Uncertainty and Regulation: The Rhetoric of Risk in the California Low-Level Radioactive Waste Debate

Abstract

In this article, we analyze the intractability of the low-level radioactive waste debate in California through the construction and examination of policy frames and their associated policy narratives. Relying primarily on reports, formal comments, and written correspondence, we reconstruct three policy frames and explore their interaction in the public debate through the policy stories told by the actors. We analyze how policy actors using these policy frames appropriate available information, value scientific input, and respond to uncertainty in technical and regulatory information to create policy stories. These policy frames and their associated policy narratives demonstrate how policy actors differ in their drivers for action, bases for trusting claims, and response to uncertainty. These differences lead to divergent characterizations of the risk of low-level radioactive waste disposal. This analysis provides insight into the dynamics of intractable policy controversies.

Save Palm Oil, Save the Nation: Palm Oil Companies and the Shaping of Indonesia’s National Interest

“…Studies that employ discursive or narrative analysis to understand policymaking processes are available on various issues in different countries—from the debate in the US Congress on the nonprofit sector (Jacobs and Sobieraj, ) and California’s low‐level radioactive waste debate (Bedsworth, Lowenthal, & Kastenberg, , pp. 406–427) to regulatory debates in New Zealand (Bridgman & Barry, ).…”

Recasting “Substantial Equivalence”:Transatlantic Governance of GM Food

“…However, each group interprets scientific uncertainty and appeals to criteria for evidence in ways favourable to their respective policy stances, so it is difficult to reconcile such conflicts through science alone (e.g. Bedsworth et al, 2004). Moreover, various scientific disciplines and cognitive approaches generate conflicting evidence (Beck, 1992: 167).…”

“…Scientization "implies that political and social issues are better resolved through technical expertise than democratic deliberation" (Bäckstrand 2004, 24). However, each group interprets scientific uncertainty and appeals to criteria for evidence in ways favorable to its respective policy stances, so it is difficult to reconcile such conflicts through science alone (e.g., Bedsworth, Lowenthal, and Kastenberg 2004). Moreover, various scientific disciplines and cognitive approaches generate conflicting evidence (Beck 1992).…”

Scale framing of scientific uncertainty in controversy over the Endangered Steller sea lion

“…In a basic sense, 'uncertainty' describes a lack of information and knowledge. However, uncertainty is not simply an objective state or external context for dispute, but is a social relation regarding what is known and important, and hence may be the outcome of dispute (Campbell, 1985;Levidow, 2001;Bedsworth et al, 2004). 'Uncertainty expresses rather than explains conflict.…”

“…But frames can also produce uncertainty, in that frames provide different perspectives from which to assess what is accepted fact and what is important. As an example, Bedsworth et al (2004) identify three different framings of the low-level radioactive waste problem, and link those frames to different interpretations of uncertainty that were then used strategically to shape policy outcomes.…”