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
Figure2.1:TotalGHGEmissionsinAnnex1CountriesBetween1990and2010
Source:KonstantinaviciuteandBobinaite(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).
Figure2.3:CO2EmissionsbySector,1973-2010
Source:IEA(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
Figure4.1:NationalTargetsforRenewableEnergiesfor2020
Source:EEA(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
Figure4.2:IrishEnergyConsumptionfrom1990-2013
Source:CSO

21
Figure4.3:GHGEmissionsfrom1990-2010
Source:EPA(2014:6)

22
Figure4.4:RenewableEnergyasaPercentageofTotalPrimaryEnergySupply1973-2020
Source:IEA(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
Figure5.2:NumberofArticleswithNegativeorPositive/NeutralforeachNuclearAccident
(Chernobyl,ThreeMileIslandandFukushima)DividedbyTheme
Source:(Koerner,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
NumberofnewspaperArticles
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%
ProportionofNewspaperArticles
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
NumberofNewspaperArticles
(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

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 11
89
39
0
18
8
4
30
12
0
4 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
NumberofNewspaperAticles
(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%

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

The Framing of Nuclear Power in the Irish Media

The Framing of Nuclear Power in the Irish Media

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (6)

Similar to The Framing of Nuclear Power in the Irish Media

Similar to The Framing of Nuclear Power in the Irish Media (20)

The Framing of Nuclear Power in the Irish Media