The Framing of Nuclear Power in the Irish Media

The Framing of Nuclear Power in the Irish Media

David Conway, BA GPEP

This thesis is submitted to University College Dublin in part fulfilment of the requirements

for the degree of MSc Environmental Policy

School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Policy

Supervisor: Dr. Finbarr Brereton

August 2015

i

Table of Contents

List of Figures ............................................................................................................. iii

List of Tables ............................................................................................................... v

List of Plates ............................................................................................................... vi

Declaration ................................................................................................................. vii

Acknowledgement .................................................................................................... viii

Abstract ....................................................................................................................... ix

1. Introduction................................................................................................................ 1

2. Overarching Aim ....................................................................................................... 3

2.1. The Issue of Climate Change ............................................................................. 3

2.2. Nuclear Power as Part of the Solution ............................................................... 6

2.3. Nuclear Power and Energy Security .................................................................. 7

3. Health and Safety Issues with Nuclear Power ........................................................ 9

3.1. Health and Safety Issues Regarding Nuclear Power .......................................... 9

3.2. Environmental Issues Regarding Nuclear Power ............................................ 11

3.3. Environmental, Health and Safety Issues of Other Energy Technologies ....... 11

4. Policy Context .......................................................................................................... 13

4.1. European Union ............................................................................................... 13

4.1.1. Overview of Nuclear Power in the EU .......................................................... 13

4.1.2. Policy Implications of Fukushima ................................................................. 14

4.1.3. Emission Targets............................................................................................ 15

4.1.4. Renewable Energy ......................................................................................... 16

4.2. Ireland .............................................................................................................. 18

5. Media Framing ......................................................................................................... 23

5.1. Types of Media Formats .................................................................................. 23

5.2. Media Coverage of Nuclear Power .................................................................. 24

5.3. Media Language............................................................................................... 27

5.4. Significance of Imagery ................................................................................... 28

6. Methodology ............................................................................................................. 31

6.1. The Importance of Content Analysis ............................................................... 32

6.2. Why Newspapers? ........................................................................................... 33

6.3. Time Period of the Content Analysis ............................................................... 34

ii

6.4. Categorising the Articles.................................................................................. 36

7. Results ....................................................................................................................... 40

7.1. Three Mile Island ............................................................................................. 40

7.1.1. Pro-Nuclear Articles ...................................................................................... 42

7.1.2. Anti-Nuclear Articles ..................................................................................... 43

7.1.3. Informational Articles .................................................................................... 44

7.2. Chernobyl ......................................................................................................... 45




7.3. Fukushima ........................................................................................................ 50




7.4. Headlines and Images ...................................................................................... 56

7.4.1. Headlines ....................................................................................................... 56

7.4.2. Images ............................................................................................................ 58

8. Discussion ................................................................................................................. 62

8.1. Dramatisation of Nuclear Power ...................................................................... 62

8.2. Articles Occurring After the Accidents ........................................................... 65

8.3. Lack of Environmental Articles ....................................................................... 66

8.4. Policy Implications .......................................................................................... 66

8.5. Limitations and Future Research ..................................................................... 68

9. Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 69

Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 71

iii

List of Figures

Figure 2.1: Total GHG Emissions in Annex 1 Countries between 1990

and 2010

Pg. 5

Figure 2.2: EU Emissions Reduction in the Power Sector in 2050 in

the 2° Scenario

Pg. 6

Figure 2.3: CO2 Emissions by Sector, 1973-2010 Pg. 8

Figure 3.1: International Nuclear Event Scale Pg. 10

Figure 3.2: Environmental Impacts of Wind Power Pg. 12

Figure 4.1: National Targets for Renewable Energies for 2020 Pg. 17

Figure 4.2: Irish Energy Consumption from 1990-2013 Pg. 20

Figure 4.3: GHG Emissions from 1990-2010 Pg. 21

Figure 4.4: Renewable Energy as a Percentage of Total Primary

Energy Supply 1973-2020

Pg. 22

Figure 5.1: Primary Climate Change Knowledge Sources of the

Reporter Population

Pg. 24

Figure 5.2: Number of Articles with Negative or Positive/Neutral for

each Nuclear Accident (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima)

Divided by Theme

Pg. 26

Figure 6.1: Frequency of Articles for Each Accident Pg. 36

Figure 7.1: Overall Proportion of Newspaper Articles that are Pro-

nuclear, anti-nuclear and Informational (February, March and April

1979)

Pg. 40

Figure 7.2: Number of Newspaper Articles that are Pro-Nuclear, Anti-

Nuclear and Informational for each Newspaper (February, March and

April 1979)

Pg. 41

Figure 7.3: Proportion of Newspaper Articles that are Pro-nuclear,

Anti-nuclear and Informational for each Newspaper (February, March

and April 1979)

Pg. 41


nuclear, Anti-nuclear and Informational (March, April and May 1986)

Pg. 46

iv

Figure 7.5: Number of Newspaper Articles that are Pro-nuclear, Anti-

nuclear and Informational for each Newspaper (March, April and May

1986)

Pg. 46

Figure 7.6: Proportion of Newspaper Articles that are Pro-nuclear, Anti-

nuclear and Informational for each Newspaper (March, April and May

1986)

Pg. 47


nuclear, Anti-nuclear and Informational (February, March and April

2011)

Pg. 51


Anti-nuclear and Informational for each newspaper (February, March

and April 2011)

Pg. 51


Anti-nuclear and Informational for each Newspaper (February, March

and April 2011)

Pg. 52

Figure 8.1: Proportion of each Theme for each Accident and Overall Pg. 64

Figure 8.2: Coverage of Nuclear Power During the Three Accidents

for Each Newspaper

Pg. 64

Figure 8.3: Number of Newspaper Articles Before, During and After

Each Accident

Pg. 65

v

List of Tables

Table 4.1: Nuclear Power in EU Countries Pg. 14

Table 6.1: Coding themes for the Media Coverage of Nuclear Power Pg. 37

Table 6.2: Coding Themes and Rules for the Media Coverage of Pro-

Nuclear Articles

Pg. 37-38

Table 6.3: Coding Themes and Rules for the Media Coverage of Anti-

Nuclear Articles

Pg. 38

Table 6.4: Coding Themes and Rules for the Media Coverage of

Informational Articles

Pg. 39

Table 7.1: Pro-nuclear Articles in the Irish Times and Irish

Independent (February, March and April 1979)

Pg. 42

Table 7.2: Anti-nuclear Articles in the Irish Times and Irish


Pg. 44

Table 7.3: Informational Articles in the Irish Times and Irish


Pg. 45

Table 7.4: Pro-Nuclear Articles in the Irish Times and Irish

Independent (March, April and May 1986)

Pg. 48

Table 7.5: Anti- nuclear Articles in the Irish Times and Irish


Pg. 49



Pg. 50

Table 7.7: Pro-nuclear Articles in the Irish Times and Irish


Pg. 53

Table 7.8: Anti-nuclear Articles in the Irish Times and Irish


Pg. 54



Pg. 55

Table 7.10: Dramatic Headlines Related to Three Mile Island Pg. 56

Table 7.11: Dramatic Headlines Related to Chernobyl Pg. 56

Table 7.12: Dramatic Headlines Related to Fukushima Pg. 57

vi

List of Plates

Plate 5.1: Stacked up Against Pg. 30

Plate 7.1: The Ghostly Horror of Radiation Effects Pg. 58

Plate 7.2: Protestors Cite Harrisburg Accident Pg. 58

Plate 7.3: Chernobyl Radiation Fears Lead to Flight from Kiev Pg. 59

Plate 7.4: Falling out of Love with the Atom Pg. 59

Plate 7.5: Engineers Losing Battle to Prevent Full Meltdown Pg. 60

Plate 7.6: Struggling Officials Say Third Cooling System has Failed Pg. 60

vii

Declaration

I hereby certify that the submitted work is my own work, was completed while

registered as a candidate for the MSc Environmental Policy degree, and I have not

obtained a degree elsewhere on the basis on the research presented in this submitted

work.

viii

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Finbarr Brereton, whose

expertise, patience and understanding added substantially to my experience. His

guidance, motivation and knowledge of the topic were a great help throughout the

course of my research and writing this thesis. His continuous help and advice during the

course of writing this thesis guided me in the right path and I am very thankful.

ix

ABSTRACT

Climate change and energy security have become important justifications for nuclear

power in many countries. Between 1995 and 2008 greenhouse gas emissions

increased by 0.4% annually and it is estimated that since 1980 nuclear power has

been responsible for avoiding the release of over 60 giga tonnes of CO2. Global

energy consumption is expected to increase significantly in the short to medium term

which has led to energy security becoming an important part of energy policy

debates. In 2012 nuclear power generated 11% of the world’s electricity. However,

country’s energy policies differ in relation to nuclear power, especially since the

Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011. Despite public concern over this energy source,

nuclear power plants are still being constructed in countries around the world.

Therefore it is a topic that appears in the media, especially when nuclear accidents

occur. This study shows how nuclear power was framed in two Irish newspapers

(Irish Times and Irish Independent) before, during and after three prominent nuclear

accidents: Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011.

Overall 633 articles were analysed and categorised into three frames: pro-nuclear,

anti-nuclear and informational. The results show that the majority of the analysed

articles were anti-nuclear and the proportion of anti-nuclear accidents increased with

each accident, indicating increased dramatization of nuclear power. Results also

indicate that the accidents caused a surge in newspaper coverage of nuclear power,

conforming to Downs’ ‘issue-attention cycle’. Interestingly, very few articles

discussed nuclear power in terms of its environmental benefits or risks, indicating

that this needs to be a bigger part of the debate in the future. In the three month

period in 1979, many articles discussed the construction of a nuclear power plant in

Carnsore Point in Co. Wexford. It is likely that anti-nuclear coverage associated with

the Three Mile Island accident caused increased opposition which influenced policy

changes, resulting in the power plant’s construction not going ahead.

1

1. INTRODUCTION

The media is an important source of information for people, and people obtain much of

their information regarding the environment from the media (Boykoff, 2008); (Boykoff

and Rajan, 2007) and (Wilson, 1995). Among many global environmental issues,

climate change is perhaps the one receiving the most attention (Olausson, 2009).

Despite the increasing popularity of the internet and social media, newspapers and

television are still very important sources of environmental information for people

(Gokmen et al, 2010); (Boykoff and Rajan, 2007) and (Boykoff and Roberts, 2007). For

example in a United States survey in 2004 it was found that television is the leading

source of news in most households (53%) followed by newspapers (29%) (Boykoff and

Roberts, 2007).

It is important to analyse the media and its portrayal of environmental issues and this is

the aim of this thesis. It will focus on the framing of nuclear power in Irish newspapers

while also making some references to other media formats such as television and social

media. Prior to the Fukushima accident in Japan it was believed that nuclear power was

undergoing a nuclear renaissance (Goodfellow et al, 2011). Despite this accident

nuclear power still plays an important role as a source of energy in the EU and other

countries around the world, such as the U.S – 99 reactors, Japan -48 reactors and Russia

– 34 reactors as of December 2014 (IAEA, 2015). Coverage in media formats such as

newspapers can represent what people are thinking, as shown by Morrone et al (2012)

who found that local newspapers reflect the concerns of residents. According to

Greenberg and Truelove (2010) mass media is the main source of information available

to the public about energy sources. By analysing the framing of nuclear power in

newspapers it is possible to understand how the public are being presented with the

information. Are newspapers pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear or do they put more emphasis

on providing information? Is nuclear power dramatized and how does coverage differ

around periods where nuclear accidents occur?

2

This thesis proceeds as follows. The overarching aim of this will first be discussed. This

will focus on the reasons for nuclear power being chosen to be analysed in Irish

newspapers. Energy security and climate change mitigation are two of the main reasons

for utilising nuclear energy as a source of energy. Following this, information will be

provided on the health and safety aspects of nuclear power. This is an essential aspect of

nuclear power because it is a primary concern for people who oppose nuclear power

(Hartmann et al, 2013). The policy context of nuclear power in Europe and Ireland will

then be discussed. Nuclear power provides the EU with 27% of its energy and reaches

as high as 76.9% in France. On the other hand Germany, among other countries, has

decided to phase out nuclear power. Next there will be a focus on the literature

concerned with the portrayal of nuclear power in the media. Results will then be

presented. Irish newspapers were analysed to observe the way in which nuclear power

and nuclear energy has been framed around three prominent nuclear accidents – Three

Mile Island (TMI) in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011. How did Irish

newspapers frame nuclear power around these three time periods, how frequently did

the issue arise and how long did it take for coverage, after the accidents, get back to

similar levels before the accidents?

3

2. OVERARCHING AIM

There are many sources of energy that can be utilised to meet energy needs such as coal,

gas, renewable energy (RE) (wind, solar and hydro), biomass and nuclear energy. Both

nuclear and RE sources are believed to offer some solutions to the problems of climate

change and energy security (Menyah and Wolde-Rufael, 2010). Nuclear energy is a

proven source of low-carbon electricity and gives a high degree of energy security

(World Nuclear Association, 2015). Electricity is generated by nuclear power in 30

countries across the world and in 2012 nuclear electricity represented 11% of the

world’s electricity generation. This is down from a high of 17% in 1993 (Bruckner et al,

2014). Despite its proportionate decrease as a source of energy worldwide, it remains to

be important. Teräväinen et al (2011) found that since the late 1990s, climate change

and energy security have become important justifications for nuclear power in many

countries. The future competitiveness of nuclear power depends on the adoption of

policies that account for the climate change and energy security advantages of the

technology (Victor et al, 2014).

2.1. The Issue of Climate Change

Climate change is currently one of the most challenging issues to be dealt with due to

the release of large amounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere by human

activities. It can only be mitigated when the total amount of CO2 released into the

atmosphere is limited and emissions eventually approach zero (Bruckner et al, 2014).

Between 1995 and 2008 GHGs increased by 0.4% annually and following the decrease

in 2009 due to the global economic recession, they increased again in 2010

(Konstantinaviciute and Bobinaite, 2015). This can be seen in figure 2.1 on page 5. In

order to avoid severe climate change, GHG emissions must reduce by at least 80-90%

by 2050 (Pfenninger and Keirstead, 2015). It is important for countries to commit in the

reduction of GHGs in order to solve the problem of climate change. The EU needs to

reduce its emissions by at least 80% by 2050 which makes it evident that it will have to

move to a carbon-free internal energy system by this time, or very close to it (Jones and

Glachant, 2010). More specifically, Ireland’s nearest neighbour the UK, has published

the Climate Change Act in 2008 which stipulates an 80% reduction by 2050, relative to

4

1990 levels (Paska and Surma, 2014). Figure 2.1 also shows that energy industries are

the biggest source of GHG emissions that are being generated in Annex 1 countries.

Notice how energy industries were barely affected by the global economic recession in

2009 when much of the other categories were impacted. This shows that even in an

economic recession energy remains vitally important. Between this 20 year period,

GHG emissions from energy industries amounted to about 30% of total emissions

(Konstantinaviciute and Bobinaite, 2015).

Due to the emissions they produce, energy inputs are essential for assessing climate

change mitigation policies (Bibas et al, 2015). Nuclear power is known for its low

emissions (Kopytko and Perkins, 2011), which means it can be part of these mitigation

policies. It is interesting to note that nuclear reactors require large amounts of water

which is why they are located by the ocean, large lakes or big rivers. If climate change

affects the temperature, quality or quantity of the water, existing nuclear plants may be

adversely affected. Coastal reactors can be affected by climate change in several ways.

Sea-level rise can inundate reactor sites. More intense storms can cause severe flooding

and wind damage. Rising sea levels can also cause more erosion and instability to occur

(Kopytko and Perkins, 2011). These provide further obstacles to the future construction

of nuclear power plants by limiting the number of suitable sites. Constructing new

reactors at existing sites is the quickest option, but existing nuclear plants already have

vulnerabilities to climate change (Kopytko and Perkins, 2011).

5

Fig

ure

2.1

: T

ota

l G

HG

Em

issi

ons

in A

nnex

1 C

oun

trie

s B

etw

een 1

990 a

nd 2

010

Sou

rce:

Konst

anti

nav

iciu

te a

nd B

obin

aite

(2015:

604)

6

2.2. Nuclear Power as Part of the Solution

Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere, contributing to climate change.

Nuclear power creates little amounts of carbon emissions as electricity is generated

which makes it suitable for mitigating against climate change (Kopytko and Perkins,

2011). In Ireland, the energy sector accounts for 66% of total GHG emissions from fuels

(IEA, 2012). The preference for nuclear power stems from the fact that it produces zero

emissions and its relatively low cost (deLlano-Paz, 2015). As a result, nuclear power

plants around the world make a substantial contribution to the mitigation of GHG

emissions (Menyah and Wolde-Rufael, 2010). It is estimated that since 1980, nuclear

power has been responsible for avoiding the release of over 60 giga tonnes (Gt) of CO2.

The contribution of nuclear energy to decarbonising the electricity sector would result in

annual CO2 emission reductions of 13% of the global emissions reduction required in

the power sector (Nuclear Energy Agency, 2015). Figure 2.2 below shows that the

figure for the EU is 23%. Europe would not have been able to make any substantial

impact on reducing CO2 emissions without relying on nuclear energy (Menyah and

Wolde-Rufael, 2010).

Figure 2.2: EU Emissions Reduction in the Power Sector in 2050 in the 2° Scenario

Source: NEA (2015: 23)

Nuclear power is not the only solution to climate change, for example Pfenninger and

Keirstead (2015) state that the deployment of RE in the UK is one method of climate

change mitigation, but it is also part of a desire to balance affordability with energy

security. However nuclear power is also a strong part of the energy mix in the UK. In

7

2013 the mix of generated electricity in the UK was about 61.2% fossil fuels, 23.9%

nuclear and 13.2% renewables (Pfenninger and Keirstead, 2015). Some European

countries such as Belgium, Italy and Switzerland have made the decision to phase out

nuclear power (Helm, 2014). However this could cause emissions to increase. Angela

Merkel’s decision to phase out nuclear facilities by 2021 in Germany has meant at least

a temporary increase in CO2 emissions from German utilities forced to switch to coal

(Grossman, 2015). Despite this, nuclear power still provides 53% of the EUs carbon-

free electricity (World Nuclear Association, 2015).

2.3. Nuclear Power and Energy Security

In reality, the goal to mitigate climate change is one of many policy objectives.

Governments want to create jobs, reduce air pollution as well as take energy security

into consideration (Flues et al, 2014). One of the five priorities of the European Energy

Union outlined in January 2015 is to enhance the security of energy supply (World

Nuclear Association, 2015).

Energy security can be defined as “the uninterrupted physical availability of energy at a

price which is affordable, while respecting environment concerns” (Corner et al, 2011:

4824). Pro-nuclear re-framings in the UK assert nuclear power as the only way of

ensuring energy security and delivering cheap energy (Bickerstaff et al, 2008). Even

when the world’s first large-scale nuclear power station was built at Calder Hall in

Cumbria in 1956, one of its justifications for its construction was that it would provide

energy security for the UK (Tweena, 2006). Looking at figure 2.3 on the following

page, it can be seen that in Ireland the transportation sector emits a large amount of

CO2. This is significant because the role of the electricity system is becoming more and

more important because part of transportation, heating and cooling will be electrified

(Jones and Glachant, 2010). Energy security is given high priority in countries that

depend heavily on imports (Abdmouleh, 2015). Ireland is heavily dependent on

imported fossil fuels which accounted for 89% in 2009, the UK being the major sources

of oil and natural gas for Ireland (Chiodi et al, 2013). The development of nuclear

power influences energy efficiency, reduces pollution and allows a diversification of

electricity generation (Paska and Surma, 2014). Global energy consumption is expected

8

to increase significantly in the short to medium term which has led to energy security

becoming an important part of energy policy debates (Corner et al, 2011).

Fig

ure

2.3

: C

O2 E

mis

sions

by S

ecto

r, 1

973

-2010

Sou

rce:

IE

A (

2012:

27)

9

3. HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES WITH NUCLEAR POWER

3.1. Health and Safety Issues Regarding Nuclear Power

Nuclear power anxieties often focus on health and safety and waste disposal (Hartmann

et al, 2013). Concerns can also include the significant human health impacts associated

with low-probability catastrophic accidents (Sheldon et al, 2015).The safety of nuclear

power in the EU is the primary responsibility of power plant operators. An EU-wide

approach to nuclear safety is essential because a nuclear accident has the potential to

have an impact on many countries within the EU and beyond (European Commission,

2015a). The Nuclear Safety Directive was published in 2009 (amended in 2014) and

emphasised the fundamental principle of national responsibility for nuclear safety

(World Nuclear Association, 2015). The amended directive requires EU member states

to give highest priority to nuclear safety during the whole lifecycle of a nuclear power

plant (European Commission, 2015a). Specifically it requires a safety re-evaluation on

all nuclear power plants at least once every 10 years. In 2013 the European Commission

signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the International Atomic Energy Agency

(IAEA) to further co-operation (European Commission, 2015a).

Following the Fukushima accident, several countries have altered their policies due to

public concerns about the safety of nuclear reactors (International Energy Agency,

2012). The 2011 Fukushima Disaster rekindled the discussion regarding the safety of

nuclear energy (Cale and Kromer, 2015). Figure 3.1 on the following page shows the

International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) for nuclear events. The

Chernobyl accident was rated 7 on the INES which is the highest and most serious level.

Radioactive materials were released into the atmosphere for 10 days. As a result, most

of Europe was eventually affected and even reached as far as Canada, Japan and the

USA (Joyce and Port, 1999). Fukushima was also classified as a level 7 incident on the

INES (Biddinika et al, 2014). TMI was rated a 5 on the scale. Despite containment

being successful, a release of radioactivity to the atmosphere occurred. However the

release from TMI was considered so small that no detectable increase in radiation-

induced health effects were expected (Joyce and Port, 1999). Some independent

estimates have calculated that up to between 30,000 and 60,000 excess cancer deaths

10

are expected from doses received from the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Many cancers

have latency periods of up to 20-60 years which means even in 2040, cancer deaths

from Chernobyl may still be occurring (Fairlie, 2009). Radiation poses a hazard to

society through its potential to cause damage to living tissue and consequently to health

(Joyce and Port, 1999). Ho et al (2014) conducted a study in Taiwan and found that the

top three aspects that people were concerned about regarding nuclear safety was nuclear

accidents (82.2%), radioactive nuclear waste disposal (76.9%) and potential health

effects (73.3%).

Figure 3.1: International Nuclear Event Scale

Source: Joyce and Port (1999: 87)

On the other hand nuclear power can provide health benefits. Qvist and Brook (2015)

discuss the implications of decommissioning Swedish nuclear power plants

prematurely. The process has already begun with the closure of the Barsebäck plant.

They found that through to October 2014, Swedish Nuclear Power generation has

prevented an estimated 50,000-60,000 deaths as compared to what would have occurred

if fossil-based alternatives were used in its place. The health impacts of

decommissioning the Barsebäck plant is already equivalent to that of the estimated

impacts of up to 15 very serious accidents in the Barsebäck reactors.

11

3.2. Environmental Issues Regarding Nuclear Power

Following the introduction of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive it

is now a requirement that developments that are likely to cause environmental impacts

must undergo an EIA. International obligations require countries to undertake an EIA

prior to the authorisation to implement nuclear activities. Monitoring the impacts of on

the environment is an important aspect of the EIA process (Ragaišis et al, 2014).

Nuclear facilities can cause environmental externalities such as life-cycle carbon

emissions, water consumption, land use and the long-term storage of radioactive waste

(Sheldon et al, 2015). The radiological impact from nuclear power generation on the

environment can be divided between radioactive waste (aerial effluents, liquid effluents

and solid waste) and accidents (Chernobyl and TMI) (Joyce and Port, 1999) as well as

the more recent accident at Fukushima. The materials used in the generation of

electricity from nuclear power are transported by road, sea, rail and air (Joyce and Port,

1999). Therefore the transportation of these materials is causing GHG emissions to be

released into the atmosphere.

Due to Sweden’s decision to decommission nuclear power, Qvist and Brook (2015)

suggest that a combination of imported fossil fuels and combustion-based power plants

will make up the bulk of the missing electricity supply which is likely to compromise

Sweden’s policy to reduce GHGs by 40% by 2020. Shutting down nuclear power plants

could cause harm to the environment, as well as people’s health and safety due to more

CO2 emissions being released into the atmosphere. The study conducted by Ho (2014)

discussed in the previous section also found that in terms of nuclear safety, 57% of

people were concerned with eco-environmental damage.

3.3. Environmental, Health and Safety Issue of other Energy

Technologies

No technology comes without environmental impacts and to avoid the creation of new

environmental and health problems, assessments of mitigation technologies need to

address a wide range of issues such as water, air or soil pollution (Bruckner et al, 2014).

Some member states are strongly anti-nuclear and it is estimated that in the period to

12

2030, nuclear capacity will be lost due to the closure of a number of nuclear reactors

(World Nuclear Association, 2015). Most RE sources have low lifecycle GHG

emissions when compared to fossil fuels (Bruckner et al, 2014).

Hydropower is the most common RE source across the globe and is generally thought to

be an environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels. However the construction and

operation of hydropower plants requires a significant amount of material, energy and

land resources and the three main externalities associated with it include GHG

emissions, water consumption and land-use (Sheldon et al, 2015). Wind energy is also

considered to be a significant source of RE, however the development of wind power

can have environmental impacts on ecosystems (soil, water and living organisms). It can

modify landscape settings which can have impacts on the biological system, causing

noise pollution, bird and bat fatalities (Wang and Wang, 2015). Some of these impacts

can be seen in figure 3.2 below

Figure 3.2: Environmental Impacts of Wind Power

Source: Wang and Wang (2015: 43)

13

4. POLICY CONTEXT

4.1. European Union

4.1.1. Overview of Nuclear Power in the EU

30% of electricity in the European Union is generated by nuclear power plants. This is

produced by 130 nuclear reactors in 14 EU Member States who decide themselves

whether to include nuclear power in its energy mix or not (European Commission

2015d). In 2014, 26.9% of the EU’s energy was generated by nuclear power (World

Nuclear Association, 2015), making it a very important source of energy for the EU.

France’s CO2 emissions in 2000 were around 1.6% of the world’s total CO2 emissions

which was one of the lowest among Western European Countries. As well as this,

between 1980 and 2000, per capita CO2 emissions in France reduced at an average

annual rate of 1.5% which was the result of utilising more natural gas and nuclear power

(Ang, 2007). Table 4.1 on the following page shows that France generates over 75% of

their electricity from nuclear power. In 2004 nuclear power plants in the UK generated

22% of the electricity supply which reduces national carbon emissions by an estimated

7-14%. However as plants reach the end of their life it is expected that by 2020 total

nuclear capacity will have reduced by about three quarters (Bickerstaff et al, 2008). If

many of the ageing nuclear power stations in Britain are not replaced, there will only be

one left by 2025. Replacing these with either gas or coal-fired power capacity would

lead to a significant increase in GHG emissions, which means that future development

of the nuclear power industry is increasingly being presented by many advisors and

scientists to the government (Pidgeon et al, 2008). Spain’s seven nuclear reactors

generated one-fifth of the country’s electricity in 2014 (World Nuclear News, 2015).

These are some examples of nuclear power usage in different EU countries, however all

the countries that use nuclear power can be seen in table 4.1.

14

Table 4.1: Nuclear Power in EU Countries

Source: Adopted from World Nuclear Association (2015)

4.1.2. Policy Implications of Fukushima

The aftermath of Fukushima has resulted in Germany deciding to wind down nuclear

power generation whereas UK policymakers decided to continue with increasing

nuclear power generation (Wittneben, 2012). This decision by Germany to phase out

nuclear power by 2021 has resulted in an increased reliance on coal, wind farms and

solar panels (Helm, 2014). Germany aims to have 35% RE by 2020, 50% by 2030 and

80% by 2050 (Nordensvärd and Urban, 2015). The first plans to phase out nuclear

energy were undertaken in 2000, resulting in an overall phase out by 2021 (Stegen and

Seel, 2013). Switzerland, Belgium and Italy followed in Germany’s footsteps.

Following the Fukushima accident, Japan also decided to shut down its nuclear power

plants (Helm, 2014). In fact, by 2025, it is estimated that over one third of the current

operational reactors in the EU will be at the end of their life and begin the final step of

15

decommission (European Commission, 2015b). On the other hand, the UK and other

European countries, have decided to expand or extend their nuclear energy programmes

(Goodfellow et al, 2011).

4.1.3. Emission Targets

Nuclear power currently avoids the emission of over two billion tonnes of CO2 on an

annual basis as well as address economic development and energy security (World

Nuclear Association, 2015). Since 2009 the European Union has adopted the EU

Climate and Energy Package, also known as the 20-20-20 package (Knopf et al, 2015).

Part of this package involves a 20% reduction in EU GHG emissions from 1990 levels.

Emission targets range from a 20% reduction in the richer Member States to a 20%

increase in the poorer states in 2020 compared with 2005 levels (EEA, 2014). At EU

level this should result in roughly a 9-10% reduction of emissions in 2020 compared

with 2005 levels (EEA, 2014). In October 2014 EU leaders agreed on a 2030 policy

framework that will see a domestic EU GHG reduction of at least 40% compared to

1990 (EPA, 2015). To achieve this, the sectors covered by the EU emissions trading

scheme (ETS) will have to reduce their emissions by 43% compared to 2005 levels. Due

to the low carbon emissions of nuclear power, it can aid in achieving this target. Climate

change mitigation would be made more difficult without nuclear power in the energy

system (Lehtveer and Hedenus, 2015). Despite this, nuclear power is a heavily disputed

source of electricity in Europe (Knopf et al, 2015). This is due to the challenges related

to nuclear power, the most notable ones being radioactive waste production, risk of

radiation release, nuclear weapons proliferation and public resistance. These

characteristics make nuclear power distinctive from other energy technologies and many

have suggested that it does not have a place in the future, as demonstrated by countries

such as Germany, Belgium and Switzerland Lehtveer and Hedenus (2015).

Despite this, 4 nuclear power plants are currently being constructed across Europe, 19

are being planned and 15 were proposed in June 2015. This can be seen in table 4.1 on

the previous page. Interestingly, Poland, who has had no nuclear reactors up to this

point, now has four planned as of June 2015. Poland’s electricity consumption is

estimated to grow by 54% to 2030 but under the EU’s strict climate policy targets,

Poland needs to diversify away from coal (World Nuclear Association, 2015). Lithuania

is another country that has recently planned for its first nuclear reactor. There is no

16

single solution to climate change mitigation, however nuclear power is one technology

that can be used for supplying energy with lower emissions (Lehtveer and Hedenus,

2015).

4.1.4. Renewable Energy

Due to the dependence of energy sources outside the EU, the European Commission

proposed the Directive 2009/28/EC which came into force in June 2009 (Michalena and

Hills, 2012). Known as the European Renewable Directive, it was published and

established an overall policy for the production and promotion of renewable energy

sources (RES) in the EU. 20% of the EU’s total energy needs to be produced by

renewables by 2020, each country having a different target due to their starting point

and overall potential for renewables (European Commission, 2015c). Figure 4.1 on page

17 shows the RES targets for each EU country. 76% of Frances energy comes from

nuclear power, and figure 4.1 shows that a further 23% of their energy should come

from renewables in 2020. It ranges from 10% in Malta to 49% in Sweden. Sweden has

the third highest number of nuclear reactors in the EU (see table 4.1) and Blindheim

(2015) suggests that if the increase in RE production in Sweden is used to phase out

nuclear power the RES share will be improved, but the impact on emissions could be

counteracted. This indicates that phasing out nuclear power in conjunction with

increasing RE will not necessarily reduce GHGs, straight away at least.

17

Fig

ure

4.1

: N

atio

nal

Tar

get

s fo

r R

enew

able

Ener

gie

s fo

r 2020

Sou

rce:

EE

A (

2014:

24

)

18

4.2. Ireland

The closest nuclear power plant to Ireland is the Wylfa nuclear reactor in Wales, at a

distance of 110 km from the Irish coastline (Environment, Community and Local

Government, 2007). It can be seen in figure 4.2 on page 20 that Ireland’s energy

consumption has increased significantly since 1990. Just before the recession in 2008,

energy consumption had almost doubled from what it was in 1990. From 2008-2013 it

decreased but remained substantially higher than 1990 levels, however it can be seen

that energy consumption increased from 2012-2013. After 1990 economic growth

accelerated rapidly and there was an increase in domestic demand which resulted in

increases in employment (Doran, 2012). Economic growth has a positive impact on

energy consumption and CO2 emissions have the same positive impact (Saidi and

Hammami, 2015). To sustain growth, an economy must consider substituting fossil

energy with other sources, e.g. nuclear power or RE (Menegaki and Tsagarakis, 2015).

Figure 4.3 on page 21 shows GHG patterns in Ireland for different sectors from 1990-

2010 and shows that a significant portion is taken up by the energy sector.

EEA (2014) states that Ireland will not meet its emission reduction targets by 2020

through domestic policies and measures and this is despite the recent recession in which

Whyte et al, (2013) observe reduced demand and consumption of energy in Ireland.

Grimes (2015) suggests that nuclear power needs to be considered to find the best

solution to Ireland’s energy needs. 48% of the electricity produced in Ireland is from

imported gas and up to 80% is from imported fossil fuels, which means Ireland has the

highest dependency on imported fossil fuels for electricity generation in Europe. This is

why electricity prices are so high compared to other countries such as France which has

a huge nuclear industry (O’Flaherty et al, 2014). The UK is the major source of oil and

gas for Ireland (Chiodi et al, 2013). Plans for a nuclear power plant at Carnsore Point in

Co. Wexford were put forward in 1968 and it was hoped that this would help meet the

projected increased demand for power in the 1970s (Leonard, 2006). However

construction never took place and there remains to be no nuclear power plants in

Ireland.

By 2020 Ireland needs to achieve absolute RES growths that are four to seven times

higher than the absolute increases achieved between 2005 and 2012 (EEA, 2014). In

19

2012 Ireland was one of only six European countries who were not considered to be on

track to meeting their RES targets. Figure 4.4 on page 22 shows the evolution of RE in

Ireland from 1973 to the present and the projected figure to 2020. It can be seen that it is

estimated that only 14% of electricity will be generated by renewables by 2020. This is

despite Ireland’s location beside the Atlantic Ocean which ensures one of the best wind

and ocean resources in Europe (IEA, 2012).

In January 2015 the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government

published the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Bill 2015 which sets out

the national objective of transitioning to a low carbon, climate resilient and

environmentally sustainable economy by 2050 (EPA, 2015). It provides for the

preparation of five-yearly National Mitigation Plans which will set out how Ireland’s

GHG emissions are to be reduced in line with existing EU legislation and international

commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC).

20

Fig

ure

4.2

: Ir

ish E

ner

gy C

onsu

mpti

on f

rom

1990

-2013

Sou

rce:

CS

O

21

Fig

ure

4.3

: G

HG

Em

issi

ons

from

1990

-20

10

Sou

rce:

EP

A (

2014:

6)

22

Fig

ure

4.4

: R

enew

able

Ener

gy a

s a

Per

centa

ge

of

Tota

l P

rim

ary E

ner

gy S

upply

1973

-2020

Sou

rce:

IE

A (

2012:

88)

23

5. MEDIA FRAMING

5.1. Types of Media Formats

90% of UK adults use at least one of the four main platforms for news (television,

newspapers, radio and online) with an average of 2.1 formats being used (Ofcom,

2013). Newspapers as a media format have been around for centuries and became

increasingly popular towards the end of the 19th

century when circulation grew from

0.34 papers per household in 1870 to 1.21 per household in 1910 (Boykoff and Roberts,

2007). However there has been increasing concern over the future of newspapers in the

last ten years due to a declining trend in circulations. This is not a recent phenomenon

though, as the UK has seen its newspaper circulations declining since the 1950s

(Dekavalla, 2015). She also suggests that newspapers are facing increased competition

from other media formats not only for readers but also for advertising. 40% of adults in

the UK use newspapers as a source of news. In comparison 78% and 32% of people use

TV and radio, respectively, as a source of news (Ofcom, 2013). Television and

newspapers are also the leading source of news for Americans (Boykoff and Roberts,

2007). 32% of adults also use the internet for news and the increasing influence of

social media is apparent, with 82% of Facebook users claiming to use it every day for

news (Ofcom, 2013). Since the beginning of the 21st century, social media platforms

have penetrated deeply into everyday life (van Dijck and Poell, 2013). Fast-growing

networks such as Facebook and Twitter have millions of active users and are

increasingly penetrating public communication. Dekavalla (2015) discusses the national

press in Scotland and concludes by suggesting that the promise offered by online

subscription models, the increasing popularity of tablets and the historical resilience of

the print press give hope for the survival of Scotland’s long-established newspaper

brands.

Interestingly Wilson (2000) discovered that newspapers were the dominant source of

information regarding climate change knowledge for reporters. This can be seen in

Figure 5.1 on the following page. Even when ‘scientists’ and ‘scientific journals’ are

brought together they still fall 2% short of newspaper usage by reporters, signifying that

reporters are far too reliant on newspapers for their climate information. Wilson

24

concludes that full-time science reporters had more accurate knowledge of climate

change in three of the four areas measured. This indicates the value of environmental

specialists in getting climate change information accurate.

Figure 5.1: Primary Climate Change Knowledge Sources of the Reporter Population

Source: Wilson (2000: 4)

5.2. Media Coverage of Nuclear Power

Overall, U.S. coverage of the greenhouse effect in the late 1980s and beginning of the

1990s was dominated by discussion of how nuclear energy could be a potential

alternative to carbon-based consumption (Boykoff and Roberts, 2007). Nuclear power is

unlike climate change as it can be viewed as a solution to combatting climate change. It

is one possibility for supplying energy with lower emissions, along with others such as

wind, solar, biomass and hydro however none of these technologies alone will be

adequate to entirely solve the problem (Lehtveer and Hedenus, 2015). Nuclear power

has been framed in the media as a solution to climate change because of its low

emissions (Morrone et al, 2012). Corner et al (2011) found that there was a shift

25

towards acceptance of nuclear power when it was framed as a solution to climate

change, known as reluctant acceptance of nuclear power.

Koerner (2014) undertook a content analysis of newspaper headlines from the two

weeks following the major nuclear accidents at Chernobyl, TMI and Fukushima. The

results found that over 70% of the headlines had negative traces and over 50% of these

mention fear for health, safety and the environment. This can be seen in figure 5.2 on

the following page. A number of studies have found that media coverage of

environmental issues is dependent on events, such as Aykut et al (2012); Kleinschmit

and Sjöstedt (2014) and Shehata and Hopmann (2012). Without any incident that is not

associated with environmental issues, it is unlikely that the media will report on issues

such as climate change (Olausson, 2009). One factor that contributed to the initial rise in

coverage in 1988 was NASA scientist James Hansen’s dramatic statement in his

testimony to the U.S Congress in the summer of 1988; “it is time to stop waffling so

much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here”

(Boykoff and Roberts, 2007: 5).

Several studies have examined news coverage of nuclear power in newspapers, the

majority of these analyses taking placing around a nuclear accident. In 2008 there was a

nuclear event at Krško in Slovenia and Perko et al (2012) examined the media coverage

it received by analysing 200 articles from printed and spoken media in Slovenia as well

as other countries. They discovered that there was high-intensity media coverage,

emotional reactions and political discussions. The results also demonstrated that media

reports often included messages with negative connotations, similar to Koerner’s

results on the previous page. The event had no safety issues, yet the media linked this

event with the Chernobyl nuclear accident and emotion-triggering words were used

such as ‘panic’ and ‘danger’.

26

Fig

ure

5.2

: N

um

ber

of

Art

icle

s w

ith N

egat

ive

or

Posi

tive/

Neu

tral

for

each

Nucl

ear

Acc

iden

t

(Cher

nobyl,

Thre

e M

ile

Isla

nd a

nd F

ukush

ima)

Div

ided

by T

hem

e

Sou

rce:

(K

oer

ner

, 2014

: 245

)

27

According to Arlt and Wolling (2015) public opinion in Germany is shaped

significantly by politicians and statements made by reporters and after the Chernobyl

accident national politicians took centre stage in the media and tried to counteract the

German population’s increasing mistrust of nuclear power. Consequently Arlt and

Wolling suggest that political actors play a vital role in coverage of nuclear energy.

Lazic (2013) examined the content of newspaper articles about the Fukushima accident

in three U.S. newspapers. The results suggest that these articles focused mostly on

conflict, responsibility and economic interest. News related to the accident involved

actors who had opposing opinions about the consequences of radiation which may have

affected how people made sense of the news. Culley et al (2010) examined print media

coverage of proposed nuclear reactors in Georgia, U.S. by analysing articles from two

local newspapers. The results revealed that newspapers generally represented both sides

of the debate equally and the pro- and anti-nuclear arguments reflected economic and

environmental benefits and risks. Informational articles were primarily concerned with

regulatory processes and financing.

5.3. Media Language

Two of the three newspapers Doyle (2011) analysed framed nuclear power through a

discourse of internal political conflict. The Daily Mirror favoured the word “nuke” in

headlines, a language of weaponry and war. Such headlines included “Nuked”, “Don’t

go Nuke, PM” and “Labour go Nuke”. Irish editions of the Mirror have been openly

opposed to nuclear power from the outset as the Sellafield nuclear power plant in

England is considered a radioactive threat to Irish people (Doyle, 2011). According to

Koerner (2014) the accident at Chernobyl caused many nations to question the safety of

nuclear reactors and also fuelled distrust for nuclear power. Negative media coverage

can also cause people to fear and mistrust the nuclear industry and figure 5.2 shows that

the majority of articles are negative and this can have a harmful effect on public

perception. As Koerner (2014) puts it, “trust takes a long time to build and very little

time to lose”. Environmental stories are often marked by negativity, unlike other science

stories (Einsiedel and Coughland, 1993) and (Holbert et al, 2003). Nuclear events

demonstrate riskiness but demonstration of safety requires a long period of time, free of

damaging accidents. The intense scrutiny that the news media gives to nuclear power

28

ensures that problems occurring all over the world will be brought to the public’s

attention, continually eroding trust (Slovic et al, 1991). Abstract and unsympathetic

technical language such as reporting quantitative radiation units frequently offends and

confuses people (Perko, 2014). However it was found that mass media don’t like

presenting these units or technical language in their reporting.

Media coverage of nuclear energy seems to be gradually more balanced (Greenberg and

Truelove, 2010). There is now a worry that the news media has moved from an era of

false balance to a new phase of over-dramatisation and that the media is exaggerating

the severity of climate change (Nisbet, 2009). Scientists however, generally employ

caution in their language and speak in a language of probability, which does not usually

translate easily into the crisp commentary that is valued in the media (Boykoff and

Boykoff, 2007). Buys et al (2014) show that scientists are generally considered to be a

more reliable source of climate change information than politicians or the government.

Olausson (2009) discusses the issue of ‘scare stories’. Particular words and phrases can

be utilised to create fear of climate change such as “disastrous effects”, “increased

mortality” and “catastrophe”. People communicating climate change may be tempted to

use fear or guilt as a motivating force, however this could result in resentment or denial

if no potential solutions are offered (Tobler et al, 2012). Tobler et al also suggest that

communication about climate change should highlight the effectiveness of the

recommended action. Social actors can use language with metaphors and storylines to

assemble key stakeholders in an effort to build a broad public consensus of action and

focus constant media attention on a particular issue (Morrone et al, 2012).

5.4. Significance of Imagery

“Information that is more easily recalled is more readily used in decision-making [and]

affective images serve as ‘top of mind’ associations that influence perceptions of risks

and benefits as well as support/opposition to specific issues” (Boudet et al, 2014: 59).

Truelove (2012) asked participants to identify the first images or thoughts that come to

mind when considering a hazard. The results for nuclear power were interesting, with

15% of participants identifying a Chernobyl image and more than 10% identifying

29

images of bombs, explosions and health issues. These findings are significant because

Truelove suggests that if Chernobyl images are dominant 25 years after the disaster, the

Fukushima disaster in 2011 may leave lingering images in the mind of the public for

decades to come. Truelove suggests that media coverage may have impacted people’s

responses to coal images. Therefore the images the media produced of the Fukushima

disaster may stay in people’s mind for quite some time. Tilson (1996) discusses how the

nuclear industry’s campaign tried to makeover the image of nuclear power with its eco-

nuclear messages and capitalise on the greening of public sentiment. Analysis by Keller

et al (2012) found that people who were opposed to nuclear power plants mainly

associated them with risk, negative feelings, accidents, radioactivity, and negative

consequences for health and safety. Keller et al suggest that differences in media

coverage could explain the variances in acceptance of nuclear power.

O’Neill (2013) examines the differences in the visualisation of climate change in 13

UK, US and Australia newspapers during 2010. She found that newspapers covered

climate change as contested and politicised with images of politicians or protest. This

was found in almost half of Australian visual coverage and one third of coverage in the

US and UK. One key finding by O’Neill et al (2013) was that politicians and celebrities

undermined saliency and made participants in their study feel that climate change was

unimportant.

Alarmist images which are prevalent in popular media can raise awareness and concern

about climate change while simultaneously foster mistrust of the media as a reliable

source of information and knowledge (Manzo, 2012). The cartoon, plate 5.1, on the

following page represents the relationship between industrial man and the animal world.

The differential sizing of the two figures represents the unequal fight between nature

and the technological advancement of humans. This indicates the idea that nature is

destined to lose. The message is about technological mastery and control (Manzo,

2012). It can be seen that the face of the technological figure is a nuclear reactor which

is a very negative image for nuclear power.

30

Plate 5.1: Stacked up Against

Source: (Manzo, 2012: 490)

31

6. METHODOLOGY

The media is a powerful tool in telling us what issues to think about and it is generally

believed that it can influence public opinion by emphasising particular issues over

others and advancing an agenda (Bayulgen and Arbatli, 2013). Therefore it is important

for different formats of the media to be analysed, such as newspapers, television, radio,

magazines and social media. Nuclear power and the implications of the media have

been discussed in previous literature. For example Doyle (2011) examined three UK

newspapers and found that opposition to nuclear power decreased as the government

rebranded the issue before it announced in 2008 that nuclear power would play a role in

mitigating climate change. Rubin (1987) analyses differences in the immediate coverage

of the Chernobyl and TMI accidents. He found that media coverage of the Chernobyl

accident was slower to occur than the TMI accident and a consequence of this was that

the public was not offered information until the crises was no longer containable.

Wittneben (2012) researched the differing media coverage of the Fukushima nuclear

accident in Germany and the UK. In Germany it received in-depth reports and

dominated headlines for weeks. It seemed the aim was to ensure that people understood

exactly what went wrong. Despite the frequent reports in the UK, the media was less

drastic and shied away from calling it a catastrophe. The policy response to Fukushima

in the UK and Germany were also in complete contrast. The UK decided to continue to

increase nuclear power generation in the future whereas Germany decided to

temporarily shut down older nuclear reactors and all nuclear power generators were

examined. Although this does not prove that the media can impact on policy changes, it

is possible that the media played a role in dramatising the event through influencing

public interest, and McCallum and Bury (2014) suggest that public interests influence

policy changes. Increased media coverage related to wind in Massachusetts can be

correlated with an increase in controversy in the state (Stephens et al, 2009). This

suggests increased coverage of an issue can impact how people think and react to an

issue. These studies indicate that the media can influence people which makes analysing

the media a vital tool. To achieve this, a content analysis of two Irish newspapers was

undertaken to examine how nuclear power has been framed in Ireland.

32

Environmental issues in general have begun to receive more media attention in recent

years and decades, a prominent issue being climate change. In all the 27 countries that

Schmidt et al (2013) studied, they found that media attention in newspapers towards

climate change has increased noticeably between 1997 and 2009. Ireland was included

in this study and the results found that 0.84% of total media coverage focused on

climate change which is ranked 6 out of the 27 countries. Coverage between 1997 and

2000 was 0.27%, increasing to 0.51% in 2001-2005 and increasing again to 1.82% in

2006-2009, illustrating a significant increase in media attention in Ireland. Several other

studies focus on specific countries and found that media attention of climate change was

increasing. These include France from 1986-2006 (Aykut et al, 2012); Germany from

1987-1995 (Weingart et al, 2000); India from 2004-2009 (Jogesh, 2012); Japan from

1998-2007 (Sampei and Aoyagi-Usui, 2009); United States and Sweden from 1998-

2007 (Shehata and Hopmann, 2012) and the UK from 2000-2006 (Boykoff and

Mansfield, 2008). Therefore the rationale behind this thesis is the frequency of media

coverage as well as the media framing of nuclear power in Ireland.

6.1. The importance of Content Analysis

Content analysis is an important methodological mechanism and is an essential

component of this thesis. Krippendorff (1980: 21) defines content analysis as “a

research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from data to their

context”. These inferences are about the communicators of the message, the message

itself or the audience of the message (Weber, 1990). Its purpose is to provide

knowledge, new insights and a practical guide to action. It is appropriate because it is

extensively used to examine media coverage of events as it allows for a “systematic

analysis of detecting meaning, identifying intentions and describing trends in

communication content” (Bayulgen and Arbatli, 2013: 516). Content analysis is

unlimited in its applicability to a variety of important questions due to the centrality of

communications in human affairs. Conclusions can be drawn from the content analysis

without having to gain access to communicators who may be unable to be examined

directly (Riffe et al, 2014). Time and resources can therefore be saved while still

achieving results. It is possible to handle large amounts of data, typically in relation to

confirming comparative hypotheses (Leeuwen and Jewitt, 2001).

33

Jupp and Norris (1993) list five features of content analysis that were used for this

research: 1) procedures should be objective; 2) procedures must be systematic; 3) it

should have generality which means the findings must have theoretical relevance; 4) it

should be quantitative by being able to calculate the frequency that words or phrases

appear and 5) it should be concerned with the surface meaning rather than the deeper

layers of meaning.

6.2. Why Newspapers?

People depend on information that is distributed through the media such as newspapers

(Castrechini et al, 2014). Numerous studies have shown that the public gathers much of

their information and knowledge from the mass media, with newspapers being one of

the primary sources of information (Boykoff and Rajan, 2007). Media analysis would be

strengthened by analysing two media formats but due to time constraints it was only

possible to undertake a content analysis of one media format - newspapers. Other media

formats were briefly discussed in chapter 5. Driedger (2007) established that televised

news coverage provides more sensationalised statements than print media. Only some

features can be highlighted due to the time constraints of televised media which leads to

more emotionally charged statements than in print media. Driedger also suggests that

print media can provide a greater breadth in coverage and a greater balance of events.

These characteristics of analysing print media made it a more desirable format to

analyse.

The newspaper articles that were analysed in this study were drawn from two national

broadsheet newspapers – Irish Times and Irish Independent using Lexis Nexis. Due to

inaccessible information during some time periods, the Pro Quest and Irish Newspaper

Archive databases on the UCD Library website were also utilised. Due to time

constraints, it was only possible to analyse two newspapers efficiently. These two

newspapers are two of the leading media outlets in Ireland due to their high circulation.

They have the highest circulation in Ireland making it more likely that people read them

and be influenced by their content. According to ESS (2012) the Irish Independent had

an average daily circulation of 125,986 from January-June in 2012. The Irish Times had

an average daily circulation of 92,565 in the same time period. These newspapers gave a

comprehensive picture of the Irish press.

34

The mechanism of content analysis is very popular among academics involved in media

studies and proved to be very useful in this research. Other studies have undertaken a

content analysis of two newspapers such as Bayulgen and Arbatli (2013) and Culley et

al (2010). This content analysis determined the presence of particular words and phrases

related to nuclear power within these two newspapers. Similar to Gamson and

Modigliani (1989) it is not assumed in this research that people have read both

newspapers where the articles are drawn from. It is assumed that the national issue

culture that the media sample reflects is accessible to those who try to make sense of

nuclear power.

Several studies have used content analysis of newspapers in their research concerning

environmental issues and examples of these include Boykoff (2008) and Olausson

(2009). Boykoff analysed the content of newspapers regarding climate change and

global warming in several countries across the world between 1987 and 2006 and

discovered that specific events caused a peak in news coverage and from 2003 there has

been a significant increase in the coverage of climate change and global warming.

Olausson focuses on the construction of climate change in three Swedish newspapers

and finds that it is primarily constructed as a social problem and action in the form of

mitigation and adaptation permeate in the results.

6.3. Time Period of the Content Analysis

Longitudinal studies are possible when undertaking a content analysis using archived

materials that can outlive the communicators, audiences and the events described in the

communication content (Riffe et al, 2014). The Lexis Nexis, ProQuest and Irish

Newspaper Archive databases provided the material that was analysed for this research

and it was used to access material as far back as 1979. “Nuclear power” and “nuclear

energy” were the phrases used to search for articles during particular time periods that

coincided with prominent nuclear accidents. These accidents are Three Mile Island,

Chernobyl and Fukushima. Articles containing the phrases were analysed for the month

before each of the accidents, the month of each accident and the month after each

accident. The phrases were chosen in order to analyse articles concerned with nuclear

power as an energy source. Searching for “nuclear” alone garnered too many results.

Also including words such as, for example, crises would be too biased due to its innate

35

negativity and there was very little mention of “nuclear crises” in the months before

each accident. The number of articles was also observed to analyse the frequency of

nuclear power in the newspapers.

The TMI accident occurred on 28th

March 1979 so the months of February, March and

April were analysed. The Chernobyl accident occurred on 26th

April 1986. Therefore

articles in March, April and May were analysed. The Fukushima nuclear accident

occurred on 11th

March 2011 so February, March and April were analysed. These time

periods gave an insight as to how nuclear power was framed in the newspapers directly

before, during and directly after these events. Headlines as well as the contents of

articles were analysed to examine the frequency these terms appear in newspapers and

how the media frames the issue of nuclear power. Images in the articles were also

analysed. The frequency of articles containing the two phrases were observed up to six

months before each three month period and the number of months it took to return to

these figures after the accidents was also observed. This was undertaken in order to

investigate if Downs’ ‘issue-attention cycle’ would be detected. This involves a problem

leaping into prominence, remaining there for a short time and even though it may

remain unresolved it gradually fades away from public attention (Downs, 1972).

Articles outside each three month period were not analysed. These results can be seen in

figure 6.1 on the following page. Overall the number of articles analysed was 633, 471

of these in the Irish Times and 162 in the Irish Independent. It should be noted that

some of the articles gathered from Lexis Nexis database did not contain either of the

phrases, however the majority of these were included in the analysis because they were

considered relevant.

36

Fukushima (11th March 2011)

Chernobyl (26th

April 1986)

Three Mile Island (28th

March 1979)

Figure 6.1: Frequency of Articles for Each Accident

6.4. Categorising the Articles

Articles containing either of the two phrases were analysed and categorised as pro-

nuclear, anti-nuclear or informational themes. Pro-nuclear arguments reflected support

for nuclear power, anti-nuclear arguments reflected opposition to it and articles that

were informational presented general information about nuclear power. Within these

three themes, articles were divided into subthemes. This follows the method utilised by

Wang et al (2014) who undertook a content analysis of two Chinese newspapers

between 2004 and 2013. Close attention was payed when reading the articles to estimate

what themes they would be categorised. This was completed for each three month

period. The subthemes that Wang et al chose in their research were utilised for the

purpose of this thesis. All of their subthemes were used, except one which was

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Fukushima Chernobyl Three Mile Island

37

‘planning, licensing and supervision’. There are no nuclear reactors in Ireland so this

subtheme was considered irrelevant. The subtheme ‘political’ was used in its place.

These can be seen in table 6.1 below. Tables 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 below and on the

following pages are adopted from Wang et al (2014) and give a description of each

subtheme and the coding rules applied to each subtheme. It also provides some

examples that are appropriate for each subtheme from articles in the Irish Times and the

Irish Independent. This is to give an understanding of how each article was categorised

into each subtheme.

Pro-Nuclear Anti-Nuclear Informational

Environmental

Benefits

Environmental

Risks

Political (own authors inclusion)

Safety Safety Risks Commercial Nuclear Power Information

Economic Benefits Economic Risks Nuclear Engineering Technology

Efficiency Health Concerns

Table 6.1: Coding Themes for the Media Coverage of Nuclear Power

Source: Adopted from (Wang et al, 2014)

Theme Coding Rules

1. Pro-Nuclear

Environmental

Benefits

Focus on arguments that support nuclear power and would

contribute to a cleaner environment due to less carbon dioxide

emissions.

Example: “Nuclear power is going to have to be part of the

solution to climate change” (McDonald, 2011)

Safety Focus on arguments that suggest that safety can be guaranteed in

the development of nuclear power as well as the ability to prevent

nuclear accidents and the ability to withstand natural disasters.

Example: “In terms of safety, nuclear kills almost no-one” (Irish

Independent, 2011e)

Efficiency When articles argue that nuclear power can satisfy growing energy

demand.

Example: “In coming years, after our economic recovery, we shall

38

need more energy than we are currently consuming. From where is

this energy to come?” (Sowby and Turvey, 2011)

Economic

Benefits

Arguments that focus on the economic benefits of nuclear power.

Example: ‘The cheapest and cleanest form of fuel by far, nuclear,

is the very one that all our political parties are opposing’ (Irish

Independent, 2011a)

Table 6.2: Coding Themes and Rules for the Media Coverage of Pro-Nuclear Articles


Theme Coding Rules

2. Anti-Nuclear

Environmental

Risks

Arguments that focus on opposition to nuclear power and

environmental problems relevant to nuclear power, such as the

leakage of nuclear waste and radioactive materials.

Example: “The national power company building the reactors,

failed to carry out an adequate study of the power plants’ impact

on the environment” (Irish Independent, 1979e)

Safety Risks Arguments that focus on safety problems during operation as well

as the safety risk of a nuclear accident.

Example: “Even in its peaceful application, nuclear energy can be

almost uncontrollable” (Irish Times, 1986f)

Economic Risks Arguments that focus on the investment risks of nuclear power, as

well as enormous initial investments.

Example: “Upfront construction costs running into billions of

euro, and liability and decommissioning costs borne by the

taxpayer” (Irish Times 2011e)

Health Concerns Arguments that focus on health concerns as well as nearby

residents and plant workers.

Example: “High radioactive contamination inside and outside the

crippled plant” (Irish Independent, 1979f)

Table 6.3: Coding Themes and Rules for the Media Coverage of Anti-Nuclear Articles


39

Theme Coding Rules

3. Informational

Political Articles that focus on politics and/or statements by politicians or

government in Ireland or in other countries.

Example: “The government gave no word of the explosion and

fire at the nuclear power plant on April 26th

.” (Irish Times, 1986g)

Commercial

Nuclear Power

Information

Articles that focus on general information about nuclear power

plants and those being built, including the location, size,

financing, electrical capacity and number of employees.

Example: “A 600-megawatt nuclear power plant, manned entirely

by Chileans, will be functioning in Chile by 1980” (24th

March

1979, Irish Times)

Nuclear

Engineering

Technology

Articles that focus on nuclear engineering technology, including

research on nuclear reactors and nuclear power production

technology.

Example: “They developed a cold fusion device capable of

producing 12,400W of power with an input of just 400W” (Irish

Times, 2011f)

Table 6.4: Coding Themes and Rules for the Media Coverage of Informational Articles


40

7. RESULTS

7.1. Three Mile Island

The TMI nuclear accident occurred on 28th

March 1979 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Articles concerned with nuclear power and/or nuclear energy were analysed for the

months February, March and April in 1979. Overall 169 articles were analysed. Figure

7.1 below shows these 169 articles divided into pro-nuclear, anti-nuclear and

informational. It is clear that the majority of articles focus on anti-nuclear or

informational stories whereas relatively very few articles have the pro-nuclear theme.

50.3% were anti-nuclear, 42.6% informational and 7.1% of them were pro-nuclear.


Figure 7.1: Overall Proportion of Newspaper Articles that are Pro-nuclear, Anti-nuclear

and Informational (February, March and April 1979)

12

85

72

(50.3%)

(7.1%)

(42.6%)

41


Figure 7.2: Number of Newspaper Articles that are Pro-nuclear, Anti-nuclear and

Informational for each Newspaper (February, March and April 1979)


Figure 7.3: Proportion of Newspaper Articles that are Pro-nuclear, Anti-nuclear and


4

2

4

1 0

1

11

8

30

4

6

26

17

15

25

7

4 4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

February March April February March April

Nu

mb

er o

f n

ewsp

aper

Art

icle

s

Irish Times (116) Irish Independent (53)

12.5 8 6.8 8.3 0 3.2

34.4 32

50.8

33.3 60

83.8

53 60

42.4

58.3

40

12.9

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Pro

po

rtio

n o

f N

ewsp

ape

r A

rtic

les

Irish Times Irish Independent

42

7.1.1. Pro-Nuclear Articles

Overall the number of Pro-nuclear articles was 7.1%. This was 11.4% before the

accident in February. This then dropped to 5.7% and 5.5% in March and April

respectively. In the three months 8.6% of articles in the Irish Times were pro-nuclear

compared to 3.7% in the Irish Independent. Table 7.1 below shows that the most

prominent pro-nuclear frame was ‘efficiency’, making up 75% of all pro-nuclear

articles.

These articles generally call for nuclear power to be considered due to our dependency

on fuel from other countries and to increase Ireland’s energy efficiency. ‘We Irish seem

to be too much afraid of venturing into the nuclear era of the modern world’ (Power

1979). “Over the next 10 to 20 years we must look at two major non-oil sources, coal

and nuclear power” (Irish Times 1979a). Interestingly there were no articles related to

the benefits of nuclear power to the environment. Even after the accident in March there

were some pro-nuclear articles, with 2 efficiency framings and 1 economic benefits

framing. Minister Desmond O’Malley “warned that the world’s oil resources are finite

and re-stated his objective of the setting up of a nuclear generating plant in Wexford”

(Irish Independent 1979a). This article warns people that other supplies may be needed

to supply Ireland’s energy needs, nuclear power being one option. Interestingly there

were no pro-safety frames of nuclear power before the accident, yet there were two

afterwards in April. After the accident some articles played down the accident and made

it seem less serious due to the lack of fatalities. “The accident at Three Mile Island was

a serious one [yet] there were no fatalities and no injuries to members of the public”

(McAulay, 1979).

Pro-Nuclear February March April Total

Environmental Benefits 0 0 0 0

Safety 0 0 2 2

Efficiency 5 2 2 9

Economic Benefits 0 0 1 1

Total 5 2 5 12

Table 7.1: Pro-nuclear Articles in the Irish Times and Irish Independent

(February, March and April 1979)

43

7.1.2. Anti-Nuclear Articles

Anti-nuclear articles accounted for 50.3% in the three month period. This figure

increased from 34.1% in February to 40% in March and reached 62.2% in April.

Overall 42% of articles in the Irish Times were anti-nuclear, whereas 67.9% of articles

in the Irish Independent were anti-nuclear. Figure 7.2 on page 41 shows that the Irish

Times published more anti-nuclear articles. Although when compared to figure 7.3 on

the same page, it is clear that the Irish Independent had a much higher proportion of

anti-nuclear articles. By observing table 7.2 on the following page it can be seen that

‘safety risks’ was the most prominent frame in the three months and the majority of

these were published in April, after the accident.

Articles discussed issues concerned with radiation leakage and evacuations. Phrases

such as “crippled n-plant” (Irish Independent, 1979b), “ghostly horror of ionised

radiation”, “major hazard” (Irish Independent, 1979c) and “deadly menace” (Irish

Times, 1979b) are some that appeared in April. “Those who seek to install a potential

bomb in the form of a nuclear station upon our doorstep” (Miller, 1979). Even though

much of the articles were providing information, it was very much anti-nuclear

information. “Increased radiation levels have been reported some considerable distances

from the plant” (Irish Independent 1979b).

The second most prominent frame was ‘economic risks’, most of these also occurred

after the accident in April. Most of these articles focused on the negative impacts on

stock markets. “The stock market closed lower, with attention focussed on nuclear

power and uranium stocks” (Irish times 1979c). The least prominent frame was

environmental risks, only two articles being published. “Over the past 12 months,

Friends of the Earth has functioned mainly as an energy lobby group, opposing the plan

for a nuclear power station at Carnsore Point, Co. Wexford, and promoting the benefits

of alternative and renewable energy sources (Irish Times, 1979d).

44

Anti-Nuclear February March April Total

Environmental Risks 1 0 1 2

Safety Risks 10 6 42 58

Health Concerns 3 1 3 7

Economic Risks 1 6 10 18

Total 15 14 56 85

Table 7.2: Anti-nuclear Articles in the Irish Times and Irish Independent


7.1.3. Informational Articles

The proportion of articles that were informational in the three months was 42.6%. This

proportion was 54.5% in February. This only decreased to 54.3% in March and then

decreased substantially in April to 32.2%. Overall 49% of the Irish Times articles were

informational compared to only 28% of the articles in the Irish Independent. The

number of informational articles also increased after the accident in April in the Irish

Times, whereas in the Irish Independent the number of informational articles decreased.

Similar to the pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear frames, most of the articles classified as

informational were published in April, after the accident. However it did not increase as

substantially as the previous two frames.

Table 7.3 on the following page clearly shows that the ‘political’ subtheme was the

most prominent in the studied period, comprising 61 of the 72 articles. In the time

period nuclear power was very much a political issue. “Nuclear power must inevitably

become an issue in Irish politics” (Irish Times, 1979e). Most of these articles were

concerned with the political response of American politicians to TMI (Irish Times,

1979f), the European response (Cooney, 1979) and Ireland’s renewed stance on the

planned nuclear power plant at Carnsore in Co. Wexford (Irish Independent, 1979d).

“Many people in the Carnsore Point area who had been in favour of the proposed station

had their eyes opened and were now firmly against it”. There was a lot of opposition to

the suggestion of building a nuclear power plant in Wexford by local people and this

was evident in many of the articles. The idea of a public inquiry was suggested by

Desmond O’Malley. Mr. O’Malley announced that there was to be “a public inquiry

held into the proposal to build a nuclear power station” (Irish Times, 1979g).

45

Informational February March April Total

Political 21 15 25 61

Commercial nuclear power

information

2 4 4 10

Nuclear engineering

Technology

1 0 0 1

Total 24 19 29 72

Table 7.3: Informational Articles in the Irish Times and Irish Independent


7.2. Chernobyl

The Chernobyl nuclear accident occurred on 26th

April 1986 in Ukraine. The number of

articles related to nuclear power and/or nuclear energy was 241 between both

newspapers. Figure 7.4 on the following page shows these newspaper articles divided

into pro-nuclear, anti-nuclear and informational. 66.8% of the articles were anti-nuclear

making it the most prominent frame. 31.5% of the articles were informational and pro-

nuclear articles only made up 1.6% of the articles.

46



and Informational (March, April and May 1986)



Informational for each Newspaper (March, April and May 1986)

4

161

76 (31.5%)

(1.6%)

1 2 1 0 0 0

16 16

74

5

12

38

5 5

50

3 2

11

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

March April May March April May

Nu

mb

er o

f N

ew

spap

er A

rtic

les


(66.8%)

47



Informational for each Newspaper (March, April and May 1986)


Overall the number of pro-nuclear articles in the three month period amounted to 4

which represented 1.6% of the articles. These can be seen in table 7.4 on the following

page. Figures 7.5 on the previous page and 7.6 above show that all the pro-nuclear

articles were published in the Irish Times whereas the Irish Independent published no

pro-nuclear articles. Two of these pro-nuclear articles are concerned with safety and the

other two are concerned with efficiency. An article in February said that “the huge

reactor is housed in a concrete silo, and it has environmental protection systems” (Irish

Times, 1986a). “Soviet nuclear power specialists have [said] that nuclear energy for

civil use is risk free” (Cockburn, 1986). Soviet Union specialists were clearly satisfied

that the nuclear reactors were safe and “even if the incredible should happen, the

automatic control and safety systems would shut down the reactor in a matter of

minutes”. Headlines such as “Chernobyl ‘a Model of Safety’” (Irish Times, 1986a) and

‘Our Reactors are Totally Safe’ (Cockburn, 1986) appeared after the accident assuring

people that there is no need for concern.

4.5 8.7 0.8 0 0 0

72.7 69.6

59.2 62.5

85.7 77.5

22.7 21.7

40 37.5

14.3 22.5

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

March April May March April May

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f N

ew

spap

er

Art

icle

s


48

Pro-Nuclear March April May Total


Safety 0 2 0 2

Efficiency 1 0 1 2


Total 1 2 1 4

Table 7.4: Pro-nuclear Articles in the Irish Times and Irish Independent

(March, April and May 1986)


161 (66.8%) of the articles were anti-nuclear, which makes it the most prominent theme

across the three months. Table 7.5 on the next page shows the frequency of each anti-

nuclear subtheme in each month. Figure 7.5 on page 46 shows that the Irish Times

published more articles with an anti-nuclear theme than the Irish Independent in each

month. However figure 7.6 on page 47 shows that there was a higher proportion of

articles with the anti-nuclear frame in the Irish Independent in April and May. In May

the Irish Times had 74 articles whereas the Irish Independent had 38. This represents

59.2% for the Irish times and 77.5% for the Irish Independent. Most of the anti-nuclear

articles were published in May, after the accident.

The most prominent subtheme was ‘safety risks’ with 113 (70.2%) followed by ‘health

concerns’ with 36 (22.4%). Both of these subthemes were most prominent in May, after

the accident. “Even in its peaceful application nuclear energy can be almost

uncontrollable” (Irish Times, 1986b). Traces of the nuclear fall-out were detected on the

East coast of Ireland “but experts from the Nuclear Energy Board (N.E.B) insist that the

levels are extremely low and unlikely to represent a health hazard (Cooney and

McKenna, 1986). The headline of this article is very dramatic: “Alert as Fallout

Reaches Ireland”. This article is particularly grabbing because it is on the front page of

the Irish Independent. Other articles with very dramatic headlines with less dramatic

content were observed in the Irish Independent after the accident, such as (McKenna,

1986a) with the headline “Nuke board spells out fallout risk, seeks funds” and (Dillon,

1986) “Radiation here 23 times the normal level, NEB says”. Other dramatic headlines

can be seen on page 56 and 57. Some articles reported increased levels of radiation in

49

food and milk. “Increased levels of radiation have been detected in Irish vegetables…..

but, they say, the levels are still very low and there is no need for any special

precautionary measures to be taken” (McKenna, 1986b).

The subtheme ‘environmental risks’ was also observed, mostly occurring in March

before the accident. “Radioactive traces from [Sellafield] could be identified in fish as

far away as Sweden” (Irish Times, 1986c). “When the 170 or 180 tons of molten

uranium reached water in the Earth there could be steam or hydrogen explosions

propelling radiation back into the atmosphere” (Irish Times, 1986d).

Anti-Nuclear March April May Total

Environmental Risks 6 1 2 9




Total 21 28 112 161

Table 7.5: Anti- nuclear Articles in the Irish Times and Irish Independent



76 (31.5%) of the analysed articles were informational, the second most prominent

theme. Over 90% of the informational articles were classified as ‘political’. Articles

with this subtheme make up 72% (55 out of the 76) of all the articles in May alone. This

can be seen on the next page in table 7.6. “The Chernobyl disaster may prompt the

Eastern European countries to take a hard look at their nuclear policies” (Dempsey,

1986). The majority of the articles with the ‘political’ subtheme were concerned with

Irish politics and the potential impact of Sellafield in Ireland. Whereas after the accident

there was an increased number of ‘political’ articles related to different European

countries, especially the Soviet Union. It was mentioned in chapter 5 that public opinion

in Germany is shaped significantly by politicians and after the Chernobyl accident

national politicians took centre stage in the media (Arlt and Wolling, 2015). There was

much attention on Gorbachev, the leader of the Soviet Union at the time. “The length of

50

Mr Gorbachev’s silence on the Chernobyl disaster may be taken as a measure of the

problems with which it has confronted him” (Irish Times, 1986e).

The accident at Chernobyl seemed to create more emphasis on the need for Ireland to

get Sellafield nuclear power plant shut down due to increased fears over nuclear power.

This is similar to the results found by Perko et al (2012) who found that media coverage

of a nuclear accident in Slovenia was linked to the Chernobyl accident with emotion-

triggering words. The Fianna Fail leader Mr. Haughey insisted that Sellafield should be

dealt with on a bilateral basis by the two governments. The government should

“confront the British and seek the closure of this menace to the Irish people” (Coghlan,

1986). “Emotional calls for the closure of Sellafield, following the disaster at

Chernobyl, are understandable” (De Kassel, 1986).

Informational March April May Total

Political 8 6 55 69

Commercial nuclear

power information

0 1 5 6

Nuclear engineering

Technology

0 0 1 1

Total 8 7 61 76



7.3. Fukushima

The Fukushima nuclear accident occurred on 11th

March 2011 in Japan and is the most

recent of the three accidents. Figure 7.7 on the next page shows how this nuclear

accident was framed in the two Irish newspapers. The number of articles analysed in

this three month period (February, March and April) was 223. Almost 70% of the

analysed articles were anti-nuclear followed by informational (23.3%) and lastly pro-

nuclear (7.2%).

51



and Informational (February, March and April 2011)




16

155

52

1 6

3 4 1 1 1

89

39

0

18

8 4

30

12

0 4 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Nu

mb

er o

f N

ew

spap

er A

ticl

es


(7.2%)

(69.5%)

(23.3%)

52





Pro-nuclear articles accounted for 7.2% of the articles. Figure 7.8 on the previous page

shows that the Irish Times published more pro-nuclear articles than the Irish

Independent. However figure 7.9 above shows that in February and April the Irish

Independent had a higher proportion of pro-nuclear articles. In February the Irish

Independent published four articles related to nuclear power and nuclear energy and all

four were pro-nuclear, however this decreased in the two months after, following the

accident.

Only a small percentage of the articles are pro-nuclear, however the majority of the 16

articles (11) are coded with the ‘efficiency’ subtheme. This can be seen in table 7.7

below. These articles generally discuss dependency on other countries for fuel and

nuclear power being an option that Ireland should consider. A primary reason to turning

to nuclear power is the “dwindling fossil fuels and uncertainty about oil prices”

(Siggins, 2011). (Sowby and Turvey, 2011) emphasises “the importance of a reliable

supply of safe, affordable and clean energy for a modern society” and “the government

must examine, at an early date, the potential and practicality of nuclear energy for this

16.6 4.8 5.5

100

4.3 9.1

16.6

71.2 72.2

0

78.2 72.7

66.6

24 22.2

0

17.4 18.2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Pro

po

rtio

n o

f N

ew

spap

er A

rtic

les


53

country”. “On a global scale, more countries are turning to nuclear power” and “like any

new technology, there are risks involved” (Roseingrave, 2011). We “buy nuclear power

from Britain while pretending that we are nuclear free: the old familiar, a British

solution to an Irish problem” (Irish Independent, 2011a).

Pro-nuclear February March April Total


Safety 1 0 0 1

Efficiency 2 7 2 11


Total 5 7 4 16

Table 7.7: Pro-nuclear articles in The Irish Times and Irish Independent



This was the most prominent theme, comprising 155 (69.5%) of the 241 articles. It can

be seen in table 7.8 on the next page that most of these articles were published in

March, the month of the accident. The most prominent subtheme was ‘safety risks’

(48.4% of the anti-nuclear articles) followed closely by ‘economic risks’ (37.4%).

Figure 7.8 shows that the Irish Times published a lot more anti-nuclear articles than the

Irish Independent in March and April. However when figure 7.9 is observed there are

actually a higher proportion of anti-nuclear articles in March and April in the Irish

Independent, particularly March.

Many articles were concerned with the safety risks of nuclear power. A common

occurrence was radiation levels in Ireland. “Small quantities of the radiation have been

detected as far away as Ireland” (McNeill, 2011a). “Radioactive contamination has

reached Ireland” but “levels are so low that they pose no health risk” (Ahlstrom, 2011).

(Irish Times, 2011a) states that “radiation is something you only see the results of years

down the road, so in that sense it’s quite frightening”. “The stakes are so high, the scale

is so big and there are 100 other safer ways, it seems sheer folly to take this road” and

“the question now is whether the industry can be trusted anywhere” (Vidal, 2011).

“Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency has raised its alert level in the crisis to

54

five, meaning radiation deaths are likely [and this] put the crisis on a par with the 1979

Three Mile Island accident” but below Chernobyl in 1986 (McNeill, 2011b). This

indicates the seriousness of the accident, even if it was not on par with Chernobyl.

Climate change was also an issue that was mentioned. "Climate change means more

incidents of freak weather [which means] our vulnerability will only grow" (Irish

Independent, 2011b)

The second most prominent subtheme was ‘economic risks’. Similarly, Lazic (2013)

found that newspaper coverage in three U.S. newspapers focused mostly on economic

interests, as well as conflict and responsibility. Many articles, particularly in the Irish

Times, discussed stocks falling and cite the nuclear accident at Fukushima as a reason

for this, such as (Irish Times, 2011b), (Lynch, 2011) and (Irish Times, 2011c). Stocks

were impacted in London by slumping “for a fifth day….. tracking declines in global

equity markets, amid concern that a Japanese nuclear power plant will leak radiation

(Irish Times, 2011d). If a nuclear meltdown occurred it would have triggered “an

economic meltdown, and at just the moment when the world least needs it” (Irish

Independent, 2011c). “One story has dominated the financial markets this week – the

terrible events in Japan” (O’Mahony, 2011). The costs of a nuclear accident are high,

but the costs of introducing nuclear power to a country like Ireland would also be high.

The “costs of nuclear power to a state the size of Ireland [would be] prohibitive”

(O’Ferrall, 2011).

Anti-nuclear February March April Total

Environmental Risk 0 0 2 2




Total 1 107 47 155

Table 7.8: Anti-nuclear Articles in the Irish Times and Irish Independent


55


This was the second most prominent theme. 52 (23.3%) of the articles were

informational and the most prominent subtheme was ‘political’ (84% of articles) and

most of the articles were published in March. Similar to the anti-nuclear articles, most

were published in the Irish Times, see figure 7.8 on page 51. Figure 7.9 on page 52

corresponds with this, showing that a lower percentage of articles were informational in

The Irish Independent than in The Irish Times.

The ‘political’ subtheme was a very prominent one and the majority of these articles

were related to Angela Merkel’s complete U-turn in Germany’s nuclear policy. Articles

such as (Scally, 2011a), (Scally, 2011b) and (Scally, 2011c) mentioned this issue.

“Everything changed after Fukushima, when the German leader moved quickly to close

seven ageing nuclear plants to permit security tests” (Scally, 2011). Angela Merkel

“supported atomic energy and the retention of old plants, but in response to the public

outcry over Fukushima she has made a spectacular U-turn” (Irish Independent, 2011d).

There were also consequences in Japan as the event may have caused implications for

energy policy because “plans to increase [nuclear power] to 50 per cent of Japan’s

energy use by 2030 by building 25 more plants” became threatened (Gillespie, 2011).

Informational February March April Total

Political 2 31 11 44

Commercial nuclear

power information

0 1 3 4

Nuclear engineering

Technology

2 2 0 4

Total 4 34 14 52



56

7.4. Headlines and Images

7.4.1. Headlines

Three Mile Island Headlines Newspaper Date

Atom Power Plant out of Control Irish Independent 31st March 1979

New Threat – Atom Plant May Explode Irish Independent 2nd

April 1979

Crippled N-Plant too Costly to Clean up Irish Independent 4th

April 1979

The Ghostly Horror of Radiation of

Radiation Effects

Irish Independent 11th

April 1979

Serious Accident at US Reactor Irish Times 29th

March 1979

Nuclear Panic After Tremors Irish Times 19th

April 1979

Another Leak in US N-Plant Irish Times 21st April 1979

Table 7.10: Dramatic Headlines Related to Three Mile Island

Table 7.11: Dramatic Headlines Related to Chernobyl

Chernobyl Headlines Newspaper Date

Europe Weathers the Nuke Storm Irish Independent 1st May 1986

Alert as Fallout Reaches Ireland Irish Independent 5th

May 1986

Hazards of the Nuke Nightmare Irish Independent 6th

May 1986

Radiation Here 23 Times the Normal Level,

NEB Says


May 1986

Nuke Board Spells out Fallout Risk, Seeks

Funds


May 1986

Increased Radiation Levels Found in Irish

Veg


May 1986

Chernobyl Core May be Burning Through

Earth

Irish Times 9th

May 1986

Irish Sea Most Radioactive in World Irish Times 13th

May 1986

Radiation Levels Rose Sharply in Dublin

Area

Irish Times 7th

May 1986

57

Fukushima Headlines Newspaper Date

Radiation from Japan Nuclear Disaster Found

in Air Samples


March 2011

Tiny Traces of Radiation Detected as Far

Away as Iceland

Irish Independent 23rd

March 2011

Explosion Could Send Contamination to

Ireland


March 2011

Fukushima Threat Elevated to Same Level as

Chernobyl

Irish Times 13th

April 2011

Table 7.12: Dramatic Headlines Related to Fukushima

Similar to Koerner (2014) a high proportion of the headlines contained negative traces,

many mentioning fear for health and safety. Tables 7.10, 7.11 and 7.12 show some

dramatic headlines in both newspapers from each accident. Words such as “nightmare”,

“crippled”, “nuke”, “ghostly horror” and “panic” are just some of the words that stand

out. “Nuke” only appeared in headlines after the Chernobyl accident, indicating the

seriousness of this accident compared to the other two. Doyle (2011) also observed

“nuke” appearing in some headlines she analysed and described it as language of

weaponry and war. It is also evident that headlines in the Irish Independent were more

dramatic than headlines in the Irish Times for each accident.

58

7.4.2. Images

Three Mile Island

Plate 7.1: The Ghostly Horror of Radiation Effects

Source: (Irish Independent, 1979c,)

Plate 7.2: Protestors Cite Harrisburg Accident

Source: (Irish Times, 1979h)

59

Chernobyl

Plate 7.3: Chernobyl Radiation Fears Lead to Flight from Kiev

Source: (Irish Times, 1986h)

Plate 7.4: Falling out of Love with the Atom

Source: (Irish Independent, 1986)

60

Fukushima

Plate 7.5: Engineers Losing Battle to Prevent Full Meltdown

Source: (Alleyne, 2011)

Plate 7.6: Struggling Officials Say Third Cooling System has failed

Source: (McCurry, 2011)

61

Plates 7.1 to 7.6 show images from newspaper coverage of all three accidents. All of the

images are very dramatic. The images for the TMI accident show the reactor itself and

grazing cows indicating the impact on local food which can create health and safety

concerns among people. The images for the Chernobyl accident show cartoons. One of

them (plate 7.3) is related to Sellafield, warning people that it might visit them which

indicates an accident similar to Chernobyl may occur at Sellafield and cause radiation to

come to Ireland. The other cartoon (plate 7.4) displays the fear of a meltdown and the

loss in public confidence for the nuclear industry. Despite the fact that these images are

cartoons, it is a very anti-nuclear frame and can create a sense of unease among people.

Many of the images related to the Fukushima accident in the newspapers showed people

wearing gas masks and people in body bags, indicating the health and safety hazards of

nuclear accidents. Plate 7.5 then shows the accident from a distance, showing the visual

destruction of the accident.

62

8. DISCUSSION

8.1. Dramatisation of Nuclear Power

In the three separate three month periods, the anti-nuclear theme was the most

prominent. Figure 8.1 on page 64 shows this. Overall 63.3% of all the articles analysed

were anti-nuclear. Most interesting is that the proportion of articles that were anti-

nuclear increased with each accident. TMI had the least proportion of anti-nuclear

articles in 1979, followed by Chernobyl in 1986 and finally Fukushima in 2011 had the

highest proportion. At the same time there was a decrease in the proportion of

informational articles through time. This is an indication that the Irish media has

dramatized nuclear power increasingly through time around nuclear accidents. This

conforms to what Nisbet (2009) suggests, that there is a new phase of over-

dramatisation. The results found by Koerner (2014) that over 70% of headlines two

weeks after the three accidents had negative traces is similar to the findings in

newspaper articles analysed here. “The president of the soviet academy of sciences

said…… that the accident at the Harrisburg nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania was

exaggerated by the Western press” (Irish Times, 1979i). This may have been the case

for all three accidents, as Gillespie (2011) states, “the Fukushima accident stimulated

early journalism all over Europe, including its sensational element”.

One reason for the lower proportion of anti-nuclear articles during TMI could be due to

controversy around the proposed Carnsore nuclear power plant in Co. Wexford. Many

politicians were speaking about this. Chernobyl is considered the worst nuclear accident

in history so it is understandable that in this time period more anti-nuclear articles were

published. However the proportion increased again during the Fukushima time period.

Cale and Kromer (2015) state that TMI and Chernobyl occurred before the rise of the

internet, which could mean it is possible that media coverage of the Fukushima accident

was fundamentally different than coverage of past nuclear accidents. As stated

previously 90% of UK adults use an average of 2.1 media formats (Ofcom, 2013).

People now have many more ways of accessing information, rather than just

newspapers which means people are able to use many media formats simultaneously.

63

Each newspaper also differed in their coverage of nuclear power. The Irish Independent

contained a higher proportion of anti-nuclear articles and less informational articles than

the Irish Times. This can be seen in figure 8.2 on the following page which shows the

overall categorisation of each theme for both newspapers together. Despite the Irish

Times containing more articles overall (471 compared to 162 in the Irish Independent)

the Irish Independent dramatized the issue more because it focused more on anti-nuclear

issues. Both newspapers published a similar proportion of articles with a pro-nuclear

theme. People who read the Irish Independent were exposed to a higher proportion of

anti-nuclear articles. This is particularly true for newspaper coverage of the TMI and

Chernobyl accidents as both newspapers had similar coverage of the Fukushima

accident.

Headlines in the Irish Independent were also more dramatic, see table 7.10, 7.11 and

7.12 on page 56 and 57. Particularly during the Chernobyl period headlines were very

dramatic. “Nuke” appeared in three headlines in the Irish Independent during May after

the accident. The use of this word, particularly in headlines, can sensationalise the issue.

Similar results were found in Doyle (2011) who analysed three UK newspapers. The

Daily Mirror favoured the word “nuke” in headlines, a language of weaponry and war.

Scaremongering sentences and phrases can cause people to worry about their safety and

create a negative perception about nuclear power. The images that were presented were

also dramatic, particularly the ones published after Chernobyl. The Fukushima images

differed by focusing on the health impacts to people by showing people in gas masks A

proportion of the anti-nuclear articles had very dramatic headlines. However the content

of these articles were much less dramatic, so it would seem that people are being

hooked in by a dramatic headline and then being reassured that there is little or no risk.

One example of this is “Alert as Fallout Reaches Ireland” in May 1986.

64


Figure 8.1: Proportion of each Theme for each Accident and Overall


Figure 8.2 Coverage of Nuclear Power during the three Accidents for each Newspaper

7.1 1.7

7.2 5.1

50.3 66.8

69.5 63.3

42.6 31.5

23.3 31.6

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Three Mile Island(1979)

Chernobyl (1986) Fukushima (2011) Overall

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f N

ewsp

aper

Art

icle

s fo

r ea

ch T

hem

e

Each Individual Accident and overall

5.1

60.3

34.6

5

72.2

22.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Pro

port

ion

of

New

spap

er A

rtic

les

Theme

65

8.2. Articles occurring after the Accidents


Figure 8.3: Number of Newspaper Articles Before, During and After Each Accident

One factor all three time periods have in common is that coverage peaks around the

accident. This can be seen in figures 7.2, 7.5 and 7.8 on page 41, 46 and 51 respectively.

Figure 8.3 above brings these figures together to show overall newspaper coverage of

nuclear power in the month before each accident, the month of each accident and the

month after each accident. Together all of these figures show that the majority of

articles occur after each accident. This indicates that these events had a significant

impact on newspaper coverage. Kleinschmit and Sjostedt (2014) and Shehata and

Hoppmann (2012) also show that events have an impact on media coverage. Figure 8.3

also shows that the anti-nuclear frame experienced the biggest increase. Figure 6.1 on

page 36 shows the newspaper coverage up to six months before each accident and up to

ten months after each accident. This was undertaken to observe the frequency of articles

related to nuclear power before each accident and then see how long it took to return to

these figures after each accident. Similar to the results found in Boykoff (2008), the

events caused news coverage to peak when each accident occurred. It took months for

the frequency to reach back to pre-incident levels. Media coverage after Chernobyl took

11 11 10

37

149

215

36

60

104

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Month before each Accident Month of each Accident Month after each Accident

Nu

mb

er o

f A

rtic

les

Month

66

ten months to reach back to pre-incident levels which was the longest of the three.

Coverage after TMI and Fukushima took seven months to reach pre-incident levels.

This conforms to Downs’ ‘issue-attention cycle’. It also shows that coverage of nuclear

power took the longest to get back to pre-incident levels after Chernobyl, indicating

more coverage and possibly more of a sensational element compared to the other two

accidents.

8.3. Lack of Environmental Articles

Of the 633 articles, 15 were related to the environment which is only 2.4%. 2 of these

were framed as ‘environmental benefits’ and 13 were framed as ‘environmental risks’.

This indicates that Irish newspapers are not concerned about the environmental benefits

or risks related to nuclear power. This is despite that fact that nuclear power has the

potential to offer environmental benefits such as decarbonising the electricity sector by

reducing CO2 emissions. This signifies that there is a need to discuss nuclear power

more in terms of the environment in Irish newspapers, whether they are advantages or

disadvantages.

8.4. Policy Implications

The results showed that the ‘informational’ theme was the second most prominent and a

significant amount of these informational articles were ‘political’. In 1979 most of these

political articles were concerned about the proposed Carnsore nuclear plant in Co.

Wexford. It seemed that the nuclear accident at TMI enhanced the case for anti-nuclear

campaigners and the local people of Carnsore. It told people that accidents were

possible at nuclear power plants. The Fianna Fail government in power at the time were

going ahead with their plans to build a nuclear power station. These plans were defeated

by the Carnsore protestors which indicated that policy was reversed through political

protest (Leonard, 2006). Wang et al (2014) state that the media has an important impact

on public perception. Therefore the coverage of TMI and anti-nuclear coverage may

have caused increased opposition which caused the nuclear power station to not be

constructed. McCallum and Bury (2014) suggest that public interests influence policy

67

changes and this could have been the case in this situation. This is not to suggest the

media was responsible, but that it may have played a role.

Similarly for the three months studied around the Chernobyl accident, there were a lot

of ‘political’ articles. 72% of them occurred in May alone, indicating that politicians

were discussing energy and nuclear policies much more after the accident. There were a

high number of articles related to the Sellafield nuclear power plant in the UK. The

majority of these articles related to Sellafield were anti-nuclear and talked about the

dangers of Sellafield to Ireland. One headline in the Irish Times in April 1986 was

“Sellafield a Deadly Menace, Says FF” (Irish Times, 1986). Similar to the results found

in Perko et al (2012), articles were linking Chernobyl to reactors in the UK. Articles

questioned the likelihood and dangers of a Chernobyl-like accident occurring at

Sellafield. Grossman (2015) mentions how much of an impact the Chernobyl accident

had on public opinion. Prior to Chernobyl, polls showed that 52 percent of the West

German public supported nuclear power. Within a week of the first reports of the

disaster, public support dropped substantially to 29 percent, while 69 percent were then

opposed.

A very high number of the informational articles in the three months studied around

Fukushima were also ‘political’. Unlike the previous two time periods which focused

predominantly on domestic politics, most of these were concerned with German politics

and Angela Merkel’s dramatic U-turn on Germany’s nuclear policies. “Five months

after extending the operation life of nuclear reactors by an average of 12 years, the

German leader has performed a rapid U-turn” (Scally, 2011). It becomes clear that she

only did this to please the German public who were calling for the shutdown of nuclear

reactors and to ensure her political future. This shows the political and policy

implications that an accident like Fukushima can have. As previously mentioned,

Wittneben (2012) suggests that the dramatisation of the accident in the media may have

played a role in this nuclear policy shift by influencing public interest.

Also noteworthy is that there were very few articles related to Carnsore and Sellafield

during the three month study period in 2011. Therefore attention had moved away from

these issues, even during a period where there was increased attention on nuclear power.

68

This indicates that Downs’ ‘issue-attention cycle’ can be applied here because the issue

of Carnsore and Sellafield has gradually faded away from public interest.

8.5. Limitations and Future Research

These results are in complete contrast to Wang et al (2014) who completed a content

analysis on two Chinese newspapers between 2004 and 2013. In their results, 0.7% were

anti-nuclear and 77.5% were informational. Their results cannot be compared to the

results in this study because this study focuses mainly on the coverage of nuclear

accidents and they focus on general coverage over a nine year period. However

Fukushima did occur during their study and only 3 articles they analysed were anti-

nuclear. This makes it clear the importance of content analysis outside nuclear

accidents.

This research examined the coverage of three nuclear accidents in two Irish newspapers.

Any future research may want to examine more newspapers in order to get a broader

picture of media coverage or even different media formats such as social media or

television. This study also focused on three specific nuclear accidents which means it

was clear that the ‘anti-nuclear’ frame was going to be the most prominent. It would be

interesting to use a more longitudinal analysis, like Wang et al (2014) (2004-2013), in

order to see what the general framing of nuclear power and nuclear energy is under

normal circumstances, i.e. when no nuclear accidents occur. 14 countries in the EU use

nuclear power as a source of energy and this study focused on a country that does not

have nuclear power. It would therefore be interesting to compare the framing of nuclear

power in countries with it to countries that don’t have it.

69

9. CONCLUSION

Climate change is currently one of the biggest challenges in today’s society. As a result

of this the EU has decided to cut emissions by 80% by 2050, however this can only be

achieved by moving to a carbon-free internal energy system, or close to it (Jones and

Glachant, 2010). Energy security is also an important factor heading into the future,

especially for heavily dependent countries such as Ireland. Despite the many alternative

sources of energy, nuclear power remains to be an important source and has the

potential to help solve these two imminent issues. However health and safety issues are

concerns heavily associated with nuclear power, with well-known nuclear accidents

having consequences for public concern and policy, such as in Germany after the

Fukushima accident. The reaction of the media around such accidents is important to

analyse. This is because the media is an important source of information for people

(Boykoff, 2008). Therefore the way in which the media presents nuclear accidents is

important. Despite the increased competitiveness that newspapers have to deal with in

the 21st century by media formats such as social media and the more traditional

television, newspapers are still an important source of information for people. The

historical resilience of the print press should allow for the survival of long-established

newspaper brands (Dekavalla, 2015).

This study examined the framing of nuclear power in two prominent Irish Newspapers,

the Irish Times and the Irish Independent. This was undertaken during the month

before, the month of and the month after three well known nuclear accidents: Three

Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011. Overall in these nine

months, 633 articles were analysed, 471 in the Irish Times and 162 in the Irish

Independent. The results showed that for all three time periods the majority of articles

were classified as ‘anti-nuclear’. ‘Informational’ was the second most prominent theme.

Figure 8.3 on page 65 shows that the number articles increased from the month before

each accident through to the month after each accident, signifying that the accidents

influenced the number of articles related to nuclear power. Most of the articles were

published the month of and the month after the accident. Figure 8.3 again demonstrates

this as it shows that the majority of the articles were published the month of and the

70

month after the accidents, indicating that events can cause media coverage to surge

about issues such as nuclear power. The proportion of anti-nuclear articles increased

with each accident, TMI having the least proportion of anti-nuclear articles and

Fukushima having the highest proportion of anti-nuclear articles. This suggests that the

Irish media is sensationalising nuclear power increasingly compared to decades ago.

Overall the Irish Independent dramatized nuclear power more than the Irish Times,

however the Irish Times dramatized the Fukushima accident significantly more than the

previous two accidents, possibly indicating a change in how it reports on nuclear power.

In terms of policy, newspaper articles around the TMI and Chernobyl accidents

primarily focused on domestic politics which may have had an impact on the

construction of the Carnsore Point nuclear power plant being constructed. Newspaper

articles around the Fukushima accident focused on Angela Merkel’s U-turn on nuclear

power in Germany to phase it out by 2021. Wittneben (2012) suggests that the media

may have had a role in this by influencing public interests. Therefore it is likely that the

media can indirectly impact policy. Interestingly only 2.4% of the articles had an

environmental frame and considering that climate change and energy security are two

issues gaining in prominence, this needs to change. Environmental benefits and risks of

nuclear power need to be part of the debate more in the future.

There are currently no nuclear power plants in Ireland, yet the closest one is only 110

km away. With increasing emission targets and increasing concern over energy security,

nuclear power deserves a balanced debate in Ireland among people, and all media

formats. If it is decided to not utilise it, alternatives must be evaluated to ensure the best

solution ensues.

71

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abdmouleh, Z., Alammari, R. A. M. and Gastli, A. (2015) ‘Review of Policies

Encouraging Renewable Energy Integration and Best Practices, Renewable and

Sustainable Energy Reviews, 45, pp. 249-262.

Ahlstrom, D. (2011) ‘Japanese radiation detected in Ireland.’ Irish Times, 30th

March,

Pg. 10.

Alleyne, R. (2011) ‘Engineers Losing Battle to Prevent Full Meltdown.’ Irish

Independent, 15th

March, Pg. 12

Ang, J. B. (2007) ‘CO2 Emissions, Energy Consumption, and Output in France, Energy

policy, 35, pp. 4772-4778.

Arlt, D. and Wolling, J. (2015) ‘Fukushima Effects in Germany? Changes in Media

Coverage and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power', Public Understanding of Science,

N/A, pp. 1-16.

Aykut, S. C., Comby, J. and Guillemot, H (2012) ‘Climate Change Controversies n

French Mass Media 1990–2010’, Journalism Studies, 13 (2), pp. 157-174.

Bayulgen, O. and Arbatli, E. (2013) ‘Cold War Redux in US-Russia Relations? The

Effects of US Media Framing and Public Opinion of the 2008 Russia-Georgia War’,

Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 46 (4), pp. 513-527.

Bibas, R., Mejéan, A. and Hamdi-Cherif, M. (2015) ‘Energy Efficiency Policies and the

Timing of Action: An Assessment of Climate Mitigation Costs’, Technological

Forecasting and Social Change, 90, pp. 137-152.

72

Bickerstaff, K., Lorenzoni, I., Pidgeon, N. F., Poortinga, W. and Simmons, P. (2008)

‘Reframing Nuclear Power in the UK Energy debate: Nuclear Power, Climate Change

Mitigation and Radioactive Waste’, Public Understanding of Science, 17, pp. 145-169.

Biddinika, M. K., Prawisuda, P., Yoshikawa, K., Tokimatsu, K. and Takahashi, F.

(2014) ‘Does Fukushima Accident Shift Public Attention Toward Renewable Energy?’,

Energy Procedia, 61, pp. 1372-1375.

Blindheim, B. (2015) ‘A Missing Link? The Case of Norway and Sweden: Does

Increased Renewable Energy production Impact Domestic Greenhouse Gas Emissions?,

Energy Policy, 77, pp. 207-215.

Boudet, H., Clarke, C., Bugden, D., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C. Leiserowitz, A.

(2014) ‘“Fracking” Controversy and Communication: Using National Survey Data to

Understand Public Perceptions of Hydraulic Fracturing’, Energy Policy, 65, pp. 57-67.

Boykoff, M. T. (2008) ‘Media and Scientific Communication: A Case of Climate

Change’, Geological Society, 305, pp. 11-18.

Boykoff, M. T. and Mansfield, M. (2008) ‘Ye Olde Hot Aire’*: reporting on human

contributions to climate change in the UK tabloid press’, Environmental Research

Letters, 3, pp. 1-8.

Boykoff, M. T. and Rajan, S. R. (2007) ‘Signals and noise: Mass Media Coverage of

Climate Change in the USA and the UK’, EMBO Reports, 8 (3), pp. 207-211.

Boykoff, M. T. and Roberts, J. T (2007) ‘Media Coverage of Climate Change: Current

Trends, Strengths, Weaknesses’, Available at:

http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/boykoff_maxwell_and_roberts_j._timmons.pdf

[Accessed 20 March 2015].

Boykoff, M. T. and Boykoff, J. M. (2007) ‘Climate Change and Journalistic: A Case-

Study of US Mass-Media Coverage’, Geoforum, 38, pp. 1190-1204.

http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/boykoff_maxwell_and_roberts_j._timmons.pdf

73

Bruckner T., Bashmakov, I. A., Mulugetta, Y., Chum, H., de la Vega Navarro, A., Edmonds, J.,

Faaij, A., Fungtammasan, B. , Garg, A., Hertwich, E., Honnery, D., Infield, D., Kainuma, M.,

Khennas, S., Kim S., Nimir, H. B., Riahi, K., Strachan, N., Wiser, R., and Zhang X. (2014)

‘Energy Systems’. In: Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K.

Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S.

Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation

of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Buys, L., Aird, R., Van Megan, K., Miller, E. and Sommerfeld, J. (2014) ‘Perceptions

of Climate Change and Trust in Information Providers in Rural Australia’, Public

Understanding of Science, 23 (2), pp. 170-188.

Cale, T, and Kromer, M. (2015) ‘Does Proximity Matter? Plant Location, Public

Awareness, and Support for Nuclear Energy’, The Social Science Journal, 52, pp. 148-

155.

Castrechini, A., Pol, E. and Guàrdia-Olmos, J. (2014) ‘Media Representations of

environmental Issues: From Scientific to Political Discourse’, Revue Européenne

Psychologie Appliqueée, 64, pp. 213-220.

Central Statistics Office (CSO) Available at: census.cso.ie/sapmap/ [Accessed 28 June

2015]

Chiodi, A., Gargiulo, M., Deane, J. P., Lavigne, D., Rout, U. K. and Ó Gallachóir, B. P.

(2013) ‘Modelling the Impacts of Challenging 2020 Non-ETS GHG Emissions

Reduction Targets on Ireland’s Energy System,’ Energy Policy, 62, pp. 1438-1452.

Cockburn, C. (1986) ‘Our Reactors are Totally Safe’. Irish Times, 30th

April, Pg. 11.

Coghlan, D. (1986) ‘Haughey Urges Sellafield Action.’ Irish Times, 14th

May Pg. 4.

http://www.census.cso.ie/sapmap/

74

Cooney, B. and McKenna, G. (1986) ‘Alert as Fallout Reaches Ireland.’ Irish

Independent, May 5th

, Pg. 1.

Cooney, J. (1979) ‘West Germany Seeks World Talks on Nuclear Safety.’ Irish Times,

10th

April, Pg. 6.

Corner, A., Venables, D., Spence, A., Poortinga, W., Demski, C. and Pidgeon, N.

(2011) ‘Nuclear Power, Climate Change and Energy Security: Exploring British Public

Attitudes’, Energy Policy, 39, pp. 4823-4833.

Culley, M. R., Ogley-Oliver, E., Carton, A. D. and Street, J. C. (2010) ‘Media Framing

of Proposed Nuclear Reactors: An Analysis of Print Media’, Journal of Community and

Applied Social Psychology, 20, pp. 497-512.

Dempsey, J. (1986) ‘Eastern Europe may Rethink Plans’. 2nd

May, Pg. 4.

De Kassel, J. (1986) ‘Counting the Cost of Nuclear Closedown’. Irish Times, 8th

May,

Pg. 7.

Dekavalla, M. (2015) ‘The Scottish Newspaper Industry in the Digital Era’, Media,

Culture and Society, 37 (1), pp. 107-114.

deLlano-Paz, F., Calvo-Silvosa, A., Antelo, S. I. and Soares, I. (2015) ‘The European

Low-Carbon Mix for 2030: The Role of Renewable Energy Sources in an

Environmentally and Socially Efficient Approach’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy

Reviews, 48, pp. 49-61.

Dillon, W. (1986) ‘Radiation here 23 times the normal level, NEB says.’ Irish

Independent, 7th

May, Pg. 1.

Doran, J. (2012) ‘An Analysis of the Interdependence of Demographic Factors, Labour

Effort and Economic Growth in Ireland’, International Journal of Social Economics, 39

(3), pp. 221-237.

75

Downs, A. (1972) ‘Up and Down With Ecology – The “Issue-Attention Cycle”’, The

Public Interest, 28, pp. 38-50.

Doyle, J. (2011) ‘Acclimatizing Nuclear? Climate Change, Nuclear Power and the

Reframing of Risk in the UK News Media’, The international Communication Gazette,

73 (1-2), pp. 107-125.

Driedger, S. M. (2007) ‘Risk and the Media: A Comparison of Print and televised News

Stories of A Canadian Drinking Water Risk Event’, Risk Analysis, 27 (3), pp. 775-786.

EEA (European Environment Agency) (2014) ‘Trends and projections in Europe 2014:

Tracking Progress Towards Europe’s Climate and Energy targets for 2020’, Available

at:

file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Trends%20and%20projections%20in%20Europe%202

014_1%20(1).pdf [Accessed 22 June 2015].

Einsiedel, E. and Coughland, E. (1993) ‘The Canadian Press and the Environment:

Reconstructing a Social Reality’, in Hansen, A. (Ed). The Mass Media and

Environmental Issues, London: Leicester University Press.

Environment, Community and Local Government (2007) National Emergency Plan

FAQs. Available at:

http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/EnvironmentalRadiation/NationalEmergencyPla

n/ [Accessed 12th

July 2015].

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2015) Ireland’s Greenhouse Emission

Projections: 2014-2035. Available at:

http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/air/airemissions/epa_ghg_emission_proj_pub_2013_fina

l.pdf [Accessed 15th

July 2015].

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2014) Ireland’s Provisional Greenhouse Gas

Emissions in 2013.

Available at: https://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/air/airemissions/GHGprov.pdf [Accessed

15th

July 2015]

http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/EnvironmentalRadiation/NationalEmergencyPlan/

http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/EnvironmentalRadiation/NationalEmergencyPlan/

http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/air/airemissions/epa_ghg_emission_proj_pub_2013_final.pdf

http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/air/airemissions/epa_ghg_emission_proj_pub_2013_final.pdf

https://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/air/airemissions/GHGprov.pdf

76

European Commission. (12th

July 2015a) Nuclear Safety. Available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/node/21 [Accessed 12th

July 2015].

European Commission. (12th

July 2015b) Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities.

Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/nuclear-energy/decommissioning-

nuclear-facilities [Accessed 12th

July 2015].

European Commission. (2015c) Renewable Energy Directive. Avaliable at:

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy/renewable-energy-directive

[Accessed 12th

July 2015].

European Commission. (2015d) Nuclear Energy. Available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/nuclear-energy [Accessed 12th

July 2015].

European Social Survey. (ESS) Media Landscape Media Claims Available at:

http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/round6/methods/ESS6_media_landscape_m

edia_claims_ed_04_0.pdf [Accessed 6th July 2015].

Fairlie, I. (2009) ‘New Information on Radiation Health Hazards’, In: Elliott, D. (Ed)

Nuclear or Not?: Does Nuclear Power Have a Place in a Sustainable Energy Future?,

Available at: http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9780230279346

[Accessed 23rd

July 2015].

Flues, F., Löschel, A., Lutz, B. J. and Schenker, O. (2014) ‘Designing an EU energy and

climate policy portfolio for 2030: Implications of Overlapping Regulation Under

Different Levels of Electricity Demand’, Energy Policy, 75, pp. 91-99.

Gamson, W. A. and Modigliani, A. (1989) ‘Media Discourse and Public Opinion on

Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach’, American Journal of Sociology, 95 (1),

pp. 1-37.

Gillespie, P. (2011) ‘Big Changes in Japan's Foreign Outlook Beckon.’ Irish Times, 19th

March, Pg. 15.

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/node/21

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/nuclear-energy/decommissioning-nuclear-facilities

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/nuclear-energy/decommissioning-nuclear-facilities

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy/renewable-energy-directive

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/nuclear-energy

http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/round6/methods/ESS6_media_landscape_media_claims_ed_04_0.pdf

http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/round6/methods/ESS6_media_landscape_media_claims_ed_04_0.pdf

http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9780230279346

77

Gokmen, A., Atik, A. D., Ekici, G., Ҫimen, O. and Altunsoy, S. (2010) ‘Analysis of

High School Students’ Opinions on the Benefits and Harms of Nuclear Energy in Terms

of Environmental Values’, Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2, pp. 2350-

2356.

Goodfellow, M. J., Williams, H. R. and Azapagic, A. (2011) ‘ Nuclear Renaissance,

Public Perception and Design Criteria: An Exploratory Review’, Energy Policy, 39, pp.

6199-6210.

Greenberg, M. and Truelove, H. (2010) ‘Right Answers and Right-Wrong Answers:

Sources of Information Influencing Knowledge of Nuclear-Related Information’, Socio-

Economic Planning Sciences, 44, pp. 130-140.

Grimes, D. R. (2015) ‘Ireland’s Wind Energy: We Need to Debate the Nuclear Option

Honestly’, Irish Times, 24 February 2015. Available at:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/ireland-s-energy-we-need-to-debate-the-

nuclear-option-honestly-1.2113299 [Accessed 22 June 2015].

Grossman, P. Z. (2015) ‘Energy Shocks, Crises and the Policy Process: A Review of

Theory and Application’, Energy policy, 77, pp. 56-69.

Hartmann, P., Apaolaza, V., D’Souza, C., Echebarria, C. and Barrutia, J. M. (2013)

‘Nuclear Power Threats, Public Opposition and Green Electricity Adoption: Effects of

Threat Belief Appraisal and Fear Arousal’, Energy Policy, 62, pp. 1366-1376.

Helm, D. (2014) ‘The European Framework for Energy and Climate Policies’, Energy

Policy, 64, pp. 29-35.

Holbert, L., Kwak, N. and Shah, D. V. (2003) ‘Environmental Concern, Patterns of

Television Viewing, and Pro-environmental Behaviours: Integrating Models of Media

Consumption and Effects, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic media, 47 (2), pp.

177-196.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/ireland-s-energy-we-need-to-debate-the-nuclear-option-honestly-1.2113299

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/ireland-s-energy-we-need-to-debate-the-nuclear-option-honestly-1.2113299

78

Ho, J., Lee, C. P., Kao, S., Chen, R., Ieong, M. C. F., Chang, H., Hsieh, W., Tzeng, C.,

Lu, C., Lin, S., Chang, P. W. (2014) ‘Perceived Environmental and Health Risks of

Nuclear Energy in Taiwan After Fukushima Nuclear Disaster’, Environment

International, 73, pp. 295-303.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (2015) Nuclear Power reactors in the

world Reference data series Available at:

http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/rds2-35web-85937611.pdf [Accessed

14th

August 2015].

International Energy Agency (IEA) (2012) World Energy Outlook. Available at:

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/WEO2012_free.pdf

[Accessed 25th

July 2015].

Irish Independent (2011a) The Cheapest and Cleanest Form of Fuel by far, nuclear, is

one all our Political Parties Oppose.’ Irish Independent, 3rd

February, Pg. 17.

Irish Independent (2011b) ‘More Chernobyl’s inevitable in power-hungry world – UN.’

Irish Independent, 22nd

April, Pg. N/A

Irish Independent (2011c) ‘Real Problems Start When Natural Disaster Goes Nuclear.’

Irish Independent, 15th

March, Pg. N/A.

Irish Independent (2011d) Of Course we won’t let Ireland down – But we’re more

Worried about Nuclear Disaster right now.’ Irish Independent, 2nd

April, Pg. N/A.

Irish Independent (2011e) ‘Labour’s Contemptible on Nuclear Facilities is Either

Cynical Deceit or Egregious Folly.’ Irish Independent, 17th

February, Pg. 17.

Irish Independent (1986) ‘Falling out of Love with the Atom,’ Irish Independent, 13th

May, Pg. 6

Irish Independent (1979a) ‘Supplies of home heating oil to dry up ‘in a month’.’ Irish

Independent, 7th

April, Pg. 1.

http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/rds2-35web-85937611.pdf

79

Irish Independent (1979b) ‘Crippled N-Plant ‘too costly to clean up’.’ Irish

Independent, 4th

April, Pg. 11.

Irish Independent (1979c) ‘The ghostly horror of radiation effects.’ Irish Independent,

11th

April, Pg. 6.

Irish Independent (1979d) ‘Nuclear Inquiry Terms Must be Clear.’ Irish Independent,

12th

April, Pg. 5.

Irish Independent (1979e) ‘Protestors win Halt to Four N-Stations.’ Irish Independent,

16th

April, Pg. 3.

Irish Independent (1979f) ‘Nuclear Power – Think Again Say Experts.’ Irish

Independent, 5th

April, Pg. 1.

Irish Times (2011a) ‘'I may be a bit too Callous about this, but I don't think this is

anything to Turn Pale Over'.’ Irish Times, 18th

March, Pg. 11.

Irish Times (2011b) ‘Values Slide After Profit-Taking from Mining and Banking

Sectors’, Irish Times, 23rd

March, Pg. 24.

Irish Times (2011c) ‘Tokyo Falls on Concern over Radiation Threat’, Irish Times, 16th

March, Pg. 20.

Irish Times, (2011d) ‘Luxury Goods and Raw Materials Suffer as Slump Continues for

Fifth Day.’ Irish Times, 16th

March, Pg. 20.

Irish Times (2011e) ‘A Solution to Ireland’s Energy Needs.’ Irish Times, 30th

March,

Pg. 15.

Irish Times (2011f) ‘Why Haven’t They Invented…’ Irish Times, 16th

February, Pg. 12.

Irish Times (1986a) Chernobyl ‘a Model of Safety’. Irish Times, 30th

April, Pg. 5.

80

Irish Times (1986b) ‘One World’. Irish Times, 12th

May, Pg. 11.

Irish Times (1986c) ‘Irish Sea ‘Most Radioactive’ in World’. Irish Times, 13th

March,

Pg. 8.

Irish Times (1986d) ‘Chernobyl Core may be Burning Through Earth’. Irish Times, 9th

May, Pg. 8.

Irish Times (1986e) ‘Gorbachev Speaks.’ Irish Times, 15th

May, Pg. 11.

Irish Times (1986f) ‘One World.’ Irish Times, 12th

May, Pg. 11.

Irish Times (1986g) ‘Pravdda says information given too late.’ Irish Times, 19th

May,

Pg. 7

Irish Times (1986h) ‘Chernobyl Radiation Fears Lead to Flight from Kiev.’ Irish Times,

8th

May, Pg. 7

Irish Times (1979a) ‘O’Malley Warns of Petrol Price Rise’. Irish Times, 17th

February,

Pg. 6.

Irish Times (1979b) ‘Suspicion about Nuclear Inquiry.’ Irish Times, 12th

April, Pg. 13.

Irish Times (1979c) ‘Energy Stocks Fall.’ Irish Times, 31st March, Pg. 14.

Irish Times (1979d) ‘Friends of the Earth to Meet’. Irish Times, 20th

. February, Pg. 11.

Irish Times (1979e) ‘Nuclear Power ‘a Political Issue.’ Irish Times, 24th

April, Pg. 13.

Irish Times (1979f) ‘Closure plan for 8 US N-Plants.’ Irish Times, 27th

April, Pg. 7.

Irish Times (1979g) ‘Public Inquiry into Nuclear Energy Pledged by O’Malley.’ Irish

Times, 26th

February, Pg. 7.

81

Irish Times (1979h) ‘Protestors Cite Harrisburg Accident.’ Irish Times, 3rd

April, Pg. 6

Irish Times (1979i) ‘Nuclear plants to be modified.’ Irish Times, 12th

April, Pg. 6.

Jogesh, A. (2012) ‘A change in climate?: Trends in Climate Change Reportage in the

Indian Print Media. In: Dubash, N.K. (Ed.), Handbook of Climate Change and India.

London: Earthscan, pp. 266–286.

Jones, C. and Glachant, J. M. (2010) ‘Toward a Zero-Carbon Energy Policy in Europe:

Defining a Viable Solution’, The Electricity Journal, 23 (3), pp. 15-25.

Joyce, M. J. and Port, S. N. (1999) ‘Environmental Impact of Power Generation’. In:

Hester, R. E., Harrison, R. M., Joyce, M. J. and Port S. N. (eds) Environmental Impact

of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. Available at:

http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/chapter/bk9780854042500-00073/978-0-85404-250-

0#!divabstract [Accessed 23rd

July 2015].

Jupp, V. and Norris, C. (1993) ‘Traditions in Documentary Analysis’. In: Hammersley,

M. ed. Social Research: Philosophy, Politics and Practice. London: Sage.

Keller, C., Visschers, V. and Siegrist, M. (2012) ‘Affective Imagery and Acceptance of

Replacing Nuclear Power Plants’, Risk Analysis, 32 (3), pp. 464-477.

Kleinschmit, D. and Sjöstedt, V. (2014) ‘Between Science and Politics: Swedish

Newspaper Reporting on Forests in a Changing Climate’, Environmental Science and

Policy, 35, pp. 117-127.

Knopf, B., Nahmmacher, P. and Schmid, E. (2015) ‘The European Renewable energy

target for 2030 –An Impact Assessment of the Electricity Sector’, Energy Polict, 85, pp.

50-60.

Koerner, C. L (2014) ‘Media, Fear and Nuclear Energy: A Case Study’, The Social

Science Journal, 51, pp. 240-249.

http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/chapter/bk9780854042500-00073/978-0-85404-250-0#!divabstract

http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/chapter/bk9780854042500-00073/978-0-85404-250-0#!divabstract

82

Konstantinaviciute, I. and Bobinaite, V. (2015) ‘Comparative analysis of carbon dioxide

emission factors for energy industries in European Union countries’, Renewable and

Sustainable Energy Reviews, 51, pp. 603-612.

Kopytko, N. and Perkins, J. (2011) ‘Climate Change, Nuclear Power, and the

Adaptation-Mitigation Dilemma’, Energy Policy, 39, pp. 318-333.

Krippendorff, K. (1980) Content Analysis: An Introduction to its methodology.

California: Sage.

Lazic, D. (2013) ‘News Analysis of the Fukushima Accident: Lack of Information

Disclosure, Radiation Fears and Accountability Issues, J. Contemp. East Asia, 12, pp.

19-34.

Leeuwen, T. V. and Jewitt, C. (2001) ‘Introduction’. In: Leeuwen, T. V. and Jewitt, C.

(Eds) Handbook of Visual Analysis. Sage: London.

Lehtveer, M. and Hedenus, F. (2015) ‘How Much Can Nuclear Power Reduce Climate

Mitigation Cost? – Critical Parameters and Sensitivity’, Energy Strategy Reviews, 6, pp.

12-19.

Leonard, L. (2006) The Irish Environmental Movement from Carnsore point to the

Rossport Five, Louth: Greenhouse Press.

Lynch, S. (2011) ‘European Stocks Fall Amid Fears over Japan’, Irish Times, 17th

March, Pg. 23.

Manzo, K. (2012) ‘Earthworks: The Geopolitical Visions of Climate Change Cartoons’,

Political Geography, 31, pp. 481-494.

McAulay, I. R. (1979) ‘Letters to the Editor: The Energy Debate.’ Irish Times, 23rd

April, Pg. 11.

83

McCallum, M. L. and Bury, G. W. (2014) ‘Public Interest in the Environment is

Falling: A Response to Ficetola (2013)’, Biodiversity and Conservation, 23 (4), pp.

1057-1062.

McCurry, J. (2011) ‘Struggling Officials Say Third Cooling System has Failed.’ Irish

Times, 14th

March, Pg. 8.

McDonald, F. (2011) ‘Thai Floods Claim 40 Lives as UN Climate Talks Begin.’ Irish

Times, 4th

April, Pg. 10.

McKenna, G. (1986a) ‘Nuke Bard Spells out Fallout Risk, Seeks Funds.’ Irish


, Pg. 6.

McKenna, G. (1986b) ‘Increased Radiation Levels Found in Irish Veg.’ Irish


, Pg. 1.

McNeill, D. (2011a) ‘Japan Warns More Radioactive Emissions Likely. Irish Times,

21st March, Pg. 9.

McNeill, D. (2011b) ‘Japan to Decommission Four of Six Reactors.’ Irish Times, 31st

March, Pg. 13.

Menegaki, A. N. and Tsagarakis, K. P. (2015) ‘Rich Enough to go Renewable, But Too

Early to Leave Fossil Energy?, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 41, pp.

1465-1477.

Menyah, K. and Wolde-Rufael, Y. (2010) ‘CO2 Emissions, Nuclear Energy, Renewable

Energy and Economic Growth in the US’, Energy Policy, 38, pp. 2911-2915.

Michalena, E. and Hills, J. M. (2012) ‘Renewable Energy Issues and Implementation of

European Energy Policy: The Missing Generation’, Energy Policy, 45, pp. 201-216.

Miller, R. W. S. (1979) ‘Letter to the Editor: Energy from sea power.’ Irish

Independent, 17th

April, Pg. 10.

84

Morrone, M., Basta, T. B. and Somerville, J. (2012) ‘Framing the National Nuclear

Legacy at the Local Level: Implications for the Future of Federal Facilities’, Energy

Policy, 43, pp. 145-152.

Nisbet, M. C. (2009) ‘Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public

Engagement’, Environment, 51 (2), pp. 12-23

Nordensvärd, J. and Urban, F. (2015) ‘The Stuttering Energy Transition in Germany:

Wind Energy Policy and Feed-in Tariff Lock-in’, Energy Policy, 82, pp. 156-165.

Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) (2015) Technology Roadmap: Nuclear Energy.

Available at: http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2015/7257-techroadmap-2015.pdf

[Accessed 21st July 2015].

Ofcom (2013) ‘News Consumption in the UK – 2013 Report, 25th

September. Available

at: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/media-literacy/october-

2013/research07Oct2013.pdf [Accessed 11th

August 2015].

O’Ferrall, R, M. (2011) ‘Nuclear Power in Ireland’, Irish Times, 15th

March, Pg. 19.

O’Flaherty, M., Riordan, N., O’Neill, N. and Ahern, C. (2014) ‘A Quantitative Analysis

of the Impact of Wind Energy Penetration on Electricity Prices in Ireland’, Energy

Procedia, 58, pp. 103-110.

Olausson U. (2009) ‘Global Warming—Global Responsibility? Media Frames of

Collective Action and Scientific Certainty’, Public Understanding of Science, 18 (4),

pp. 421-436.

O’Mahony, P. (2011) ‘Stock Take.’ Irish Times, 18th

March, Pg. A7.

O’Neill, S. J. (2013) ‘Image matters: Climate change imagery in US, UK and Australian

Newspapers’, Geoforum, 49, pp. 10-19.

http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2015/7257-techroadmap-2015.pdf

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/media-literacy/october-2013/research07Oct2013.pdf

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/media-literacy/october-2013/research07Oct2013.pdf

85

O’Neill, S. J., Boykoff, M., Niemeyer, S. and Day, S. A. (2013) ‘On the Use of Imagery

for Climate Change Engagement’, Global Environmental Change, 23, pp. 413-421.

Paska, J. and Surma, T. (2014) ‘Electricity generation From Renewable Energy Sources

in Poland’, Renewable Energy, 71, pp. 286-294.

Perko, T. (2014) ‘Radiation Risk Perception: A Discrepancy Between the Experts and

the General Population’, Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 133, pp. 86-91.

Perko, T., Turcanu, C. and Carlé, B. (2012) ‘Media Reporting of Nuclear Emergencies:

The Effects of Transparent Communication in a Minor Nuclear Event’, Journal of

Contingencies and Crisis Management, 20, pp. 52-63.

Pfenninger, S. and Keirstead, J. (2015) ‘Renewables, Nuclear, or Fossil Fuels?

Scenarios for Great Britain’s Power System Considering Costs, Emissions and Energy

Security’, Applied Energy, 152, pp. 83-93.

Pidgeon, N. F., Lorenzoni, I. And Poortinga, W. (2008) ‘Climate Change or Nuclear

Power – No Thanks! A Quantitative Study of Public Perceptions and Risk Framing in

Britain’, Global Environmental Change, 18, pp. 69-85.

Qvist, S. A. and Brook, B. W (2015) ‘Environmental and Health Impacts of a Policy to

Phase Out Nuclear Power in Sweden’, Energy policy, 84, pp. 1-10.

Ragaišis, V., Poškas, P., Šimonis, V., Šmaižys, A., Kilda, R. and Grigalūinienė, D.

(2014) ‘The Environmental Impact Assessment Process for Nuclear Facilities: A

Review of the Lithuanian Practice and Experience’, Progress in Nuclear Energy, 73, pp.

129-139.

Riffe, D., lacy, S. And Fico, F. (2014) Analyzing Media Messages: Using Quantitative

Content Analysis in Research. Routledge: New York.

Roseingrave, L. (2011) ‘Nuclear Power ‘Incredibly Safe’.’ Irish Times, 24th

March, Pg.

7.

86

Rubin, D. M. (1987) ‘How the News Media Reported on Three Mile Island and

Chernobyl’, Communicating Risk: The Media and the Public, 37 (3), pp. 42-57.

Saidi, K. and Hammami, S. (2015) ‘The Impact of CO2 Emissions and Economic

Growth on Energy Consumption in 58 Countries’, Energy Reports, 1, pp. 62-70.

Sampei, Y. and Aoyagi-Usui, M. (2009) ‘Mass-Media Coverage, its Influence on public

Awareness of Climate-Change Issues, and Implications for Japan’s National Campaign

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions’, Global Environmental Change, 19, pp. 203-212.

Scally, D. (2011) ‘Germany Reaffirms Nuclear Retreat’, Irish Times, 16th

April, Pg. 10.

Scally, D. (2011a) ‘Nuclear backlash could spell poll failure for Merkel’, Irish Times,

26th

March, Pg. 8.

Scally, D. (2011b) ‘Merkel in U-turn on Nuclear Reactor life Extensions’, Irish Times,

23rd

March, Pg. 16.

Scally, D. (2011c) ‘Merkel announces 3-month shutdown of oldest reactors’, Irish

Times, 16th

March, Pg. 13.

Schmidt, A., Ivanova, A. and Schäfer, M. S. (2013) ‘Media Attention for Climate

Change Around the World: A Comparative Analysis of Newspaper coverage in 27

Countries’, Global Environmental Change, 23, pp. 1233-1248.

Shehata, A and Hopmann, D. N. (2012) ‘Framing Climate Change’, Journalism Studies,

13 (2), pp. 175-192.

Sheldon, S., Hadian, S. and Zik, O. (2015) ‘Beyond Carbon: Quantifying

Environmental Externalities as Energy for Hydroelectric and Nuclear Power’, Energy,

84, pp. 36-44.

Siggins, L. (2011) ‘Irish Physicist Continues to back Nuclear Option.’ Irish Times, 15th

March, Pg. 11.

87

Slovic, P., Flynn, J. H. and Layman, M. (1991) ‘Perceived Risk, Trust, and the

Politics of Nuclear Waste’, Science, Vol. 254 (5038): 1603-1607.

Sowby, D. and Turvey, F. (2011) ‘Nuclear Solution Still Best for Ireland’s Energy

Needs.’ Irish Times, 29th

March, Pg. 16.

Stegen, K. S. and Seel, M. (2013) ‘The Winds of Change: How Wind Firms Assess

Germany’s Energy Transition’, Energy Policy, 61, pp. 1481-1489.

Stephens, J. C., Rand, M. R. And Melnick, L. L. (2009) ‘Wind Energy in US Media: A

Comparative State Level Analysis of a Critical Climate Change Mitigation

Technology’, Environmental Communication, 3 (2), pp. 168-190.

Teräväinen, T., Lehtonen, M. and Martiskainen, M. (2011) ‘Climate Change, Energy

Security, and Risk – Debating Nuclear New Build in Finland, France and the UK’,

Energy Policy, 39, pp. 3434-3442.

Tilson, D. J. (1996) ‘Promoting a ‘Greener’ Image of Nuclear Power in the U.S. and

Britain’, Public Relations Review, 22 (1), pp. 63-79.

Tobler, C., Visschers, V. H. M. and Siegrist, M. (2012) ‘Addressing Climate Change:

Determinants of Consumers’ Willingness to Act and to Support policy Measures’,

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32, pp. 197-207.

Truelove, H. B. (2012) ‘Energy Source Perceptions and Policy Support: Image

Associations, Emotional Evaluations, and Cognitive Beliefs’, Energy Policy, 45, pp.

478-489.

Tweena, M. (2006) ‘Nuclear Energy: Rise, Fall and Ressurection’, CICERO Working

Paper 2006: 01

van Dijck, J., and Poell, T. (2013) ‘Understanding Social Media Logic’, Media and

Communication, 1 (1), pp. 2-14.

88

Victor D. G., Zhou, D., Ahmed, E. H. M., Dadhich, P. K., Olivier, J. G. J., Rogner, H-

H.. Sheikho, K., and Yamaguchi, M. (2014) ‘Introductory Chapter’. In: Edenhofer, O.,

R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum,

S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow,

T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change.

Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Vidal, J. (2011) ‘Japan's Avoidable Accidents Make Folly of Nuclear Energy Clear.’

Irish Times, 15th

March, Pg. 18.

Wang, S. and Wang, S. (2015) ‘Impacts of Wind Energy on Environment: A Review’,

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 49, pp. 437-443.

Wang, Y. Li, N. and Li, J. (2014) ‘Media Coverage and government Policy of

Nuclear Power in the People’s Republic of China’, Progress in Nuclear Energy, 77,

pp. 214-223.

Weber, R. P. (1990) Basic Content Analysis. Sage: California.

Weingart, P., Engels, A. and Pansegrau, P. (2000) ‘Risks of Communication: Discourse

on Climate Change inScience, Politics, and the Mass Media, Public understanding, 9,

pp. 261-283.

Whyte, K., Daly, H. E. and Ó Gallachóir, B. P. (2013) ‘Modelling HGV Freight

Transport Energy Demand in Ireland and the Impacts of the property Construction

Bubble’, Energy, 50, pp. 245-251.

Wilson, K. M. (2000) ‘Drought, Debate, and Uncertainty: Measuring Reporters’

Knowledge and Ignorance About Climate Change’, Public Understanding of Science, 9

(1), pp. 1-13.

89

Wilson, K. M. (1995) ‘Mass Media as Sources of Global Warming Knowledge’, Mass

Communication Review, 22, pp. 75–89.

Wittneben, B. B. F. (2012) ‘The impact of the Fukushima nuclear accident on European

energy policy’, Environmental Science and Policy, 15 (1), pp. 1-3.

World Nuclear Association. (2015) Climate Change and Nuclear Energy. Available at:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/Features/Climate-Change/Climate-Change-and-Nuclear-

Energy/ [Accessed 12th

July 2015].

World Nuclear News. (2015) Nuclear Remains Spain’s Largest Electricity Supplier

Available at: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Nuclear-remains-Spains-largest-

electricity-supplier-1007154.html [Accessed 12th

July 2015].

http://www.world-nuclear.org/Features/Climate-Change/Climate-Change-and-Nuclear-Energy/

http://www.world-nuclear.org/Features/Climate-Change/Climate-Change-and-Nuclear-Energy/

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Nuclear-remains-Spains-largest-electricity-supplier-1007154.html

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Nuclear-remains-Spains-largest-electricity-supplier-1007154.html

The Framing of Nuclear Power in the Irish Media

Documents

Transcript of The Framing of Nuclear Power in the Irish Media