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

  • Karen W. LowrieEmail author
  • Amanda Kennedy
  • Jonathan Hubert
  • Michael R. Greenberg


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


Nuclear Power Plant Nuclear Facility Newspaper Coverage Nuclear Site Nuclear Waste Management 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Allen S, Adam B, Carter C (eds) (2000) Environmental risks and the media. Routledge, London & New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansolabehere S (2007) Public attitudes toward America’s energy options: Insights for nuclear energy MIT-NES-TR-08Google Scholar
  3. Ball-Rokeach S, Defleur ML (1976) A dependency model for mass-media effects. Comm Res 3:3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bisconti Research, Inc. (2007) National survey of nuclear power plant communities. For nuclear energy institute. Available at: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boholm M (2009) Risk and causality in newspaper reporting. Risk Anal 29:1566–1577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Breakwell GM (2007) The psychology of risk. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clay P, Hollister R (eds) (1983) Neighborhood policy and planning. Lexington Books, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen BC (1973) The press, the public and foreign policy. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  9. Cook FL, Tyler TR, Goetz EG, Gordon MT, Protess D, Leff DR, Molotch,HL (1983) Media and agenda-setting: Effects on the public, interest group leaders, policy makers and policy. Pub Op Quart 47:16–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Driedger SM (2007) Risk and the media: A comparison of print and televised news stories of a Canadian drinking water risk event. Risk Anal 27:775–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Entman RF (1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Commun-ication 43:51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Entman R (2007) Framing bias: Media in the distribution of power. J Comm 57:163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feldman DL, Hanahan RA (1996). Public perceptions of a radioactively contaminated site: Concerns, remediation preferences and desired involvement. Environl Health Persp 104:1344–1352Google Scholar
  14. Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S, Slovic P, Derby SL, Keeney RL (1981) Acceptable risk. New York: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flynn J, Slovic P, Kunreuther H (eds) (2001) Risk, media and stigma: Understanding public challenges to modern science and technology. Earthscan, London and SterlingGoogle Scholar
  16. Gertner J (2006) Atomic balm? New York Times July 16:36–47Google Scholar
  17. Greenberg MR (2009) NIMBY, CLAMP, and the location of new nuclear-related facilities: US national and 11 site-specific surveys. Risk Anal 29:1242–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Hollander J, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M (2008) Citizen board issues and local newspaper coverage of risk remediation, and environmental management: six U.S. nuclear weapons facilities. Remediation Journal 18:72–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M, Mayer H (2007) The ultimate LULU? Public reaction new nuclear activities at major weapons sites. J Am Plan Ass 173:346–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greenberg M, West B, Lowrie K, Mayer H (2009) The Reporters Handbook on Nuclear Materials, Energy, and Waste Management. Nashville: Vanderbilt University PressGoogle Scholar
  21. Halpern-Felsher B, Millstein S, Ellen J, Adler N, Tschann J, Biehl M (2001) Role of behavioural experience in judging risks. Health Psychol 20:120–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hernes G (1978) Det mediavridde samfunn. In: Hernes G (ed) Forhandlingsøkonomi og blandingsadministrasjon, Universitetsforlaget, BergenGoogle Scholar
  23. Hughes E, Kitzinger J, Murdock G (2006) The media and risk. In: Taylor-Gooby P, Zinn J (eds) Risk in social science. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson-Cartee KS (2005) News narratives and news framing: Constructing political reality. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  25. Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel J, Goble R, Kaperson JX, Ratick SJ (1988) The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Anal 8:178–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kenix LJ (2005) A comparison of environmental pollution coverage in the mainstream, african american, and other alternative press. Howard J Comm 16:49–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kitzinger J (1999) Researching risk and the media. Health, Risks, Soc 1:55–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kivimaki M, Kalimo R (1993) Risk perception among nuclear power plant personnel: a survey. Risk Anal 13:421–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kraft ME, Clary BB (1991) Citizen participation and the NIMBY syndrome: Public response to radioactive waste disposal. West Polit Quart 44:299–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Larsen SC, Brock TJ (2005) Great Basin imagery in newspaper coverage of Yucca Mountain. Geo Rev 95:517–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leading Futurist: Online Influence is Transforming Society (2009). PR Newswire. PR Newswire Association LLC. Accessed September 24, 2010
  32. Lowrie K, Greenberg M, Waishwell L (2000) Hazards, risk and the press: Newspaper coverage of US nuclear and chemical weapons sites. Risk: Health, Safety, Environ 11:49–67Google Scholar
  33. Mazur A (1990) Nuclear power, chemical hazards, and the quantity of reporting. Minerva 28:294–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McCombs ME, Shaw DL (1972) The agenda-setting function of mass media. Pub Op Quart 36:176–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nemich C (2006) Boise State survey shows statewide support for INL. Accessed 26 August 2006
  36. Neuman WR, Just MR, Cringler AN (1992) Common knowledge: News and the construction of political meaning. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Donnell C, Rice RE (2008) Coverage of environmental events in US and UK newspapers: ­frequency, hazard, specificity, and placement. Int J Environ Studies 65:637–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. O’Hare M, Bacow L, Sanderson D (1983) Facility siting and public opposition. Van Nostrand and Reinhold, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Opinion: Internet conversations can have valuable print influence (Viewpoint essay) (2007) PR Week (US). Haymarket Media, Inc. Accessed 24 Sept 2010
  40. Pasqualetti MJ (1987) Decommissioning as a neglected element of nuclear power plant siting policy in the US and UK. In Blowers A, Pepper D (eds) Nuclear power in crisis: Politics and planning for the nuclear state. Nichols Publishing Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Pavey R (2010) SRS contamination may lead to new procedures. Augusta Chronicle, July 29, 2010, Accessed 24 Sept 2010
  42. Poortinga W, Pidgeon N, Lorenzoni I, et al. Public perceptions of nuclear power, climate change and energy options in Britain; summary findings of survey conducted during October and November 2005. Understanding risk working paper 06–02Google Scholar
  43. Portney K (1991) Siting hazardous waste treatment facilities: the NIMBY Syndrome. Auburn House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Renn O (2008) Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan, London and SterlingGoogle Scholar
  45. Rosa E (2001) Public acceptance of nuclear power: Déjà vu all over again? Physics Soc 30:1–5Google Scholar
  46. Rosa E (2004) The future acceptability of nuclear power in the United States. Institute Francias des Relations Internationales, ParisGoogle Scholar
  47. Ryan M (2003) Public relations and the web: organizational problems, gender and institutional type. Pub Relat Rev 29:335–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Scheufele DA (1999) Framing as a theory of media effects. J Comm 49:103–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Simon AF, Jerit J (2007) Toward a theory relating political discourse, media, and public opinion. J Comm 57:254–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Singer E, Endreny P (1987) Reporting hazards: their benefits and costs. J Comm 37:10–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Singer E, Endreny P (1993) Reporting on risk. Russell Sage Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Sjoberg L (2004) Local acceptance of a high-level nuclear waste repository. Risk Anal 24:737–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Swain KA (2007) Outrage factors and explanations in outrage factors and explanations in news coverage of the anthrax attacks. J&MC Quarterly 84:335–352Google Scholar
  55. U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Management (1996) Baseline environmental management report. Available at:
  56. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Superfund (2009) U.S. DOE Oak Ridge Reservation, Site summary profile. Accessed 24 Sept 2010
  57. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2008) Expected new nuclear power plant applications, updated March 19, 2008. Accessed 27 March 2008
  58. van der Merwe R, Pitt LF, Abratt R (2005) Stakeholder Strength: PR Survival Strategies in the Internet Age. Public Relations Quarterly. Accessed Sept 24 2010
  59. Vasterman P, Scholten O, Ruigrok N (2008) A model for evaluating risk reporting: the case of UMTS and fine particles. Europ J Comm 23:319–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Venables D, Pidgeon N, Simmons P, Henwood K, Parkhill K (2009) Living with nuclear power: A Q-method study of local communities’ perceptions. Risk Anal 29:1089–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wåhlberg A, Sjöberg L (2000) Risk perception and the media. J Risk Res 3:31–50Google Scholar
  62. Wakefield S, Elliott S (2003) Constructing the news: the role of local newspapers in environmental risk communication. Profess Geo 55:216–226Google Scholar
  63. Washington State Deparatment of Ecology (2008) Cleaning Hanford’s groundwater. Ecol Pub 08-05-001Google Scholar
  64. Williams B, Brown S, Greenberg M, Kahn M (1999) Risk perception in context: the Savannah River site stakeholder study. Risk Anal 19:1019–1035Google Scholar
  65. Wong LT, Fryxell GE (2004) Stakeholder influences on environmental management practices: A study of fleet operations in Hong Kong (SAR), China. Transportation Journal, American Society of Transportation and Logistics, Inc. from HighBeam Research: Accessed 24 Sept 2010

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karen W. Lowrie
    • 1
    Email author
  • Amanda Kennedy
    • 2
  • Jonathan Hubert
    • 3
  • Michael R. Greenberg
    • 4
  1. 1.Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public PolicyRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA
  2. 2.StamfordUSA
  3. 3.TenaflyUSA
  4. 4.Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public PolicyConsortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP), Rutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations