The location of a national repository for the storage of nuclear waste remains elusive, which is due, in part, to widespread public opposition. Once a site has been selected, waste will be trucked from sources to the site. This study reports the results of a survey of 28 community leaders who live along a planned route in Oregon in which waste from Hanford, Washington, would be trucked to a disposal site under consideration in New Mexico. The results show that problems of credibility of the U.S. Department of Energy as a message source and public distrust of the agency's performance are embedded in the nsk communication of waste transport: A full partnership between the agency and local citizens may be a first step for restoring lost credibility and trust on transport issues.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
2.
Bella, D. A. , Mosher, C. D., & Calvo, S. N. (1988). Establishing trust: Nuclear waste disposal. Journal of Professional Engineering, 114, 26-50.
3.
Bush, C. R. (1951). The analysis of political campaign news. Journalism Quarterly, 28, 250-252.
4.
Chaiken, S. , & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.
5.
Cramer, H. (1946). Mathematical methods of statistics. Pnnceton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
Cross, F. B. (1994). The public role in risk control. Environmental Law, 24, 887-969.
7.
Dodd, B. , & Humphres, L. L. (1986). Training local emergency response personnel to handle transportation accidents involving radioactive material. Health Physics, 50, 404-406.
8.
Ercsson, K. A. , & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis. Cambridge: MIT Press.
9.
Erikson, K. (1993). A new species of trouble. In S. R. Couch & J. Broil-Smith (Eds.), Communities at risk: Collective responses to technological hazards (pp. 11-29). New York: Peter Lang.
10.
Finsterbusch, K. (1989). Community response to exposure to hazardous waste. In D. Peck (Ed.), Psychological effects of hazardous waste disposal on communities (pp. 57-80). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
11.
Flynn, J. , Burns, W., Mertz, C. K., & Slovic, P. (1992). Trust as a determinant of opposition to a high-level radioactive waste repository; Analysis of a structural model. Risk Analysis, 12, 417-429.
12.
Freudenberg, W. R. (1988). Perceived risk, real risk: Social science and the art of probabilistic risk assessment. Science, 242, 44-49.
13.
Freudenberg, W. R. (1993). Risk and recreancy: Weber, the division of labor and rationality of risk perceptions. Social Forces, 71, 909-932.
14.
Holsti, O. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and the humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
15.
Hovland, C. , Janis, I. L., & Kelly, H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press.
16.
Jenkins-Smith, H. , Espey, J., Rouse, A., & Molund, D. (1990). Perceptions of risk in the management of nuclear wastes: Elite and mass beliefs and attitudes. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratory.
17.
Johnson, B. B. (1987). Public concerns and the public role in siting nuclearand chemical waste facilities. Environmental Management, 11, 571-586.
18.
Johnson, R. , & Wichem, D. (1988). Applied multivariate statistical analysis (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prenfice-HaIl.
19.
Kasperson, R. E. , Golding, D., & Tuler, S. (1992). Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating nsk. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 161-187.
20.
King, G. P. , Komfeld, K., McAvey, V., & Munro, J. (1990). Public communication and participation in siting controversial facilities in the United States and Westem Europe: An examination of lessons learned. In Proceedings of the first international topical meeting on high level radioactive waste management (pp. 244-250). La Grange Park, IL: American Nuclear Society.
21.
Lipset, S. , & Schneider, W. (1983). The confidence gap. New York: Free Press.
22.
McGinnis, E. , & Ward, C. D. (1980). Better liked than night: Trust worthiness and expertise as factors in credibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 467-472.
23.
McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Undsay & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd. ed., Vol. 2, pp. 233-346). New York: Random House.
24.
National Research Council . (1989). Improving risk communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
25.
Nuclear Waste News . (1995). WSU survey shows increased confidence in DOE integrity. Silver Springs, MD: Business Publishers.
26.
Pijawka, K. D. , & Mushkatel, A. H. (1992). Public opposition to the siting of the high-level nuclear waste repository: The importance of trust. Policy Studies Review, 10, 180-194.
27.
Renn, O. , Webler, T., & Johnson, B. (1991). Public participation in hazard management—the use of citizen panels in the U.S. Risk: Issues in Health & Safety, 2, 197-226.
28.
Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.
29.
Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13, 675-682.
30.
Slovic, P. , Flynn, J., & Layman, M. (1991). Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science, 254, 1603-1607.
31.
Snedecor, G. , & Cochran, W. (1980). Statistical methods. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
32.
Wheelwright, J. (1995). For our nuclear wastes, there's grid lock on the road to the dump. Smithsonian, 26(2), 40-50.
