Environments, risks, and the limits of representation: Examples from nuclear energy and some implications of fukushima

Environmental Communication

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 251-259

  Kinsella, William J ^a  

^a Department of Communication ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Constitutive Communication; Fukushima; Hanford; Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Nuclear risk; Phenomenology of Communication; Risk Analysis; Risk Communication; US Department of Energy

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861939933     PISSN: 17524032     EISSN: 17524040     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17524032.2012.672928     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. Deetz, S.A. (1973). Words without things: Toward a social phenomenology of language. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59(1), 40-51.
2. Deetz, S.A. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
3. Dininny, S. (2009, 16 April). Hanford sees progress on nuke treatment plant. Seattle Times. available from: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/ localnews/2009351338-apwahanfordwasteplant1stldwritethru. html.
4. Eden, L. (2004). Whole world on fire. Organizations, knowledge, and nuclear weapons devastation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
5. Gawande, A. (2010). The checklist manifesto: How to get things right. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.
6. Gwin, L. (1990). Speak no evil: The promotional heritage of nuclear risk communication. New York, NY: Praeger.
7. Heidegger, M. (1977). The age of the world picture. In M. Heidegger (Ed.), The question concerning technology and other essays (pp. 115-154). New York, NY: Harper & Row.
8. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (2011). Power reactor information system. Available from http://www.iaea.or.at/programmes/a2/
9. Kinsella, W.J. (2001). Nuclear boundaries: Material and discursive containment at the Hanford nuclear reservation. Science as Culture, 10(2), 163-194.
10. Kinsella, W.J. (2004). 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.
11. 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 (Vol. 2, pp. 49-72). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Kinsella, W.J. (2007). Heidegger and being at the Hanford reservation: Standing reserve, enframing, and environmental communication theory. Environmental Communication, 1(2), 194-217.
13. Kinsella, W.J. (2010). Risk communication, phenomenology, and the limits of representation. Catalan Journal of Communication and Cultural Studies, 2(2), 267-276.
14. Luhmann, N. (1989). Ecological communication. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
15. Luhmann, N. (1993). Risk: A sociological theory. New York, NY: de Gruyter.
16. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
17. Makhijani, A. (2011). Preliminary review of recommendations for enhancing reactor safety in the 21st Century, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Takoma Park, MD: Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.
18. Nakajima, T. (2011, 16 April). Japanese media coverage of the Fukushima events. Presentation at Symposium on Communication, Rhetoric, and Digital Media, North Carolina State University.
19. Perin, C. (2005). Shouldering risks: The culture of control in the nuclear power industry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20. Stewart, J. (1986). Speech and human being: A complement to semiotics. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 72(1), 55-73.
21. Stewart, J. (1995). Language as articulate contact: Toward a post-semiotic philosophy of communication. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
22. Taleb, N.N. (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. New York, NY: Random House.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. United States Department of Energy (USDOE). (2003). Use of risk-based end states. Policy document DOEP445.1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.
26. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). (2003). Fact sheet: Nuclear reactor risk. Available from http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc- collections/fact-sheets/reactor-risk.pdf
27. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). (2011). Recommendations for enhancing reactor safety in the 21st century: The Near-term Task Force review of insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.