In this article, we investigate Internet discourses that capture Canadians’ perceptions of the risk of radiation from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear incident. We consider these online discourses of radiation risk in the context of recent Internet-based theories that explore ecological models of communication, and we take a discourse approach to our analysis of the online texts about Fukushima radiation risk. Our analysis reveals that, while government and scientific discourses about radiation risk are framed in terms of public concern and certainty, public discourses are framed in terms of uncertainty and gaps in public knowledge. Members of the public engaged in knowledge-seeking activities conducted their own nuclear risk assessments and disseminated the results to the interested public in street science activities. These public meaning-making activities, we argue, were generated by a desire to fill knowledge niches and attract public attention. They result in a discourse ecology characterized by epistemological rather than affective stances.
BauerM. W.AllumN.MillerS.. 2007. “What Can We Learn from 25 Years of PUS Survey Research? Liberating and Expanding the Agenda.” Public Understanding of Science16 (1): 79–95. doi:10.1177/0963662506071287.
2.
BazermanC.2001. “Nuclear Communication: One Rhetorical Moment in the Construction of the Information Age.” Written Communication18 (3): 259–95.
CorburnJ.2005. Street Science, Community Knowledge and Environmental Health Justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
CottleS.2009. “Global Crises and World News Ecology.” In The Routledge Companion to News and Journalism Studies, edited by AllanS., 473–84. London, UK: Routledge.
8.
CottleS.2011. “Taking Global Crises in the News Seriously: Notes from the Dark Side of Globalization.” Global Media and Communication7 (77): 77–95, doi:10.1177/1742766511410217.
9.
DimmickJ.RothenbuhlerE. N.. 1986. “Comments on Kaul and McKerns’ ‘Dialectic Ecology’.” Critical Studies in Mass Communication3 (3): 380–83.
10.
FriedmanS. M.2011. “Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima: An Analysis of Traditional and New Media Coverage of Nuclear Accidents and Radiation.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists67 (5): 55–65. doi:10.1177/0096340211421587.
11.
FriedmanS. M.GorneyC. M.EgolfB. P.. 1992. “Chenobyl Coverage: How the US Media Treated the Nuclear Industry.” Public Understanding of Science1 (3): 305–23.
12.
GraftonK.MaurerE.. 2007. “Engaging with and Arranging for Publics in Blog Genres.” Linguistics and the Human Sciences3 (1): 47–66.
13.
HaL.FangL.. 2012. “Internet Experience and Time Displacement of Traditional News Media Use: An Application of the Theory of the Niche.” Telematics and Informatics29 (2): 177–86. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2011.06.001.
14.
Health Canada. 2011. Lessons Learned Review, Declaration of Nuclear Emergency –Japan. Ottawa: Health Canada.
15.
HughesE.KitzingerJ.MurdockG.. 2006. “The Media and Risk.” In Risk in Social Science, edited by Taylor-GoobyP.ZinnJ., 250–70. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
HutchinsonG. E.1957. “Concluding Remarks.” Cold Spring Harbour Symposia on Quantitative Biology22 (2): 415–27. doi:10.1101/SQB.1957.022.01.039.
17.
JenkinsH.2004. “The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence.” International Journal of Cultural Studies7 (1): 33–43. doi:10.1177/1367877904040603.
18.
KannerB.WertschJ.. 1991. “Beyond a Transmission Model of Communication.” Educational Psychology Review3 (2): 103–9. doi:10.1007/BF01417921.
LasloE.Baram-TsabariA.LewensteinB. V.. 2011. “A Growth Medium for the Message: Online Science Journalism Affordances for Exploring Public Discourse of Science and Ethics.” Journalism12 (7): 847–70. doi:10.1177/1464884911412709.
LewensteinB. V.2002. “Editorial: A Decade of Public Understanding.” Public Understanding of Science11 (1): 1–4. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/11/1/001.
23.
MacekJ.2013. “More Than a Desire for Text: Online Participation and the Social Curation of Content.” The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies19 (3): 1–8. doi:10.1177/1354856513486530.
24.
MorinP. J.2011. Community Ecology. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
25.
MurdockG. 2010. “Shifting Anxieties, Altered Media: Risk Communication in Networked Times.” Catalan Journal of Communication and Cultural Studies2 (2): 159–76. doi:10.1386/cjcs.2.2.159_1.
26.
OttingerG.2010. “Buckets of Resistance: Standards and the Effectiveness of Citizen Science.” Science, Technology, & Human Values35 (2): 244–70. doi:1177/0162243909337121.
27.
PariserE.2012. The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think. New York: Penguin Press.
28.
PearmanP. B.GuisanA.BroennimanO.RandinC. F.. 2008. “Niche Dynamics in Space and Time.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution23 (3): 149–58. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.11.005.
29.
PlantinJ.-C. 2011. “The Map is the Debate: Radiation Webmapping and Public Involvement during the Fukushima Issue.” Presented at the Oxford Internet Institute, a Decade in Internet Time: Symposium on the Dynamics of the Internet and Society, September 21, 2011. Accessed June 30, 2013. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1926276.
SundetV. S.YtrebergE.. 2009. “Working Notions of Active Audiences: Further Research on the Active Participant in Convergent Media Industries.” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies15 (4): 383–90. doi:10.1177/1354856509342339.
35.
SwalesJ.2004. Research Genres. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
36.
TatenoS.YokoyamaH. M.. 2013. “Public Anxiety, Trust, and the Role of Mediators in Communicating Risk of Exposure to Low Dose Radiation after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant Explosion.” JCOM12 (2): 1–22. Accessed November 16, 2013. http://jcom.sissa.it/.
37.
TrenchB.2008. “Towards an Analytical Framework of Science Communication Models.” In Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices, edited by ChengD.ClaessensM.GascoigneT.MetcalfeJ.SchieleB.ShiS., 119–38. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
38.
WallM. A.2003. “Social Movements and the Net: Activist Journalism Goes Digital.” In Digital Journalism: Emerging Media and the Changing Horizons of Journalism, edited by KawamotoK., 113–22. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
39.
WarnerM.2002. “Publics and Counter Publics (Abbreviated Version).” Quarterly Journal of Speech88 (4): 413–25.
40.
WynneB.1996. “Misunderstood Misunderstandings: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science.” In Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, edited by IrwinA.WynneB., 19–46. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
