Communicating Nuclear Power: A Programmatic Review

References

• Aldrich, D. P. (2008). Site fights: Divisive facilities and civil society in Japan and the West. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Balogh, B. (1991). Chain reaction: Expert debate and public participation in American commercial nuclear power, 1945–1975. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Banjeree, S. B. (2000). Whose land is it anyway? National interest, indigenous stakeholders, and colonial discourse: The case of the Jabiluka uranium mine. Organization & Environment, 13(3), 3–38. doi: 10.1177/1086026600131001
   Google Scholar
• Barbour, J. B., & Gill, R. (2013). Designing communication for the day-to-day safety oversight of nuclear power plants. Journal of Communication Research, 42, 168–189. doi: 10.1080/00909882.2013.859291
   Google Scholar
• Barge, K., & Andreas, D. (2013). Communities, conflict, and the design of dialogic conversation. In J. Oetzel and S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 609–634). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, U. (1987). The anthropological shock: Chernobyl and the contours of the risk society. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 32, 153–165. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41035363
   Google Scholar
• Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, U. (1995). Ecological politics in an age of risk. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Besley, J. C. (2010). Public engagement and the impact of fairness perceptions on decision favorability and acceptance. Science Communication, 32, 256–280. doi: 10.1177/1075547009358624
   Google Scholar
• Besley, J. C. (2012). Does fairness matter in the context of anger about nuclear energy decision making? Risk Analysis, 32, 25–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1539–6924.2011.01664.x
   Google Scholar
• Bickerstaff, K., Lorenzoni, I., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W., & Simmons, P. (2008). Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 145–169.doi: 10.1177/0963662506066719
   Google Scholar
• Binder, A. R. (2012). Figuring out #Fukushima: An initial look at functions and content of U.S. twitter commentary about nuclear risk. Environmental Communication, 6, 268–277. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2012.672442
   Google Scholar
• Birkland, T. A. (1998). Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting. Journal of Public Policy, 18, 53–74. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4007601
   Google Scholar
• Bourrier, M. (2011). The legacy of the theory of high-reliability organizations. Geneva, Switzerland: University of Geneva.
   Google Scholar
• Boyer, P. (1985). By the bomb’s early light. New York: Pantheon.
   Google Scholar
• Branch, K. M., & Olson, J. L. (2011). Review of the literature pertinent to the evaluation of safety culture interventions. Richland, WA: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
   Google Scholar
• Brummett, B. (1989). Perfection and the bomb: Nuclear weapons, teleology, and motives. Journal of Communication, 39, 85–95. doi: 10.1111/j.1460–2466.1989.tb01021.x
   Google Scholar
• Caldicott, H. (2006). Nuclear power is not the answer. New York: New Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carvalho, P. V. R., dos Santos, I. L., Gomes, J. O., & Borges, M. R. S. (2008). Micro incident analysis framework to assess safety and resilience in the operation of safe critical systems. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 21, 277–286. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2007.04.005
   Google Scholar
• Caulfield, H. (1989). Multiple exposures: Chronicles of the radiation age. New York: Perennial.
   Google Scholar
• Chernus, I. (2002). Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, T. (2010). Goshute Native American tribe and nuclear waste: Complexities and contradictions of a bounded-constitutive relationship. Environmental Communication, 4, 387–405. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2010.520724
   Google Scholar
• Cohn, S. M. (1997). Too cheap to meter: An economic and philosophical analysis of the nuclear dream. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, M. (2012). Nuclear safety and nuclear economics. South Royalton, VT: Vermont Law School.
   Google Scholar
• Covello, V. T., & Mumpower, J. L. (1985). Risk analysis and risk management: A historical perspective. Risk Analysis, 5. 103–120. doi: 10.1111/j.1539–6924.1985.tb00159.x
   Google Scholar
• Daniels, S. E., & Walker, G. B. (2001). Working through environmental conflict: The collaborative learning approach. Westport, CT: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, M. D. (1987). The military-civilian nuclear link: A guide to the French nuclear industry. Boulder, CO: Westview.
   Google Scholar
• Dawson, J. I., & Darst, R. G. (2006). Meeting the challenge of permanent nuclear waste disposal in the expanding Europe. Environmental Politics, 15, 610–627. doi: 10.1080/09644010600785226 DeLuca, K. M. (1999). Image politics: The new rhetoric of environmental activism.
   Google Scholar
• Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Depoe, S. P., Delicath, J. W., & Elsenbeer, M. A. (Eds.) (2004). Communication and public participation in environmental decision making. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Doyle, J. (2011). Acclimatizing nuclear? Climate change, nuclear power and the refram-ing of risk in the UK news media. International Communication Gazette, 73(1–2), 107–125. doi: 10.1177/1748048510386744 Duffy, R. (1997). Nuclear politics in America: A history and theory of government regulation. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Easterling, D., & Kunreuther, H. (1995). The dilemma of siting a high-level nuclear waste repository. Dordrecht: Springer. Endres, D. (2009a). From wasteland to waste site: The role of discourse in nuclear power’s environmental injustices. Local Environment, 14, 917–937. doi: 10.1080/13549830903244409
   Google Scholar
• Endres, D. (2009b). The rhetoric of nuclear colonialism: Rhetorical exclusion of American Indian arguments in the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste siting decision. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 6, 39–60. doi: 10.1080/14791420802632103
   Google Scholar
• Endres, D. (2009c). Science and public participation: Public scientific argument in the Yucca Mountain controversy. Environmental Communication, 3, 49–75. doi: 10.1080/17524030802704369
   Google Scholar
• Endres, D. (2012). Sacred land or national sacrifice zone: Competing values in the Yucca Mountain controversy. Environmental Communication, 6, 328–345. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2012.688060
   Google Scholar
• Endres, D. (2013). Animist intersubjectivity as argumentation: Western Shoshone and Southern Paiute arguments against a nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain. Argumentation, 27, 183-200. doi: 10.1007/s10503-012-9271-x
   Google Scholar
• Falk, J., Green, J., & Mudd, G. (2006). Australia, uranium and nuclear power. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 63, 845–857. doi: 10.1080/00207230601047131
   Google Scholar
• Fan, M.-F. (2006a). Environmental justice and nuclear waste conflicts in Taiwan. Environmental Politics, 15, 417–434. doi: 10.1080/09644010600627683
   Google Scholar
• Fan, M.-F. (2006b). Nuclear waste facilities on Tribal Land: TheYami’s struggles for envi-ronmentaljustice. Local Environment, 11, 433–444. doi: 10.1080/13549830600785589
   Google Scholar
• Farrell, T. B., & Goodnight, G. T. (1981). Accidental rhetoric: The root metaphors of Three Mile Island. Communication Monographs, 48, 271–300. doi: 10.1080/03637758109376063
   Google Scholar
• Felt, U. (2013). Keeping technologies out: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the formation of a national technopolitical identity. Vienna, Austria: University of Vienna.
   Google Scholar
• Flam, H. (Ed.) (1994). States and antinuclear movements. Edinburgh, United Kingdom:
   Google Scholar
• Edinburgh University Press. Freudenburg, W. R. (1993). Risk and recreancy: Weber, the division of labor, and the rationality of risk perceptions. Social Forces, 71, 909–932. doi: 10.2307/2580124 Fried, J., & Eyles, J. (2011). Welcome waste: Interpreting narratives of radioactive waste disposal in two small towns in Ontario, Canada. Journal of Risk Research, 14, 1017–1037. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2011.571774
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, S. M. (1981). Blueprint for breakdown: Three Mile Island and the media before the accident. Journal of Communication, 31, 116–128. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1981.tb01235.x
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, S. M. (2011). Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima: An analysis of traditional and new media coverage. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 67(5), 55–65. doi: 10.1177/0096340211421587
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, S. M., Gorney, C. M., & Egolf, B. P. (1987). Reporting on radiation: A content analysis of Chernobyl coverage. Journal of Communication, 37(3), 58–67. doi: 10.1111/j.1460–2466.1987.tb00994.x
   Google Scholar
• Gale, R. P. (1987). Calculating risk: Radiation and Chernobyl. Journal of Communication, 37(3), 68–79. doi: 10.1111/j.1460–2466.1987.tb00995.x Gamson, W., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1–37. doi: 10.2307/2780405 Gerrard, M. B. (1996). Whose backyard, whose risk: Fear and fairness in toxic and nuclear waste siting. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science.
   Google Scholar
• American Sociological Review, 48, 781–795. doi: 10.2307/2095325
   Google Scholar
• Gieryn, T. F. (1995). Boundaries of science. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen and T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 393–443). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Giugni, M. (2004). Social protest and policy change: Ecology, antinuclear, and peace movements in comparative perspective. Lanham: MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Goldsteen, R., & Schorr, J. (1991). Demanding democracy after Three Mile Island.
   Google Scholar
• Gainesville, FL: University of Florida 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. Gowda, M. V. R., & Easterling, D. (1998). Nuclear waste and Native America. Risk:
   Google Scholar
• Health, Safety & Environment, 9, 229–258. Greenberg, M. R. (2013). Nuclear waste management, nuclear power, and energy choices: Public preferences, perceptions, and trust. London, United Kingdom: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Grinde, D. A., & Johansen, B. E. (1995). Ecocide of Native America. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light.
   Google Scholar
• Gross, A.G. (1994). The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 3, 3–23. doi: 10.1088/0963–6625/3/1/001
   Google Scholar
• Gwin, L. (1990). Speak no evil: The promotional heritage of nuclear risk communication. New York, NY: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Hausman, C. (2013). Corporate incentives and nuclear safety. Berkeley, CA: Haas Energy Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Hecht, G. (1998). The radiance of France: Nuclear power and national identity after World War II. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hecht, G. (2003). Globalization meets Frankenstein? Reflections on terrorism, nucle-arity, and global technopolitical discourse. History and Technology, 19, 1–8. doi: 10.1080/0734151022000042243
   Google Scholar
• Hecht, G. (2012). Being nuclear: Africans and the global uranium trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology and other essays (W. Lovitt trans.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Henriksen, M. A. (1997). Dr. Strangelove’s America: Society and culture in the atomic age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hevly, B., & Findlay, J. M. (Eds.) (1998). The atomic west. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hileman, B. (1982). Trends in nuclear power. Environmental Science and Technology, 16 (7), 373A-378A. doi: 10.1021/es00101a718 Hindmarsh, R. (Ed.) (2013). Nuclear disaster at Fukushima Daiichi: Social, political and environmental issues. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hocke, P., & Renn, O. (2009) Concerned public and the paralysis of decision-making: Nuclear waste management policy in Germany. Journal of Risk Research, 12, 921940. doi: 10.1080/13669870903126382
   Google Scholar
• Hoffmann, S. M. (2001). Negotiating eternity: Energy policy, environmental justice, and the politics of nuclear waste. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 21, 456–472. doi: 10.1177/027046760102100604
   Google Scholar
• Horlick-Jones, T. (2005). Informal logics of risk. Journal of Risk Research, 8(3), 253272. doi: 10.1080/1366987042000270735
   Google Scholar
• Hunold, C. (2001). Environmentalists, nuclear waste, and the politics of passive exclusion in Germany. German Politics and Society, 19(4), 43–63. doi: 10.3167/104503001782486254
   Google Scholar
• International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (INSAG) (1988). Basic safety principles for nuclear power plants. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Ionescu, T. B. (2012). Communicating in Germany about the Fukushima accident. Environmental Communication, 6, 260–267. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2012.672443
   Google Scholar
• Jacob, G. (1990). Site unseen: The politics of siting a nuclear waste repository. Pittsburgh. PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S. (2009). Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear regulation in the U.S. and South Korea. Minerva, 47(2), 119-146. doi: 10.1007/s11024-009-9124–4
   Google Scholar
• Jobin, P. (2012). Qui est protege par la radioprotection? Ebisu, 47. 121–131. http://ebisu.revues.org/351
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, G. F. (2008). Deliberative democracy for the future: The case of nuclear waste management in Canada. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Joppke, C. (1993). Mobilizing against nuclear energy: A comparison of Germany and the United States. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Juraku, K. (2013a). “Made in Japan” Fukushima nuclear accident. STS Forum on Fukushima, http://fukushimaforum.wordpress.com/workshops/sts-forum-on-the-2011- fukushima-east-japan-disaster/manuscripts/session-1/made-in-japan-fukushima-nuclear-accident-a-critical-review-for-accident-investigation-activities-in-japan/
   Google Scholar
• Juraku, K. (2013b). Social structure and nuclear power siting problems revealed. In R. Hindmarsh (Ed.), Nuclear disaster at Fukushima Daiichi (pp. 41–56). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Katz, S. B., & Miller, C. R. (1996). The low-level radioactive waste-siting controversy in North Carolina. In C. G. Herndl & S. C. Brown (Eds.), Green culture: Environmental rhetoric in contemporary America (pp. 111–139). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kauffman, C. (1989). Names and weapons. Communication Monographs, 56, 273–285. doi: 10.1080/03637758909390264
   Google Scholar
• Keller, W. & Modarres, M. (2004). A historical overview of probabilistic risk development and its use in the nuclear industry. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 89, 271–285. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2004.08.022
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, P. K. (1994). Thinking green! Essays on environmentalism, feminism, and nonviolence. Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, A. R., & Miller, C. R. (in press). Intersections: Scientific and parascientific communication on the internet. In A. Gross & J. Buehl (Eds.), Science and the internet. Amityville, NY: Baywood.
   Google Scholar
• Kera, D., Rod, J., & Peterova, R. (2013), Post-apocalyptic citizenship and humanitarian hardware. In R. Hindmarsh (Ed.), Nuclear disaster at Fukushima Daiichi: Social, political, and environmental issues (pp. 97–115). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kinsella, W. J. (2001). Nuclear boundaries: Material and discursive containment at the Hanford nuclear reservation. Science as Culture, 10. 163–194. doi: 10.1080/09505430120052284
   Google Scholar
• Kinsella, W. J. (2004a). Fusion power and rhetorical power: A communication perspective on nuclear energy research. In S. Durlabhji (Ed.), Power in focus: Perspectives from multiple disciplines (pp. 3–38). Lima, OH: Wyndham Hall Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kinsella, W. J. (2004b). Public expertise: A foundation for citizen participation in energy and environmental decisions. In S. P. Depoe, J. W. Delicath, & M. A. Elsenbeer (Eds.), Communication and public participation in environmental decision making (pp. 83–95). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kinsella, W. J. (2005). One hundred years of nuclear discourse: Four master themes and their implications for environmental communication. Environmental Communication yearbook 2, 49–72.
   Google Scholar
• Kinsella, W. J. (2007). Heidegger and being at the Hanford reservation: Standing reserve, enframing, and environmental communication theory. Environmental Communication, 1, 194–217. doi: 10.1080/17524030701642728
   Google Scholar
• Kinsella, W. J. (2010). Risk communication, phenomenology, and the limits of representation. Catalan Journal of Communication and Cultural Studies, 2, 267–276. doi: 10.1386/cjcs.2.2.267_7 Kinsella, W. J. (2011). Research on nuclear energy in an international context. Tech-nikfolgenabschatzung: Theorie undPraxis, 20(2), 84–89. https://www.tatup-journal. de/weiterleitung4300.php
   Google Scholar
• Kinsella, W. J. (2012). Environments, risks, and the limits of representation: Examples from nuclear energy. Environmental Communication, 6, 251–259. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2012.672928
   Google Scholar
• Kinsella, W. J. (2015). Rearticulating a nuclear renaissance: Energy activism and contested common sense. Environmental Communication. Kinsella, W. J. (2013). Negotiating nuclear safety: Responses to the Fukushima disaster by the US nuclear community. STS Forum on Fukushima, https://fukushimaforum. wordpress.com/workshops/sts-forum-on-the-2011-fukushima-east-japandisaster/manuscripts/session-3-radiation-information-and-control/negotiating-nuclear-safetyresponses-to-the-fukushima-disaster-by-the-u-s-nuclear-community/
   Google Scholar
• Kinsella, W. J. (2016). A question of confidence: Nuclear waste and public trust in the United States after Fukushima. In R. Hindmarsh & R. Priestly (Eds.), The Fukushima effect: Nuclear histories, representations and debates. London, United Kingdom: Routledge (forthcoming).
   Google Scholar
• Kinsella, W. J., & Mullen, J. (2007). Becoming Hanford downwinders: Producing community and challenging discursive containment. In B. C. Taylor, W. J. Kinsella, S. P. Depoe, & M. S. Metzler (Eds.), Nuclear legacies: Communication, controversy, and the U.S. nuclear weapons complex (pp. 73–107). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Kinsella, W. J., Kelly, A. R., & Kittle Autry, M. (2013). Risk, regulation, and rhetorical boundaries: Claims and challenges surrounding a purported nuclear renaissance. Communication Monographs, 80, 278–301. doi: 10.1080/03637751.2013.788253
   Google Scholar
• Kittle Autry, M., & Kelly, A. R. (2012). Merging Duke Energy and Progress Energy: Online public discourse, post-Fukushima reactions, and the absence of environmental communication. Environmental Communication, 6, 278–284. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2012.672444
   Google Scholar
• Kuchinskaya, O. (2011). Articulating the signs of danger: Lay experiences of post-Chernobyl radiation risks and effects. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 405421. doi: 10.1177/0963662509348862
   Google Scholar
• Kuchinskaya, O. (2012). Twice invisible: Formal representations of radiation danger. Social Studies of Science, 43, 78–96. doi: 10.1177/0306312712465356
   Google Scholar
• Kuletz, V. L. (1998). The tainted desert: Environmental and social ruin in the American west. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• LaDuke, W. (1999). All our relations: Native struggles for land and life. Boston, MA: South End Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laffont, J.-J. and Tirole, J. (1991). The politics of government decision-making: A theory of regulatory capture. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 1089–1127. doi: 10.2307/2937958
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lewicki, R. J., Gray, B., & Elliot, M. (2003). Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts. Washington, D.C: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lidskog, R., & Sundqvist, G. (2004). On the right track? Technology, geology and society in Swedish nuclear waste management. Journal of Risk Research, 7, 251–268. doi: 10.1080/1366987042000171924
   Google Scholar
• Littlejohn, S., & Cole, K. (2013). Moral conflict and transcendent communication. In J. Oetzel and S. Ting-Toomey Handbook of Conflict Communication (2nd ed., pp. 585–608). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Luhmann, N. (1989). Ecological communication (trans. J. Bednarz). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Luhmann. N. (1993). Risk: A sociological theory. New York, NY: de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Lynch, L. (2012). “We don’t wanna be radiated”: Documentary film and the evolving rhetoric of nuclear energy activism. American Literature, 84, 227–351. doi: 10.1215/00029831–1587368
   Google Scholar
• Macfarlane, A. M. (2011). The overlooked back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. Science, 333(6047), 1225–1226. doi: 10.1126/science.1207054
   Google Scholar
• Macfarlane, A. M., & Ewing, R. C. (Eds.) (2006). Uncertainty underground: Yucca Mountain and the nation’s high-level nuclear waste. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Makhijani, A., & Saleska, S. (1992). High-level dollars, low-level sense. New York, NY: Apex.
   Google Scholar
• Mariscal, M. A., Herrero, S. G., & Toca Otero, A. (2012). Assessing safety culture in the Spanish nuclear industry. Safety Science, 50. 1237–1246. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2012.01.008
   Google Scholar
• Markovits, A. S., & Klaver, J. (2012). Thirty years of Bundestag presence. Washington, DC: American Institute for Contemporary German Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Mathai, M. V. (2013). Nuclear power, economic development discourse and the environment: The case of India. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mazur, A. (1990). Nuclear power, chemical hazards, and the quantity of reporting. Minerva, 28(3), 294–323. doi: 10.1007/BF01096293
   Google Scholar
• McCafferty, D. P. (1991). The politics of nuclear power: A history of the Shoreham power plant. Dordrecht: Kluwer. McGee, M. C. (1980). “Social movement”: Phenomenon or meaning? Central States
   Google Scholar
• Speech Journal, 31(4), 233–244. doi: 10.1080/10510978009368063 Mechling, E. W., & Mechling, J. (1995). The atom according to Disney. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 81, 436–453. doi: 10.1080/00335639509384128
   Google Scholar
• Medhurst, M. J. (1987). Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” speech: A case study in the strategic use of language. Communication Monographs, 54, 204–220. doi: 10.1080/03637758709390226
   Google Scholar
• Medhurst, M. J. (1997). Atoms for Peace and nuclear hegemony: The rhetorical structure of a Cold War campaign. Armed Forces & Society, 23, 571–593. doi: 10.1177/0095327X9702300403 Mehta, M. D. (2005). Risky business: Nuclear power and public protest in Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Lanham, MD: Lexington. Miller, C. R. (2003). The presumptions of expertise: The role of ethos in risk analysis. Configurations, 11, 163–202. doi: 10.1353/con.2004.0022
   Google Scholar
• Morita, A., Blok, A., & Kimura, S. (2013). Environmental infrastructures of emergency: The formation of a civic radiation monitoring map during the Fukushima disaster. In R. Hindmarsh (Ed.), Nuclear disaster at Fukushima Daiichi: Social, political, and environmental issues (pp. 78–96). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Morone, J. G., & Woodhouse, E. J. (1989). The demise of nuclear energy? Lessons for democratic control of technology. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mosey, D. (1990). Reactor accidents: Nuclear safety and the role of institutional failure. Surrey, United Kingdom: Nuclear Engineering International.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, G. (2005). Communities of practice, risk, and Sellafield. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond communities of practice (pp. 198–213). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nadel, A. (1995). Containment culture: American narratives, postmodernism, and the atomic age. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Diet of Japan (2012). The official report of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (English language summary). Tokyo, Japan: National Diet of Japan.
   Google Scholar
• Navarro, M. F. L., Garcia Lerfn, F. J., Tomas, I., & Peiro Silla, J. M. (2013). Validation of the group nuclear safety climate questionnaire. Journal of Safety Research, 46, 21–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2013.03.005
   Google Scholar
• Nelkin, D., & Pollak, M. (1981). The atom besieged: Extraparliamentary dissent in France and Germany. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ohno, H. (2011, 6 July). Interview/Ulrich Beck: System of organized irresponsibility behind the Fukushima crisis. Asahi Shimbun, http://ajw.asahi.com/article/ 0311disaster/opinion/AJ201107063167
   Google Scholar
• Parkhill, K. A., Henwood, K. L., Pidgeon, N. F., & Simmons, P. (2011). Laughing it off? Humour, affect and emotion work in communities living with nuclear risk. British Journal of Sociology, 62, 324–346. doi: 10.1111/j.1468–4446.2011.01367.x
   Google Scholar
• Pate-Cornell, E. (2012). On “black swans” and “perfect storms.” Risk Analysis, 32, 1823–1833. doi: 10.1111/j.1539–6924.2011.01787.x Pearce, W. B. & Littlejohn, S. (1997). Moral conflict: When social worlds collide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Peeples, J. A. (2011). Downwind: Articulation and appropriation of social movement discourse, Southern Communication Journal, 76. 248–263. doi: 10.1080/1041794x.2010.500516
   Google Scholar
• Peeples, J. A., Krannich, R. S., & Weiss, J. (2008). Arguments for what no one wants: Narratives of waste storage proponents. Environmental Communication, 2, 40–58. doi: 10.1080/17524030701642751 Perin, C. (2006) Shouldering risks: The culture of control in the nuclear power industry.
   Google Scholar
• Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Perrow, C. (1984/1999). Normal accidents. New York, NY: Basic.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, T. V. (2001). Linked arms: A rural community resists nuclear waste. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pidgeon, N. F., Lorenzoni, I., & Poortinga, W. (2008). Climate change or nuclear power “No thanks!” Public perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Global Environmental Change, 18, 69–85. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.09.005
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9, 219–229. doi: 10.1007/BF00148128
   Google Scholar
• Pool, R. (1997). Beyond engineering: How society shapes technology. New York, NY: Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2003). Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis, 23, 961–972. doi: 10.1111/1539–6924.00373
   Google Scholar
• Pope, D. (2008). Nuclear implosions: The rise and fall of the Washington Public Power Supply System. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ramana, M. V. (2013). Why India’s electricity is likely to remain in short supply: The economics of nuclear power. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 69(6), 67–78. doi: 10.1177/0096340213508626
   Google Scholar
• Ratliff, J. N. (1997). The politics of nuclear waste. Communication Studies, 48, 359–380. doi: 10.1080/10510979709368512
   Google Scholar
• Reiman, T., Oedewald, P., & Rollenhagen, C. (2005). Characteristics of organizational culture at the maintenance units of two Nordic nuclear power plants. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 89, 331–345. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2004.09.004
   Google Scholar
• Renn, O. (1992). Concepts of risk: A classification. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 53–79). Westport, CT: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Renn, O. (2008). Risk governance: Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. London, United Kingdom: Earthscan. Rijpma, J. A. (1997). Complexity, tight-coupling and reliability: Connecting normal accidents theory and high reliability theory. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 5, 15–23. doi: 10.1111/1468–5973.00033
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, R. A. (1998). Overcoming the objectification of nature in constitutive theories: Toward a transhuman, materialist theory of communication. Western Journal of Communication, 62, 244–272. doi: 10.1111/j.1468–2885.2006.00277.x
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, S. (2011, 18 March). Nuclear power plant accidents: Listed and ranked since 1952. The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclearpower-plant-accidents-list-rank
   Google Scholar
• Rosa, E. A., & Dunlap, R. E. (1994). Poll trends: Nuclear power. Three decades of public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58, 295–324. doi: 10.1086/269425
   Google Scholar
• Rubin, D. M. (1987). How the news media reported on Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Journal of Communication, 37(3), 42–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1460–2466.1987.tb00993.x
   Google Scholar
• Rudig, W. 1990. Antinuclear movements: A world survey of opposition to nuclear energy. Harlow: Longman. Schiappa, E. (1989). The rhetoric of nukespeak. Communication Monographs, 56, 253–272. doi: 10.1080/03637758909390263
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, M., & Froggat, A. (2013). World nuclear industry status report 2013. Paris: Mycle Schneider Consulting.
   Google Scholar
• Schulman, P. R. (1993). The negotiated order of organizational reliability. Administration and Society, 25. 353–372. doi: 10.1177/009539979302500305
   Google Scholar
• Shrader-Frechette, S. A. (1993). Burying uncertainty: Risk and the case against geologic disposal of nuclear waste. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Silbey, S. S. (2009). Taming Prometheus: Talk about safety and culture. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 341–369. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134707
   Google Scholar
• Silva, C. L., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Barke, R. P. (2007). Reconciling scientists’ beliefs about radiation risks and social norms. Risk Analysis, 27. 755–774. doi: 10.1111/j.1539–6924.2007.00919.x
   Google Scholar
• Siu, N., & Collins, D. (2008). PRA research and the development of risk-informed regulation at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 40, 349–364. http://143.248.251.66/jknsfile/v40/JK0400349.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Sovacool, B. K. (2007). Coal and nuclear technologies: Creating a false dichotomy for American energy policy. Policy Sciences, 40(2), 101-122. doi: 10.1007/s11077-007-9038–7
   Google Scholar
• Sovacool, B. K. (2010). A critical evaluation of nuclear power and renewable electricity in Asia. JournalofContemporary Asia, 40, 369–400. doi: 10.1080/00472331003798350
   Google Scholar
• Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: Reevaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 55–74. doi: 10.1177/0963662504042690
   Google Scholar
• Sze, J. (2005). Race and power: An introduction to environmental justice energy activism. In D. N. Pellow & R. J. Brulle (Eds.), Power, justice, and the environment (pp. 101–115). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, B. C. (1997). Shooting downwind: Depicting the radiated body in epidemiology and documentary photography. In M. Huspek & G. P. Radford (Eds.), Transgressing discourses: Communication and the voice of other (pp. 289–328). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, B. C. (1998). Nuclear weapons and communication studies: A review essay. Western Journal of Communication, 62, 300–315. doi: 10.1080/10570319809374612
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, B. C., Kinsella, W. J., Depoe, S. P., & Metzler, M. S. (2005). Nuclear legacies: Communication, controversy, and the U.S. nuclear weapons production complex. Communication yearbook 29, 363–409.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, B. C., Kinsella, W. J., Depoe, S. P., & Metzler, M. S. (Eds.) (2007). Nuclear legacies: Communication, controversy, and the U.S. nuclear weapons complex. Lanham, MD: Lexington.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, C. A. (1996). Defining science: A rhetoric of demarcation. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Teller, E. (1962). The legacy of Hiroshima. New York, NY: Doubleday.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, J. L. (2009). Building collective communication competence in interdisciplinary research teams. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 37, 278–297. doi: 10.1080/00909880903025911
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) (1975). Reactor safety study, WASH-1400. Washington, DC: USNRC.
   Google Scholar
• Vandenbosch, R., & Vandenbosch, S. E. (2007). Nuclear waste stalemate: Political and scientific controversies. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, J. S. (1984). Controlling the atom: The beginning of nuclear regulation, 1946–1962. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, J. S. (1992). Containing the atom: Nuclear regulation in a changing environment, 1963–1971. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, J. S. (2000). Permissible dose: A history of radiation protection in the 20th Century. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, J. S. (2004). Three Mile Island: A nuclear crisis in historical perspective. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, J. S. (2009). The road to Yucca Mountain: The development of radioactive waste policy in the United States. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, J. S., & Wellock, T. R. (2010). A short history of nuclear regulation, 1946–2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Weart, S. R. (1988). Nuclear fear: A history of images. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weart, S. R. (2012). The rise of nuclear fear. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Managing the unexpected: Resilient performance in an age of uncertainty. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Weinberg, A. (1985). The sanctification of Hiroshima. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 34(11), 34. Available at: http://thebulletin.org/
   Google Scholar
• Weinberg, A. M., & Spiewak, I. (1984). Inherently safe reactors and a second nuclear era. Science, 224(4656), 1398–1402. doi: 10.1126/science.224.4656.1398
   Google Scholar
• Weinberg, A., Spiewak, I., Phung, D. L., & Livingston, R. S. (1985). The second nuclear era: A nuclear renaissance. Energy, 10. 661–680. doi: 10.1016/0360-5442(85)90098–2
   Google Scholar
• Wellock, T. R. (Ed.) (1998). Critical masses: Opposition to nuclear power in California, 1958–1978. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Welsh I. (2000). Mobilising modernity: The nuclear moment. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wills, J. (2006). Conservation fallout: Nuclear protest at Diablo Canyon. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press.
   Google Scholar
• Winkler, A. M. (1993). Life under a cloud: American anxiety about the atom. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wynne, B. (1982). Rationality and ritual: The Windscale inquiry and nuclear decisions in Britain. Chalfont St. Giles, United Kingdom: British Society for the History of Science.
   Google Scholar
• Wynne, B. (1991). Knowledges in context. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16, 111–121. doi: 10.2307/690044
   Google Scholar
• Wynne, B. (1996) May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski & B. Wynne (Eds.) Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology (pp. 44–83). London, United Kingdom: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Xu, Y. (2010). The politics of nuclear energy in China. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Young, M. J. & Launer, M. K. (1991). Redefining glasnost in the Soviet media: The recontextualization of Chernobyl. Journal of Communication, 41(2), 102–124. doi: 10.1111/j.1460–2466.1991.tb02312.x
   Google Scholar
• Zonabend, F. (1993). The nuclear peninsula. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar