Welcome waste - Interpreting narratives of radioactive waste disposal in two small towns in Ontario, Canada

Journal of Risk Research

Volumn 14, Issue 9, 2011, Pages 1017-1037

  Fried, Jana ^a   Eyles, John ^a  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

discourse analysis; landscape narratives; low level radioactive waste; nuclear energy; Ontario

Indexed keywords

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS; LANDSCAPE NARRATIVES; LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES; NARRATIVE ANALYSIS; ONTARIO; ONTARIO , CANADA; POLICY MAKING; SMALL TOWNS;

NUCLEAR ENERGY; RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL; RISK PERCEPTION; SEMANTICS;

WASTE TREATMENT;

EID: 84857883841     PISSN: 13669877     EISSN: 14664461     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2011.571774     Document Type: Review

References (81)

1. Albrecht, S., R. Amey, and S. Amir. 1996. The siting of radioactive waste facilities: What are the effects on communities? Rural Sociology 61, no. 4: 649-73.
2. Alley, K.D. 1998. Images of waste and purification on the banks of the Ganga. City & Society 10, no. 1: 167-82.
3. Alley, K.D. 2002. On the banks of the Ganga. When wastewater meets a sacred river. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
4. Anonymous. 1931. Radium minerals in Northern Canada. British Journal of Radiology 4: 517-18.
5. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL). 1984. The Douglas point story. Power Projections. Special ed. http://www.cns-snc.ca/history/DouglasPoint/ DouglasPoint.html
6. Baxter, J., and D. Lee. 2004. Understanding expressed low concern and latent concern near a hazardous waste treatment facility. Journal of Risk Research 7, no. 7: 705-29.
7. Beamish, T. 2001. Environmental hazard and institutional betrayal. Organization and Environment 14: 5-33.
8. Beck, U. 2000. Foreword to Environmental Risks and the Media, ed. B. Adam and C. Carter. London: Routledge.
9. Bickerstaff, K., I. Lorenzoni, N. Pidgeon, and P. Simmons. 2008. Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate. Public Understanding of Science 17: 145-69.
10. Bickerstaff, K., and P. Simmons. 2009. Absencing/presencing risk: Rethinking proximity and the experience of living with major technological hazards. Geoforum 40: 864-72.
11. Bickerstaff, K., and G. Walker. 2001. Public understandings of air pollution: The 'localisation' of environmental risk. Global Environmental Change 11, no. 2: 133-45. (Pubitemid 32480597)
12. Brown, J., and H. White. 1987. The public's understanding of radiation and nuclear waste. Journal of the Society for Radiological Protection 7: 61-70. (Pubitemid 17110310)
13. Brownlie, J., and A. Howson. 2005. 'Leaps of faith' and MMR: An empirical study of trust. Sociology 39, no. 2: 221-39. (Pubitemid 43073540)
14. Bruce Centre for Energy Research and Information. 2009. Chronology of development at the Bruce nuclear complex. http://www.friendsofbruce.ca/ NEWChronology.html
15. Carr, J. 2006. Nuclear power in Ontario -Future conditional. Paper presented at the annual seminar of Canadian Nuclear Association, February 23, in Ottawa.
16. Citizens for Bruce C. 2008. Community support. http://www. citizensforbrucec.ca/?page-id=4
17. Covello, V. 1989. Communicating information about the health risks of radioactive waste. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 65: 467-82.
18. Douglas, M. 1966. Purity and danger. London: Penguin.
19. Douglas, M. 1990. Risk as forensic resource. Daedalus 119: 1-16.
20. Durant, D. 2007. Responsible action and nuclear waste disposal. Technology in Society 31: 150-7.
21. Durant, D., and A. Stanley. 2009. An official narrative: Telling the history of Canada's nuclear waste management policy making. In Nuclear waste management in Canada. Critical issues, critical perspectives, ed. D. Durant and G.F. Johnson, 31-51. Vancouver: UBC Press.
22. Earle, T., and G. Cvetkovich. 1995. Social trust. Westport: Praeger.
23. Edelstein, M. 2003. Contaminated communities. 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
24. Egglestone, W. 1965. Canada's nuclear story. Toronto: Clarke, Irwin & Company.
25. Engler, M. 2004. Designing America's waste landscapes. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
26. Fairclough, N. 2001. Language and power. London: Longman.
27. Feindt, P., and A. Oels. 2005. Does discourse matter? Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 7: 1-13.
28. Flynn, J., P. Slovic, and H. Kunreuther, eds. 2001. Risk, media and stigma. London: Earthscan.
29. Freudenburg, W.R., and R. Baxter. 1984. Host community attitudes towards nuclear power plants. Social Science Quarterly 65: 1129-34.
30. Government of Canada. 2006. Joint convention on the safety of spent fuel management and on the safety of radioactive waste management. Canada's responses to questions. www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/pdfs/CNRJC-qa-rep.pdf.
31. Granovetter, M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78: 1360-80.
32. Greenberg, M., K. Lowrie, J. Burger, C. Powers, M. Gochfeld, and H. Mayer. 2007. Nuclear waste and public worries. Human Ecology Review 14, no. 1: 1-12.
33. Gregory, R.S., and T.A. Satterfield. 2002. Beyond perception: The experience of risk and stigma in community contexts. Risk Analysis 22, no. 2: 347-58. (Pubitemid 34533262)
34. Gunderson, W.C., and B.G. Rabe. 1999. Voluntarism and its limits: Canada's search for radioactive waste-siting candidates. Canadian Public Administration 42, no. 2: 193-214.
35. Hajer, M., and W. Versteg. 2005. A decade of discourse analysis in environmental politics. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 7: 175-84.
36. Harries, K. 2008. Nuclear reaction. Accusations of cancerous fallout divide a small Ontario town. The Walrus, March. www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/ 2008.03-environmentradiation-pollution/.
37. Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO). 2009. 18-Month outlook. From December 2009 to May 2011. http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/pubs/marketReports/ 18MonthOutlook-2009nov.pdf#17.
38. Jackson, D., and J. de la Mothe. 2001. Nuclear regulation in transition: The atomic energy control board. In Canadian nuclear energy policy. Changing ideas, institutions, and interests, ed. G.B. Doern, A. Dorman, and R.W. Morrison, 96-112. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
39. Jackson, J., N. Allum, and G. Gaskell. 2006. Bridging levels of analysis in risk perception research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 7, no. 1: 20.
40. Jenkins, R.G., and J.D. Abbatt, ed. 1982. The Eldorado epidemiology project: Health followup of Eldorado uranium workers: Historical description appendices of main work sites. Ottawa: Eldorado Nuclear.
41. Johnson, G. 2007. The discourse of deliberative democracy in Canadian nuclear waste management policy. Policy Sciences 40: 79-99. (Pubitemid 47202350)
42. Kasperson, J., R. Kasperson, N. Pidgeon, and P. Slovic. 2003. The social amplification of risk: Assessing fifteen years of research and theory. In The social amplification of risk, ed. N. Pidgeon, R. Kasperson, and P. Slovic, 13-46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. Kemp, R. 1992. The politics of radioactive waste disposal. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
44. Kinsella, W.J. 2005. One hundred years of nuclear discourse. Vol. 2 of Environmental communication yearbook, ed. S. Senecah, 49-72. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45. Krewski, D., L. Lemyre, M.C. Turner, J.E.C. Lee, C. Dallaire, L. Bouchard, K. Brand, and P. Mercier. 2006. Public perception of population health risks in Canada: Health hazards and sources of information. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 12, no. 4: 626-44. (Pubitemid 44266866)
46. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office (LLRWMO). 1999. Inventory of radioactive waste in Canada. Ottawa: LLRWMO. www.llrwmo.org/en/programs/ ongoing/inventory. pdf.
47. LLRWMO. 2001. Port Hope Area Initiative. Community News, 1, no. 1. www.llrwmo.org/en/news/Newsletters/PHAI-News-Fall-2001.pdf.
48. LLRWMO. 2004. Inventory of radioactive waste in Canada. A report prepared for Natural Resources Canada. Ottawa: LLRWMO. http://www.llrwmo.org/en/ programs/ongoing/Inventory-Report-2004.pdf.
49. LLRWMO. 2009. Programs and projects. www.llrwmo.org/en/programs/index. html.
50. Luginaah, I., M. Taylor, S. Elliott, and J. Eyles. 2002. Community responses and coping strategies in the vicinity of a petroleum refinery in Oakville Ontario. Health and Place 8: 177-93.
51. Luhmann, N. 1979. Trust and power. Chichester: Wiley.
52. Lupton, D., and J. Tulloch. 1999. Theorizing fear of crime. British Journal of Sociology 50: 507-23.
53. Lupton, D., and J. Tulloch. 2002. Risk is part of your life. Sociology 36: 317-34.
54. Mancl, K., J. Heimlich, A. Fentiman, and R. Christensen. 1994. General public awareness of sources of radiation in their environment. Ohio Journal of Science 94, no. 4: 134-37.
55. Moore, N., N. Pidgeon, P. Simmons, and K. Henwood. 2005. The uses of narrative to explore risk in everyday life. In Narrative, memory and everyday life, ed. N. Kelly, C. Horrocks, K. Milne, B. Roberts, and D. Robinson, 33-41. Huddersfield: University of Huddersfield.
56. Moser, W. 2002. The acculturation of waste. In Waste-sites stories, ed. B. Neville and J. Villeneuve, 85-108. Albany: State University Press of New York.
57. Municipality of Kincardine. 2010. Nuclear liaison committee. http://www.kincardine.net/committee-nuclear.cfm
58. Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), ed. 2002. Public confidence in the management of radioactive waste: The Canadian context. Paris: OECD.
59. Nuclear Waste Management Organisation (NWMO). 2009. DGR (Deep Geologic Repository) background information. www.nwmo.ca/dgr-background-information.
60. O'Connor, M. 2002. Building relationships with the wastes. In Public confidence in the management of radioactive waste: The Canadian context, ed. Nuclear Energy Agency, 177-90. Paris: OECD.
61. Ontario Power Generation (OPG). 2009. Western Waste Management Facility. http://www.opg.com/power/nuclear/waste/pdf/WasteBrochure09a.pdf
62. Parkhill, K.A., N.F. Pidgeon, K.L. Henwood, P. Simmons, and D. Venables. 2010. From the familiar to the extraordinary: Local residents' perceptions of risk when living with nuclear power in the UK. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers NS 35: 39-58.
63. Port Hope Area Initiative (PHAI). 2009. Phases of the Port Hope Area Initiative. http://www.phai.ca/en/phases-of-the-phai
64. Potteiger, M., and J. Purinton. 1998. Landscape narratives: Design practices for telling stories. New York: Wiley.
65. Price, L. 2002. Industry and sustainability: A re-view through critical discourse analysis. http://www.kubatana.net/docs/env/indsust-lp020812.pdf.
66. Rathje, W., and C. Murphy. 1992. Rubbish! New York: Harper Collins.
67. Roe, E. 1994. Narrative policy analysis. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
68. Rosa, E., and W.R. Freudenburg. 1993. The historical development of public reactions to nuclear power. In Public reactions to nuclear waste: Citizens' views of repository siting, ed. R. Dunlap, E. Kraft, and E. Rosa, 32-63. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
69. Sanger, P. 1981. Blind faith. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
70. Satterfield, T., P. Slovic, and R. Gregory. 2000. Narrative valuation in a policy judgment context. Ecological Economics 34: 315-31.
71. Sharp, L., and T. Richardson. 2001. Reflections on Foucauldian discourse analysis in planning and environmental policy research. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 3: 193-209. (Pubitemid 33757084)
72. Sjoberg, L. 2003. Risk perception, emotion and policy. European Review 11: 109-28.
73. Sjoberg, L., and B.M. Drottz-Sjoberg. 2009. Public risk perception of nuclear waste. International Journal of Risk Assess Management 11, nos. 3-4: 248-80.
74. Skinner, J. 2000. The eruption of chances peak, Montserrat, and the narrative containment of risk. In Risk revisited, ed. P. Caplan, 156-83. London: Pluto Press.
75. Slovic, P. 1993. Perceived risk, trust and democracy. Risk Analysis 13: 675-82.
76. Slovic, P., M. Finucane, E. Peters, and D. MacGregor. 2004. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings. Risk Analysis 24: 1-12.
77. Taylor-Gooby, P., and J. Zinn, eds. 2006. Risk in social science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
78. Tilt, B. 2006. Perceptions of risk from industrial pollution in China. Human Organization 65: 115-27.
79. Tulloch, J., and D. Lupton. 2002. Consuming risk, consuming science. Journal of Consumer Culture 2: 363-83.
80. Wester-Herber, M. 2004. Underlying concerns in land-use conflict: The role of place-identity in risk perception. Environmental Science & Policy 7, no. 2: 109-16. (Pubitemid 38444042)
81. Wolsink, M., and J. Devilee. 2009. The motives for accepting or rejecting waste infrastructure facilities. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 52: 217-36.