Chapter 12: Nuclear Legacies: Communication, Controversy, and the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Production Complex

Sacred Land or National Sacrifice Zone: The Role of Values in the Yucca Mountain Participation Process

“…The public sphere surrounding nuclear technologies is ''constricted and degraded by technocratic domination'' (Taylor, Role of Values in the Yucca Mountain Participation Process 331 Kinsella, Depoe, & Metzler, 2007, p. 381). Stakeholder participation in nuclear issues is particularly problematic because of secrecy, discursive containment, and the perception that the highly technical nature of nuclear technologies is best handled by experts (e.g., Kinsella, 2001Kinsella, , 2005Taylor, 1998;Taylor et al, 2007). Scientific and technical knowledge dictate the process with little attention paid to other relevant forms of expertise.…”

Science and Public Participation: An Analysis of Public Scientific Argument in the Yucca Mountain Controversy

“…These essays focus more on the rhetorical strategies of decision makers that constrain public participation than on the rhetorical strategies used by public participants in their attempts to be heard. Taylor et al (2005) call for more research into the dynamics of public participation in policy making, particularly shifting our attention to the ''micropractices of participants' ' (p. 382). This essay answers this call by focusing on how public commenters tried to make scientific arguments and thus engage in debate with the DOE in what Kinsella and Mullen (2007) describe as a ''paradigmatic site of technocratic authority'' (p. 80).…”

“…In response to Taylor et al's (2005) call for more research into how participants engage with officials and decision makers in the nuclear production process, this essay reveals how public participants tried to make scientific arguments and engage in debate with the DOE. As I mentioned above, the strategies of public scientific argument I identify are not revolutionary acts that transformed the system.…”

“…Taylor et al (2005) call for research that ''clarifies how affected groups may successfully self-organize to emerge as effective counterpublics, developing and using multipronged, multimodal opposition to engage the complexities of nuclear weapons production and its persistent culture of secrecy'' (p. 383). My analysis contributes a piece toward understanding this puzzle.…”

Compensatory Control Theory and Public Opinion on Nuclear Policy: Developing an Experimental Measure in an Applied Environmental Context

“…However, environmental issues sometimes involve highly technical and esoteric subjects that are politically divisive but challenging for citizens to understand. The issue of nuclear power-and the attending topic of nuclear waste storage-is both a technical domain that is typically low on the public agenda but also an environmental domain that has seen occasional public scrutiny and generated deep opposition among committed stakeholders (Taylor et al, 2007;Jenkins-Smith et al, 2011). As the US continues to grapple with the problem of longterm storage of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste, as well as how to involve citizens in solving this problem (Blue Ribbon Commission, 2012;Trousset et al, 2015), questions remain about the factors that affect public views of nuclear power and waste storage.…”