Advanced search
Publication Cover
Annals of the International Communication Association Volume 29, 2005 - Issue 1: Communication Yearbook 29
Submit an article Journal homepage
132
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

Nuclear Legacies: Communication, Controversy, and the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Production Complex

Bryan C. TaylorUniversity of Colorado at BoulderCorrespondence[email protected]
,
William J. KinsellaNorth Carolina State University
,
Stephen P. DepoeUniversity of Cincinnati
&
Maribeth S. MetzlerUniversity of Cincinnati
Pages 363-409 | Published online: 18 May 2016

References

  • Ackland, L. (1999). Making a real killing: Rocky Flats and the nuclear west. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
  • Ackland, L. (2003, September 14). “Rocky Flats II” in the works. Denver Post, p. E1.
  • Allen, M. W., & Caillouet, R. H. (1994). Legitimation endeavors: Impression management strategies used by an organization in crisis. Communication Monographs, 61, 44–62.
  • Alvarez, R. (2000, May/June). Energy in decay. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 56, 24–35.
  • Applegate, J. S. (1998). Beyond the usual suspects: The use of citizen advisory boards in environmental decision-making. Indiana Law Journal, 73, 903–957.
  • Applegate, J. S. (1999). National security and environmental protection: The half-full glass [review]. Ecology Law Quarterly, 26, 350–399.
  • Asen, R., & Brouwer, D. C. (2001). Introduction: Reconfigurations of the public sphere. In R. Asen & D. C. Brouwer (Eds.), Counterpublics and the state (pp. 1–32). Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Barnes-Kloth, R., Depoe, S. P., & Hamilton, J. (1999, November). History in the making: Inside the Fernald Living History Project. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Communication Association, Chicago.
  • Barnes-Kloth, R., Depoe, S., Hamilton, J., & Lombardo, A. (1999, July). Memories of Fernald: Defining a ‘sense of place’ through personal narrative. Paper presented at the conference on Communication and the Environment, Flagstaff, AZ.
  • Bartimus, T., & McCartney, S. (1991). Trinity’s children: Living along America’s nuclear highway. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  • Bazerman, C. (2001). Nuclear information: One rhetorical moment in the construction of the information age. Written Communication, 18, 259–295.
  • Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Bennis, W., & Biederman, P. W. (1997). Organizing genius: The secrets of creative collaboration. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration strategies. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Bergeron, K. D. (2002). Tritium on ice: The dangerous new alliance of nuclear weapons and nuclear power. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Bergeron, K. D. (2004, January-February). Nuclear weapons: The death of no-dual-use. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 60, 15–17.
  • Bjork, R. S. (1992). The strategic defense initiative: Symbolic containment of the nuclear threat. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Blain, M. (1991). Rhetorical practice in an anti-nuclear weapons campaign. Peace and Change, 16, 355–378.
  • Boiko, P. E., Morrill, R. L., Flynn, J., Faustman, E. M., van Belle, G., & Omenn, G. S. (1996). Who holds the stakes? A case study of stakeholder identification at two nuclear weapons production sites. Risk Analysis, 16, 237–249.
  • Bradbury, J. A., & Branch, K. M. (1999, February). An evaluation of the effectiveness of local site-specific advisory boards for U. S. Department of Energy environmental restoration programs. (Report PNNL-12139). Washington, DC: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
  • Brand, S. (1 999). The clock of the long now: Time and responsibility. New York: Basic Books.
  • Broad, W. J. (1985). Star warriors. New York: Simon & Schuster.
  • Cable, S., Shriver, T., & Hastings, D. (1999). The silenced majority: Quiescence and government social control on the Oak Ridge Nuclear Reservation. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 7, 59–81.
  • Campbell, K. S., Follender, S. I., & Shane G. (1998). Preferred strategies for responding to hostile questions in environmental public meetings. Management Communication Quarterly, 11, 401–421.
  • Canaday, J. (2000). The nuclear muse: Literature, physics, and the first atomic bombs. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
  • Carlisle, R. P. (1996). Supplying the nuclear arsenal: American production-reactors, 1942–1992. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Carnes, S. A., Schweitzer, M., Peelle, E. B., Wolfe, A. K., & Munro, J. F. (1998). Measuring the success of public participation on environmental restoration and waste management activities in the U.S. Department of Energy. Technology in Society, 20, 385–406.
  • Charles, D. (1988, January-February). The people vs. the complex. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 44, 29–30.
  • Cheney, G., & Christensen, L. T. (2001). Organizational identity: Linkages between internal and external communication. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research and methods (pp. 231–269). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Churchill, W. (1993). Struggle for the land: Indigenous resistance to genocide, ecocide, and expropriation in contemporary North America. Monroe, ME: Common Courage.
  • Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92–117.
  • Cochran, T., Arkin, W., Norris, R., & Hoenig, M. (1987). Nuclear Weapons Databook: Vol. II: U.S. Nuclear Warhead Production. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
  • Cohn, C. (1987). Sex and death in the rational world of defense intellectuals. Signs, 12, 687–718.
  • Couldry, N. (1999). Disrupting the media frame at Greenham Common: A new chapter in the history of mediations? Media, culture, and society, 21, 337–358.
  • Crawford v. National Lead Co, 784 F. Supp. 439 (S.D. Ohio, 1989).
  • Cronen, V. E. (1995). Practical theory and the tasks ahead for social approaches to communication. In W. Leeds-Hurwitz (Ed.), Social approaches to communication (pp. 217–242). New York: Guilford Press.
  • Dahl, R. (1985). Controlling nuclear weapons: Democracy vs. guardianship. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
  • Dalton, R. J., Garb, P., Lovrich, N. P., Pierce, J. C., & Whiteley, J. M. (Eds.). (1999). Critical masses: Citizens, nuclear weapons production, and environmental destruction in the United States and Russia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • D’Antonio, M. (1993). Atomic harvest: Hanford and the lethal toll of America’s nuclear arsenal. New York: Crown.
  • Deetz, S. A. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Deetz, S. A. (1995). Transforming communication, transforming business: Building responsive and responsible workplaces. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
  • Deetz, S. A., Tracy, S. J., & Simpson, J. L. (2000). Leading organizations through transition: Communication and cultural change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Depoe, S. P. (2000, November). Civic discovery or civic co-optation? Revisiting the Fernald Citizens Advisory Board. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Communication Association, Seattle, WA.
  • Derrida, J. (1984). No apocalypse, not now (full speed ahead, seven missiles, seven missives). Diacritics, 14(2), 20–31.
  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65–91.
  • Duffield, J. D., & Depoe, S. P. (1997). Lessons from Fernald: Reversing NIMBYism through democratic decision-making. Inside EPA’s Risk Policy Report, 3, 31–34.
  • Earning public trust and confidence: Requisites for managing radioactive wastes. (1993, November 1). Final report of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Task Force on Radioactive Waste Management. Retrieved January 8, 2000, from http://www.osti.gov/gpo/servlets/purl/10184724- j8WVKp/webviewable/
  • Edwards, P. N. (1997). The closed world: Computers and the politics of discourse in Cold War America. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Eisenberg, E. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227–242.
  • Engelhardt, T. (1998). The end of victory culture: Cold War America and the disillusioning of a generation. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
  • Fairholm, G.W. (1993). Organizational power politics: Tactics in organizational leadership. West-port, CT: Praeger.
  • Fairhurst, G. T., Cooren, F., & Cahill, D. (2002). Discursiveness, contradiction, and unintended consequences in successive downsizings. Management Communication Quarterly, 15, 501–541.
  • Fairhurst, G. T., Jordan, J. M., & Neuwirth, K. (1997). Why are we here? Managing the meaning of an organizational mission statement. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 25, 243–263.
  • Farrell, T. B. (1993). Norms of rhetorical culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Farrell, T. B., & Goodnight, G. T. (1981). Accidental rhetoric: The root metaphors of Three Mile Island. Communication Monographs, 48, 271–300.
  • Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee. (1993). Interim report of the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  • Feldman, S. P. (1990). Stories as cultural creativity: On the relation between symbolism and politics in organizational change. Human Relations, 43, 809–828.
  • Fermi, R. (1995). Picturing the bomb: Photographs from the secret world of the Manhattan Project. New York: H. N. Abrams.
  • Fernlund, K. J. (Ed.). (1998). The Cold War American West: 1945–1989. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
  • Findlay, J. M., & Hevly, B. (1995). Nuclear Technologies and nuclear communities: A history of Han-ford and the Tri-Cities: 1943–1993. Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of the Pacific Northwest.
  • Fiorino, D. J. (1996). Environmental policy and the participation gap. In W. M. Lafferty & J. Mead-owcroft (Eds.), Democracy and the environment: Problems and prospects (pp. 194–212). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
  • Fischhoff, B. (1987). Treating the public with risk communications: A public health perspective. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 12(3–4), 13–19.
  • Fisher, W. R. (1987). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
  • Freer, B. (1994). Atomic pioneers and environmental legacy at the Hanford site. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 31, 305–324.
  • Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24, 191–205.
  • Geiger, H. J., & Rush, D. (1992). Dead reckoning: A critical review of the Department of Energy’s epi-demiological research. Washington, DC: Physicians for Social Responsibility.
  • Gerber, M. S. (1992). On the home front: The cold war legacy of the Hanford nuclear site. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
  • Gilles, C. (1996). No one ever told us: Native Americans and the great uranium experiment. In J. Byrne & S. M. Hoffman (Eds.), Governing the atom: The politics of risk (pp. 103–125). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
  • Glass, M. (1993). Citizens against the MX: Public languages in the nuclear age. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
  • Goodnight, G. T. (1982). The personal, technical, and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18, 214–227.
  • Gray, P. (1995). Nuclear weapons “cleanup”: Prospect without precedent. San Francisco: Tides Foundation.
  • Griffiths, T. (1996). Hunters and collectors: The antiquarian imagination in Australia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gronbeck, B. E. (1998). The rhetorics of the past: History, argument, and collective memory. In K. J. Turner (Ed.), Doing rhetorical history (pp. 47–60). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
  • Gusterson, H. (1996). Nuclear rites: A nuclear weapons laboratory at the end of the Cold War. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Gusterson, H. (2004). Nuclear tourism. Journal for Cultural Research, 8, 23–31.
  • Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published in 1962).
  • Hales, P. B. (1997). Atomic spaces: Living on the Manhattan Project. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
  • Hance, B. J., Chess, C., & Sandman, P. M. (1989). Improving dialogue with communities: A risk communication manual for government. Trenton, NJ: Dept. of Environmental Protection and Energy.
  • Hanford Advisory Board. (2002). White paper on public involvement. Available at http://www.han-ford.gov/boards/HAB
  • Hardert, R. A. (1993). Public trust and governmental trustworthiness: Nuclear deception at the Fer-nald, Ohio weapons plant. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 5, 125–148.
  • Hardert, R. A., Reader, M., Scott, M. L., Moulton, G. L., & Goodman, A. (1989). A critical theory analysis of nuclear power: The implications of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. Humanity & Society, 13, 165–186.
  • Hebert, H. J. (2000, January 30). U. S. concedes nuke workers likely fell sick. Las Vegas Review Journal. Retrieved June 16, 2002, from http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2000/Jan-30-Sun-2000/news/12857717.html
  • Hevly, B., & Findlay, J. M. (Eds.). (1998). The atomic West. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
  • Hogan, J. M. (1994). The nuclear freeze campaign: Rhetoric and foreign policy in the telepolitical age. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
  • Hubbard, B. (1998). Reassessing Truman, the bomb, and revisionism: The burlesque frame and ent-elechy in the decision to use atomic weapons against Japan. Western Journal of Communication, 62, 348–385.
  • Hubbard, B., & Hasian, M.A., Jr. (1998). Atomic memories of the Enola Gay: Strategies of remembrance at the National Air and Space Museum. Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 1, 363–385.
  • Indigenous Environmental Network. (2002, May 9). Nuclear risks for tribes could endanger future generations. Retrieved June 15, 2002, from http://www.ienearth.org/alerts.html#yucca050902
  • Kane, T. (1988). Rhetorical histories and arms negotiations. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 24, 143–154.
  • Kaplan, L. (2000). Public participation in nuclear facility decisions: Lessons from Hanford. In D. L. Kleinman (Ed.), Science, technology, and democracy (pp. 67–83). Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Katriel, T. (1993). Our future is where our past is: Studying heritage museums as ideological and performative arenas. Communication Monographs, 60, 69–75.
  • Katz, S. B., & Miller, C. R. (1996). The low-level radioactive waste-siting controversy in North Carolina: Toward a rhetorical model of risk communication. In C. G. Herndl & S. C. Brown (Eds.), Green culture: Environmental rhetoric in contemporary America (pp. 111–139). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
  • Kauzlarich, D., & Kramer, R. C. (1998). Crimes of the American nuclear state: At home and abroad. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
  • Kinsella, W. J. (2001). Nuclear boundaries: Material and discursive containment at the Hanford nuclear reservation. Science as Culture, 10(2), 163–194.
  • Kinsella, W. J. (2002). Problematizing the distinction between expert and lay knowledge. New Jersey Journal of Communication, 10(2), 191–207.
  • Kinsella, W. J. (2004a). Nuclear discourse and nuclear institutions: A theoretical framework and two empirical examples. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication.
  • Kinsella, W. J. (2004b). Public expertise: A foundation for citizen participation in energy and environmental decisions. In S. P. Depoe, J. W. Delicath,& M. Aepli (Eds.), Communication in environmental decision making: Advances in theory and practice (pp. 83–95). Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Kinsella, W. J. (2005). One hundred years of nuclear discourse: Four master themes and their implications for environmental communication. In S. Senecah (Ed.), Environmental communication yearbook 2. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Kirsch, S. (2001). Lost worlds: Environmental disaster, “culture loss,” and the law. Current Anthropology, 42, 167–198.
  • Krasniewicz, L. (1992). Nuclear summer: The clash of communities at the Seneca Women’s Peace Encampment. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  • Krimsky, S., & Golding, D. (Eds.). (1992). Social theories of risk. Westport, CT: Praeger.
  • Krupar, J. (1998, August). Atomic ghost towns: A historiographic review of the Hanford Engineering Works landscape. Paper presented at the Second Los Alamos Invitational International History Conference, Los Alamos, NM.
  • Kuletz, V. L. (1998). The tainted desert: Environmental and social ruin in the American West. London: Routledge.
  • Laird, F. N. (1993). Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision making. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 18, 341–361.
  • Lanouette, W. (1990, January/February). James D. Watkins: Frustrated admiral of energy. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 46, 36–42.
  • Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation v. Hodel, 586 F. Supp. 1163 (E.D. Tenn. 1984).
  • Lewis, L. K. (1999). Disseminating information and soliciting input during planned organizational change: Implementers’ targets, sources, and channels for communicating. Management Communication Quarterly, 13, 43–75.
  • Lewis, L.K., Richardson, B.K., & Hamel, S.A. (2003). When the “stakes” are communicative: The lamb’s and lion’s share during nonprofit planned change. Human Communication Research, 29, 400–430.
  • Lewis, L. K., & Seibold, D. R. (1998). Reconceptualizing organizational change implementation as a communication problem: A review of literature and research agenda. In M. E. Roloff (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 21, (pp. 93–151). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Lodwick, D. G. (1993). Rocky Flats and the evolution of mistrust. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 5, 149–170.
  • Loeb, P. (1986). Nuclear culture: Living and working in the world’s largest atomic complex. Philadelphia: New Society.
  • Lowenthal, D. (1998). The heritage crusade and the spoils of history. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lowrie, K., & Greenberg, M. (1999, Spring). Cleaning it up and closing it down: Land use issues at Rocky Flats. Federal Facilities Environmental Journal, 69–79.
  • Luhmann, N. (1993). Risk: A sociological theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
  • Makhijani, A. (1995). A readiness to harm. In A. Makhijani, H. Hu, & K. Yih (Eds.), Nuclear wastelands: A global guide to nuclear weapons production and its health and environmental effects (pp. 1–10). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Makhijani, A., & Saleska, S. (1995). The production of nuclear weapons and environmental hazards. In A. Makhijani, H. Hu, & K. Yih (Eds.), Nuclear wastelands: A global guide to nuclear weapons production and its health and environmental effects (pp. 23–64). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Makhijani, A., Hu, H., & Yih, K. (1995). Nuclear wastelands: A global guide to nuclear weapons production and its health and environmental effects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Makhijani, A., Ruttenber, A.J., Kennedy, E., & Clapp, R. (1995). The United States. In A. Makhijani, H. Hu, & K. Yih (Eds.), Nuclear wastelands: A global guide to nuclear weapons production and its health and environmental effects (pp. 169–284). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Martinez, C., & Byrne, J. (1996). Science, society and the state: The nuclear project and the transformation of the American political economy. In J. Byrne & S. M. Hoffman (Eds.), Governing the atom: The politics of risk (pp. 67–102). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
  • Masco, J. (1999). States of insecurity: Plutonium and post-Cold War anxiety in New Mexico, 19921996. In J. Weldes, M. Laffey, H. Gusterson, & R. Duvall (Eds.), Cultures of insecurity: States, communities, and the production of danger (pp. 203–232). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Masco, J. (2002). Lie detectors: On secrets and hypersecurity in Los Alamos. Public Culture, 14, 441–467.
  • Mason, B. A. (2000, January 10). Fallout: Paducah’s secret nuclear disaster. The New Yorker, 30–36.
  • McComas, K. A. (2001). Theory and practice of public meetings. Communication Theory, 11, 36–55.
  • McComas, K. A. (2003a). Citizen satisfaction with public meetings used for risk communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31, 164–184.
  • McComas, K. A. (2003b). Trivial pursuits: Participant views of public meetings. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15, 91–115.
  • McCutcheon, C. (2002). Nuclear reactions: The politics of opening a radioactive waste disposal site. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
  • Mehta, M. D. (1998). Risk and decision-making: A theoretical approach to public participation in techno-scientific situations. Technology in Society, 20, 87–98.
  • Metzler, M. S. (1997). Organizations, democracy, and the public sphere: The implications of democratic (r)evolution at a nuclear weapons facility. Communication Studies, 48, 333–358.
  • Metzler, M. S. (2001). The centrality of organizational legitimacy to public relations practice. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 321–333). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D.J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853–886.
  • Mojtabai, A. G. (1986). Blessed assurance. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
  • Molella, A. (2003). Exhibiting atomic culture: The view from Oak Ridge. History and Technology, 19, 211–226.
  • National Academy of Sciences. (1989). The nuclear weapons complex: Management for health, safety, and the environment. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
  • Needleman, C. (1987). Ritualism in communicating risk information. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 12(3–4), 20–25.
  • Nelson, L., & Beardsley, G. L. (1987). Toward an interdisciplinary model of barriers to nuclear arms control. Social Science Journal, 24, 375–392.
  • Newman, R. P. (1995). Truman and the Hiroshima cult. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
  • Nolan, J. E. (1989). Guardians of the arsenal: The politics of nuclear strategy. New York: New Republic/Basic Books.
  • Nuke testing killed 11,000, study says. (2003, February 12). Denver Post, p. A4.
  • O’Connor, E. S. (1995). Paradoxes of participation: Textual analysis and organizational change. Organization Studies, 16, 769–803.
  • Office of Technology Assessment. (1991). Complex cleanup: The environmental legacy of nuclear weapons production (OTA-O-484). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  • Olson, K. M., & Goodnight, G. T. (1994). Entanglements of consumption, cruelty, privacy, and fashion: The social controversy over fur. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 80, 249–276.
  • Owendorf, J. M. (1996). DOE restores trust in post-Cold War era. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, 11, 110–112.
  • Pasternak, D. (1993). The Department of Energy’s informational black hole. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 5, 171–177.
  • Patterson, J. D., & Allen, M. W. (1997). Accounting for your actions: How stakeholders respond to the strategic communication of environmental activist organizations. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 25, 293–316.
  • Phillips, K. R. (1999). A rhetoric of controversy. Western Journal of Communication, 63, 488–510.
  • Popular Memory Group. (1982). Popular memory: Theory, politics, method. In R. Johnson, G. McLennan, B. Schwartz, & D. Sutton (Eds.). Making histories: Studies in history-writing and politics (pp. 205–252). London: Hutchinson.
  • Presidential memorandum. (1994, May 4). Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies. Federal Register, 59. Retrieved April 13, 1997, from http://www.em.doe.gov/public/tribal/whletter.html
  • Prosise, T. (1998). The collective memory of the atomic bombings misrecognized as objective history: The case of the public opposition to the National Air and Space Museum’s atom bomb exhibit. Western Journal of Communication, 62, 316–347.
  • Providing compensation to America’s nuclear weapons workers. (2000, December 11). Presidential Executive Order 13179. Federal Register, 65, 77487.
  • Ratliff, J. N. (1997). Improving environmental advocacy: How the Hanford Environmental Action League challenged the Department of Energy. Journal of the Northwest Communication Association, 25, 42–59.
  • Ratliff, J. N. (1998). The politics of nuclear waste: An analysis of a public hearing on the proposed Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository. Electronic Journal of Communication. Retrieved April 1, 1999, from http://www.cios.org/getfileVRatliff_V8N198
  • Reed, R., Lemak, D. J., & Hesser, W. A. (1997). Cleaning up after the Cold War: Management and social issues. Academy of Management Review, 22, 614–642.
  • Renn, O. (1992) Concepts of risk: A classification. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 53–79). Westport, CT: Praeger.
  • Rhodes, R. (1986). The making of the atomic bomb. New York: Simon & Schuster.
  • Rhodes, R. (1995). Dark sun: The making of the hydrogen bomb. New York: Simon & Schuster.
  • Rojecki, A. (1999). Silencing the opposition: Antinuclear movements and the media in the Cold War. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
  • Rosenthal, D. (1990). At the heart of the bomb: The dangerous allure of weapons work. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Ross, D. L., & Benson, J. A. (1995). Cultural change in ethical redemption: A corporate case study. Journal of Business Communication, 32, 345–362.
  • Rowan, K. E. (1991). Goals, obstacles, and strategies in risk communication: A problem-solving approach to improving communication about risks. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 19, 300–329.
  • Rowan, K. E. (1995). What risk communicators need to know: An agenda for research. In B. R. Burle-son (Ed.), Communication yearbook 18 (pp. 300–319). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
  • Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22, 887–910.
  • Sanger, S. L. (1995). Working on the bomb: An oral history of WW II Hanford. Portland, OR: Portland State University Continuing Education Press.
  • Schafer, J. K. (1994). Organizational theory and federal agency reorganizations: A Department of Energy case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Mason University.
  • Schell, J. (2000, January). The unfinished twentieth century: What we have forgotten about nuclear weapons. Harper’s Magazine, 41–56.
  • Schwartz, S. I. (Ed.). (1998). Atomic audit: The costs and consequences of U. S. nuclear weapons since 1940. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
  • Scott, S. G., & Lane, V. R. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. Academy of Management Review, 25, 43–62.
  • Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (1998). Communication, organization and crisis. In M. E. Roloff (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 21 (pp. 230–275). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Sheak, R. J., & Cianciolo, P. (1993). Notes on nuclear weapons plants and their neighbors: The case of Fernald. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 5, 97–122.
  • Shroyer, J. (1998). Secret mesa: Inside Los Alamos National Laboratory. New York: Wiley.
  • Silverman, M. J. (2000). No immediate risk: Environmental safety in nuclear weapons production, 1942–1985. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University.
  • Simon, R. (2004, June 16). Senate supports funding to study “bunker-buster.” Los Angeles Times. Retrieved June 20, 2004, from http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-defense16jun16.story
  • Smith, K. K. (2000). Mere nostalgia: Notes on a progressive paratheory. Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 3, 505–527.
  • Stegenga, J. A. (1991, March). Nuclearism and global economic justice. Thought, 66, 14–31.
  • Stelzer, I. M. (1996). The Department of Energy: An agency that cannot be reinvented. Washington, DC: AEI Press.
  • Sumner, D., Hu, H., & Woodward, A. (1995). Health hazards of nuclear weapons production. In A. Makhijani, H. Hu, & K. Yih (Eds.), Nuclear wastelands: A global guide to nuclear weapons production and its health and environmental effects (pp. 65–104). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Tannenwald, N. (1999). The bomb and its discontents [Review Essay]. International Studies Review, 1, 105–118.
  • Taylor, B. C. (1990). Reminiscences of Los Alamos: Narrative, critical theory and the organizational subject. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54, 395–419.
  • Taylor, B. C. (1993a). Register of the repressed: Women’s voice and body in the nuclear weapons organization. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 79, 267–285.
  • Taylor, B. C. (1993b). Fat Man and Little Boy: Cinematic representation of interests in the nuclear weapons organization. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 10, 367–394.
  • Taylor, B. C. (1996). Make bomb, save world: Reflections on dialogic nuclear ethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 25, 120–143.
  • Taylor, B. C. (1997a). Home zero: Images of home and field in nuclear-cultural studies. Western Journal of Communication, 61, 209–234.
  • Taylor, B. C. (1997b). Revis(it)ing nuclear history: Narrative conflict at the Bradbury Science Museum. Studies in Cultures: Organizations and Societies, 3, 119–145.
  • Taylor, B. C. (1997c). Shooting downwind: Depicting the radiated body in epidemiology and documentary photography. In M. Huspek & G. Radford (Eds.), Transgressing scientific discourses: Communication and the voice of other (pp. 289–328). Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Taylor, B. C. (1998a). Nuclear weapons and communication studies: A review essay. Western Journal of Communication, 62, 300–315.
  • Taylor, B. C. (1998b). The bodies of August: Photographic realism and controversy at the National Air and Space Museum. Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 1, 331–361.
  • Taylor, B. C. (2002). Organizing the “unknown subject”: Los Alamos, espionage, and the politics of biography.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 88, 33–49.
  • Taylor, B.C. (2003a). “Our bruised arms hung up as monuments”: Nuclear iconography in post-Cold War culture. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 20, 1–34.
  • Taylor, B. C. (2003b). Nuclear waste and communication studies [Review of Thomas V. Peterson, Linked arms: A rural community resists nuclear waste]. Review of Communication, 3, 285–291.
  • Taylor, B. C., & Davis, S. (1999). Environmental communication and nuclear communication studies: The case of Rocky Flats. In C. B. Short & D. Hardy-Short (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth biennial conference on communication and environment (pp. 286–299). Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University.
  • Taylor, B. C., & Freer, B. (2002). Containing the nuclear past: The politics of history and heritage at the Hanford Plutonium Works. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15, 563–588.
  • Taylor, B. C., & Hartnett, S. J. (2000). “National security, and all that it implies...”: Communication and (post-) Cold War culture. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 86, 465–487.
  • Thorpe, C. (2004). Against time: Scheduling, momentum, and moral order at wartime Los Alamos. Journal of Historical Sociology, 17, 31–55.
  • Tietge, D. J. (2002). Flash effect: Science and the rhetorical origins of Cold War America. Athens: Ohio University Press.
  • Toker, C. W. (2002). Debating “what ought to be”: The comic frame and public moral argument. Western Journal of Communication, 66, 53–83.
  • U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (1995). Closing the circle on the splitting of the atom: The environmental legacy of nuclear weapons production in the United States and what the Department of Energy is doing about it. Washington, DC: DOE-Environmental Management.
  • U.S. DOE. (1996). FY 1996 progress in implementing Section 120 of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, Tenth annual report to Congress. Office of Environmental Management. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  • U.S. DOE. (1997). Linking legacies: Connecting the Cold War nuclear weapons production processes to their environmental consequences. Office of Environmental Management. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  • U.S. DOE. (2000). Environmental management site-specific advisory board (SSAB) guidance. Office of Environmental Management. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  • U.S. DOE. (2003). Guidance for developing a site specific risk-based end state vision. Washington, DC: DOE-Environmental Management.
  • Ulmer, R. R. (2001). Effective crisis management through established stakeholder relationships. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 590–615.
  • Venette, S. J., Sellnow, T. L., & Lang, P. A. (2003). Metanarration’s role in restructuring perceptions of crisis: NHTSA’s failure in the Ford-Firestone crisis. Journal of Business Communication, 40, 219–236.
  • Weart, S. (1988). Nuclear fear: A history of images. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Weeks, J. (1997, October 24). Democratizing the U.S. Department of Energy: Progress and Policy Impact. Retrieved May 26, 2002, from http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/BCSIA/Library.nsf/pubs/demnrg
  • Weeks, J. (2000, September). Advice—and consent? The Department of Energy’s site-specific advisory boards. Retrieved May 26, 2002, from http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/BCSIA/Library.nsf/pubs/ advice&consent
  • White, H. (1980). The value of narrativity in the representation of reality. Critical Inquiry, 7, 5–27.
  • Williams, D. C. (1989). Under the sign of (an)nihilation: Burke in the age of nuclear destruction and critical deconstruction. In H. W. Simons & T. Melia (Eds.), The legacy of Kenneth Burke (pp. 196–223). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
  • Williams, W. L. (2002). Determining our environments: The role of Department of Energy citizen advisory boards. Westport CT: Greenwood Press.
  • Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.
  • Zelizer, B. (1995). Reading the past against the grain: The shape of memory studies. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 12, 214–239.
  • Zuckerbrod, N. (2001, July 28). Compensation to begin for nuclear workers, kin. Rocky Mountain News, p. A7.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.