IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v13y1993i5p497-502.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Nevada Initiative: A Risk Communication Fiasco

Author

Listed:
  • James Flynn
  • Paul Slovic
  • C. K. Mertz

Abstract

The U.S. Congress has designated Yucca Mountain, Nevada as the only potential site to be studied for the nation's first high‐level nuclear waste repository. People in Nevada strongly oppose the program, managed by the U.S. Department of Energy. Survey research shows that the public believes there are great risks from a repository program, in contrast to a majority of scientists who feel the risks are acceptably small. Delays in the repository program resulting in part from public opposition in Nevada have concerned the nuclear power industry, which collects the fees for the federal repository program and believes it needs the repository as a final disposal facility for its high‐level nuclear wastes. To assist the repository program, the American Nuclear Energy Council (ANEC), an industry group, sponsored a massive advertising campaign in Nevada. The campaign attempted to assure people that the risks of a repository were small and that the repository studies should proceed. The campaign failed because its managers misunderstood the issues underlying the controversy, attempted a covert manipulation of public opinion that was revealed, and most importantly, lacked the public trust that was necessary to communicate credibly about the risks of a nuclear waste facility.

Suggested Citation

  • James Flynn & Paul Slovic & C. K. Mertz, 1993. "The Nevada Initiative: A Risk Communication Fiasco," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(5), pages 497-502, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:13:y:1993:i:5:p:497-502
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00007.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00007.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00007.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vladimir M. Cvetković & Adem Öcal & Yuliya Lyamzina & Eric K. Noji & Neda Nikolić & Goran Milošević, 2021. "Nuclear Power Risk Perception in Serbia: Fear of Exposure to Radiation vs. Social Benefits," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, April.
    2. Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith & Carol L. Silva & Matthew C. Nowlin & Grant deLozier, 2011. "Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 629-644, April.
    3. Paul Slovic & James Flynn & Robin Gregory, 1994. "Stigma Happens: Social Problems in the Siting of Nuclear Waste Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 773-777, October.
    4. Matin, Anahita Hosseini & Goddard, Ellen, 2014. "Does Internet Use Affect Public Perceptions of Technologies in Livestock Production?," 2014 AAEA/EAAE/CAES Joint Symposium: Social Networks, Social Media and the Economics of Food, May 29-30, 2014, Montreal, Canada 168758, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. William R. Freudenburg & Julie A. Rursch, 1994. "The Risks of “Putting the Numbers in Context”: A Cautionary Tale," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 949-958, December.
    6. William Leiss, 1995. "“Down and Dirty:” The Use and Abuse of Public Trust in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(6), pages 685-692, December.
    7. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    8. George O. Rogers, 1997. "The Dynamics of Risk Perception: How Does Perceived Risk Respond to Risk Events?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(6), pages 745-757, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:13:y:1993:i:5:p:497-502. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.