In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

| vii Preface Journalists, who face the challenge of writing stories that are accurate, balanced , objective, and responsible, have reported about the benefits and risks associated with radionuclides from the days of the Manhattan Project when information was a guarded secret and few knew what was happening to today when a plethora of information and opinions exists. They have written about the beneficial use of radioactivity to kill rapidly growing cancer cells and identify malfunctioning organs and of x-rays to detect caries and other dental problems, the development of devices to accurately measure the thickness and quality of products, the use of radionuclides to kill pathogens, the installation of radionuclide-containing smoke detectors, and many other uses of radioactive materials to improve quality of life and create economic opportunities. Yet, journalists instantly recognize the words Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, along with acid rain, Bhopal, dioxin, Love Canal, Exxon Valdez, global warming, and ozone depletion as among the environmental stories that rose to front-page and nightly network news headlines. There is nothing simple about preparing an accurate, balanced, objective, and responsible story about radiation and radioactivity. World events require stories that tie together nuclear power, nuclear waste, nuclear weapons, global warming, economic development, and public health. This need for high-quality reporting about nuclear issues comes at a time when newspapers, radio and television stations, and magazines are under substantial financial pressure. During the 1980s, many media outlets added environmental beat reporters. Most of these specialist jobs have disappeared. Nonspecialist reporters assigned to a breaking or background story probably have relatively little knowledge about radionuclides. We believe they would benefit from a handbook that provides basic information and leads for further research. Our goal is to provide that handbook; it most certainly is not to try to persuade journalists that radioactivity and its uses are good or bad. In 1988 we published the Environmental Reporter’s Handbook, using a formula suggested to us by journalists. The book was praised by reviewers and received a special viii | The Reporter’s Handbook award for journalism from the Sigma Delta Chi Society of professional journalists in 1989. In 1995, we published a second edition, adding more information and changing the title to The Reporter’s Environmental Handbook, because we learned that most of the users were not environmental reporters but nonspecialist reporters who were covering an environmental story. In 2003, we published a third edition of the handbook. That edition was informed by a survey of the members of the Society of Environmental Journalists, who identified topics they wanted us to cover and helped us tweak the handbook format. The current book is more specialized, focusing on nuclear materials, nuclear energy, and nuclear waste; otherwise it resembles its predecessors. Part I begins with suggestions about how to use this book most effectively and continues with an introductory essay on why nuclear-related developments have become a major policy issue. The next essay presents synopses of various crosscutting themes, such as environmental impact, risk assessment, and economic analyses, and describes the frameworks used by analysts to assess and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of policy options involving these themes. Part I ends with an essay by Tom Henry, an award-winning journalist with more than 26 years of experience, who writes about how he would cover some of the issues presented in this handbook. Readers will find his brief useful when covering nuclear power; however, he does not focus directly on issues related to waste management and transportation, decommissioning, the economics of nuclear power, weapons, or issues of nonproliferation. These topics are covered elsewhere in this volume. Part II consists of essays that focus on nuclear-related issues. Journalists indicated that they do not want a science textbook in which they have to thumb through 10,000-word essays with 100 citations of sources that are mostly available only in paper copies in a library. Our briefs of 2,500–4,000 words capture the essence of an issue, such as dirty bombs or nuclear reactor safety. They are the heart of the book. Each brief • describes the broad background of the issue; • identifies key questions and issues for journalists to ask in their investigation; • discusses hazards, risks, and benefits to the public; • reviews what experts believe are myths and misunderstandings among the public; • suggests pitfalls that are commonly found in media coverage on the topic; and • offers resources for follow-up research [18.119.107.96] Project MUSE (2024-04-24 21...

Share