section	Topic
Daishinsai, sekai he no kyōkun (Nuclear earthquake catastrophe. The lessons for the world)	3	4500	2011	Foreign	Problems
Denryoku ishin (Electricity restauration)	34	37 400	2011	Economy	Energy
Kenshō datsugenpatsu (Check: nuclear phase-out)	5	5000	2011	Science	Energy
Kenshō Daishinsai, Higashi Nihon Daishinsai (Check: The Great East Japan Earthquake)	7	17,000	2011	Unknown	Problems
Kenshō kyūkagetsu genpatsu kiki (Check: nine months after the nuclear crisis)	2	4800	2011	Unknown	Problems
Kenshō sankagetsu genpatsukiki (Check: three months after the nuclear crisis)	5	13 000	2011	Unknown	Problems
Kenshō rokukagetsu genpatsukiki (Check: six months after the nuclear crisis)	7	13 000	2011	Unknown	Problems
Shiritai hōshanō (I wanto to know about radiation)	12	12 000	2011	Housewive’s	Problems
Shoku no anzen to Daishinsai (Food security and the Earthquake catastrophe)	4	6000	2011	Housewive’s	Problems
Itsumo yonin de, hinankazoku no gokagetsu (Always the four of us. Five months with the refuggee family)	5	5000	2011	Social Affairs	Problems
Kōiki hinan (Long distance evacuation)	5	6000	2011	Housewive’s	Problems
Kenbunroku 2011, genpatsu hinan (Experience report: escaping the nuclear power plant)	7	7000	2011	Local	Problems
Kiso kara wakaru genshiryoku (Basic knowledge on nuclear power)	5	17 500	2012	Science	Technology
Genpatsu saikadō (Restart of the nuclear power plants)	2	2400	2012	Unknown	Problems
Enerugī no genba wo aruku (Walking the energy site)	1	1600	2012	Foreign	Energy
Kenshō ichinen genpatsu kiki (Check: one year after the nuclear crisis)	5	12 000	2012	Unknown	Problems
Genpatsu to Fukushima (Nuclear power and Fukushima)	80	112 000	2012	Local	Problems
Taichi saisei (Rebirth of the earth)	6	7200	2012	Science	Problems
Einō saikai (Reopening agriculture)	7	7000	2012	Local	Problems
Rettō saisei (Rebirth of the Japanese island chain)	6	5600	2012	Unknown	Problems
Fukkō he ima (Towards reconstruction now)	5	5000	2012	Unknown	Problems
Hisaichi nikki (Diary from the areas hit by the earthquake and tsunami)	11	9900	2012	Local	Problems
Denryoku saisei (Rebirth of electricity)	5	5000	2013	Science	Energy
Ganbappe (You can do it!)	8	14 400	2013	Social Affairs	Problems
Fukushima ha ima (Fukushima today)	2	2400	2013	Social Affairs	Problems
Fukkō ha ima (Reconstruction today)	5	5500	2013	Unknown	Problems
Iryō rennaisance (Medical renaissance)	17	18 700	2013	Housewive’s, Medicine	Problems
Kyōiku rennaisance (Education rennaisance)	22	24 200	2013	Education	Problems
Tenki no fukkō (Reconstruction at the crossraods)	4	4800	2014	Unknown	Problems
Sum	287	385 900

Table

Mainichi Shinbun, 1986–2010
Title	Article	Characters	Year	Section	Topic
Aomori Rokkasho	110	148 500	1990	Social Affairs	Problems
Plutonium yūsō, mienai kaizu (Plutonium transport, the route map is intransparent)	9	16 200	1992	Science	Problems
Monju ichinen, yuragu genshiryoku seisaku (One year after Monju, nuclear politics staggering)	5	6000	1995	Science	Problems
Kenshō, naze okita kōsoku zōshokuro Monju jiko (Check: why did the accident in the fast breeder Monju occur?)	2	5600	1995	Unknown	Problems
Hōshasen haikibutsu mondai (The problem of radioactive waste)	2	4000	1995	Science	Problems
Ayamachi no tsuke, Chernobyl jiko 10nen (The bill of past mistakes, ten years after the Chernobyl accident)	6	7200	1996	Science	Problems
Kenshō Dōnen saishori kōjō jiko (Check: Accident in the Dōnen-reprocessing plant)	5	4000	1997	Science	Problems
Aoi hikari no shōgeki, kenshō Tōkai-Mura rinkai jiko (The shock of blue light: checking the criticality accident in Tōkai-Mura)	5	9800	1999	Science	Problems
Aoi hikari no shōgeki: Tokai-Mura rinkai jiko ikkagetsu (The shock of blue light: one month since the Tōkai-Mura criticality accident)	14	16 000	1999	Politics, Economy, Science, Social Affairs	Problems
Tokushū: kenshō Tōkai-Mura rinkai jiko (Special edition: check of the criticality accident in Tōkai-Mura)	6	10 000	1999	Social Affairs	Problems
Ibaraki Tōkai-Mura rinkai jiko: kenshō ichinen (Check: one year after the criticality accident in Tōkai-Mura, Ibaraki)	2	11 600	2000	Unknown	Problems
Suzu genpatsu, dannen no kōzu (Suzu nuclear power plant, the background of the project stop)	2	2000	2000	Economy	Problems
Niigata Kariwa-Mura no sentaku pluthermal jūmin tōhyō (The choice of Kariwa-village in Niigata; pluthermal referendum)	3	3600	2001	Social Affairs	Problems
Hisshi daiteiden kaihi, dō naru genpatsu saikadō (By all means against the giant blackout. What will become of the nuclear reacor restart?)	5	6000	2003	Economy	Energy
JCO rinkaijiko kara 5nen, kyōkun ha ikasareta ka (Five years since the JCP criticality accident. Where the lessons applied?)	5	8800	2004	Science	Problems
Genpatsu shinsai shishin minaoshi wo mae ni (Nuclear quake. Before the change of earthquake regulation)	4	4600	2005	Science	Problems
Genpatsu shinsai, sōteigai he no sonae (Nuclear quake. Preparing for the unthinkable)	4	6200	2005	Science	Problems
20nengo no shinjitsu, Chernobyl wo tou (The truth after 20 years. Questioning Chernobyl)	5	6000	2006	Foreign	Problems
Genpatsu shinsai, Chūetsu jishin no shōgeki (Nuclear quake. The shock of the Chūetsu sea quake)	3	3600	2007	Science	Problems
Chūetsu oki jishin ichinen, hisaichi ha ima (One year after the Chūetsu sea quake. How does the region look today?)	2	7300	2008	Social Affairs (Science, Regional)	Problems
Monju kadai sanseki (Monju, unresolved problems piling up)	2	2700	2010	Science	Problems
Sum	201	289 700

Table

Mainichi Shinbun, 2011–2014
Title	Article	Characters	Year	Section	Topic
Papa dōshite Doitsu ha, datsugenpatsu no fūkei (Papa, why is Germany …, landscapes of a nuclear phase-out)	5	3500	2011	Foreign	Problems
Kyoko no cycle (The empty cycle)	19	26 600	2012	Social Affairs	Problems
Kōfuku no katachi, 3.11go no sentaku (The shape of happyness, choices after 3.11)	7	9800	2012	Social Affairs	Problems
Dō suru jinrui, kaku no gomi (Where to, humanity, with nuclear waste?)	5	7500	2011	Foreign	Problems
Himitsukaigi no shinsō (The truth about the secret meetings)	5	6500	2012	Social Affairs	Problems
Shuto to genpatsu (The capital and nuclear power)	3	6000	2014	Social Affairs, Economy, Science	Problems
Jōhō democracy (Information democracy)	6	15 000	2012	Social Affairs	Problems
Saisei enerugī, genba kara no hōkōku (Renewables, on-site report)	4	6000	2011	Economy	Energy
Genpatsu zero (Zero nuclear)	3	3000	2012	Economy, Science	Energy
Setsuden 3nenme, sūji mokuhyō no nai natsu (The third year of energy saving. A summer without target quotas)	3	4000	2013	Economy	Energy
Hibakusha. Hiroshima, Nagasaki (Atomic bomb victims, Hiroshima, Nagasaki)	10	10 000	2014	Social Affairs	Problems
Mitsumenaosu natsu (Looking back at the summer)	7	7000	2012	Social Affairs	Problems
Hibakusha kara no keikoku (Warning from the atomic bomb survivors)	4	4000	2011	Social Affairs	Problems
Kenshō daishinsai (Check: earthquake catastrophe)	22	220 000	2011	Social Affairs (Politics, Science, Economy)	Problems
Kono kuni to genpatsu (This country and nuclear power)	44	140 100	2011	Social Affairs (Science)	Problem
Mizu to midori no chikyū kankyō (The earth environment of water and green)	77	84 000	2011	Social Affairs	Problems
Higashi Nihon Daishinsai, dō suru hōshanō osen (The great Eastern Japan Earthquake. What to do about radiation contamination?)	6	15 000	2012	Housewive’s	Problems
Ashita he, Higashi Nihon Daishinsai, Namie-Shō no ichinen (Towards tomorrow!, The Great Eastern Japan Earthquake, one year with Namie elementary school)	5	3800	2012	Social Affairs	Problems
Chihōsaisei. Fukushima no chōsen (Local reconstruction, the challenge of Fukushima)	3	3300	2013	Social Affairs	Problems
Fukkō wo tou, Higashi Nihon Daishinsai (Questioning reconstruction, The Great Eastern Japan Earthquake)	6	6000	2013	Social Affairs	Problems
Higashi Nihon Daishinsai, kurashi dō naru (Great Eastern Japan Earthquake: What will become of reconstruction?)	20	44 400	2011	Housewive’s	Problems
Furusato (Home)	21	23 000	2012	Local	Problems
Story	7	36 000	2012	Social Affairs (Science)	Problems
Sum	292	684 500