General comments

This is a well-researched piece which explains the UK context clearly for an international audience. It shows how the UK nuclear industry communicated its new technology to the public, and the examples used demonstrate consistency, allowing the author to make a clear argument.

The sources used, and the reasoning behind using this material, is clearly explained. Importantly, this material has not been examined in this way previously, making this a significant contribution to the field from which other research can follow.

It is a descriptive article, something necessitated by the subject matter. This does, however, lead to a sense of repetition throughout. As a result, it could be considered a bit too descriptive and in need of more critical analysis to balance this, perhaps by removing some of the description and replacing with critical comment (see below).

These comments are made with recognition of the constraints of word count (and time), so are to be considered guidance – even a just nod to certain suggestions here and there (rather than going into them in detail) would enhance the argument.

 Specific comments

• The WHY of the nuclear industry’s actions needs to be brought out more to increase the significance of the article. The actions are very well described and although good, some more reflection on why the industry took the course it did would be interesting. As would an indication of the impact it had on the public – if it is possible to find this out. Although the focus of the sources for the main discussion is on industry-produced documents, other material (such as newspaper sources) could be used to demonstrate wider opinion (for example, are newspaper reports positive, indicating that the industry messaging was having the desired effect?)
• What was the longer-term impact of the kind of messaging promoted in these publications? Did it continue into the following decades? Perhaps ref Joshua McMullan’s thesis for this, or direct people to it if they want to find out more about the communication strategy of the UK nuclear industry between 1975 and 1990? ‘Defending Technocracy? Communicating with the Public about Nuclear Energy: Historical Perspectives’ https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/joshua-mcmullan-phd-thesis.pdf
• This sense of legacy could be added to the conclusion.
• Briefly explain that the power stations featured are now being decommissioned. This will link the historic focus to contemporary concerns and strengthen the link to SaND as a publication. This links to legacy as discussed above - looking to how these stations were described at their inception may reveal some comparisons with the public engagement regarding closure and clean-up.
• If the author has consulted any archival correspondence from the UKAEA/CEGB/SSEB which mentions their approach to their public messaging then this could also be used to explain the ‘why’. I wouldn’t expect the author to do extensive new research however, as that’s well beyond the scope of the article. It could be simply flagged up as an area for future research.
• Was the CEGB and SSEB’s messaging led by that of the UKAEA?
• Mention the UK ‘Atom Train’ in section 3: a brief mention is all that’s required but you could include reference to the number of visitors it had, which provides evidence of impact of what was a very striking form of exhibition and public messaging. It’s different from the other source material, but has its place as an additional point.
• Some of the article's themes, particularly relating to Bradwell, are picked up on by Gillian Darley in her chapter in https://uclpress.co.uk/book/st-peter-on-the-wall/ (open access link) – a reference may be appropriate.

  Darley, Gillian. “A Case Study in Vulnerability: Bradwell A, a Trial Environment for Nuclear Power.” In St Peter-on-the-Wall: Landscape and Heritage on the Essex Coast, edited by Johanna Dale, 257–85. UCL Press, 2023. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv32bm0s4.18.

 Technical corrections

• Line 37: change South Scotland Electricity Board to South of Scotland Electricity Board
• Line 44: change South Scotland Electricity Board to South of Scotland Electricity Board
• Line 67: change ‘has been’ to ‘have been’
• Line 97: full name of AERE required
• Line 237: begin new sentence at ‘The energy deficit’…

The paper is an empirically rich case study of how UK nuclear industries promoted nuclear energy production to the public. In a nuanced and engaging manner, it deals with varied themes within the nuclear discourse such as its relation to fossil fuel, its construction as an expert issue and its entanglement with natural environments. Overall, the paper makes an empirical contribution by analyzing a material that has not previously been engaged with

General Comments

The data you use, especially the guidebooks, is unclear in how they relate to the documents published by the CEGB and SSEB. The reader is left to wonder about how many guidebooks you have analyzed, why you specifically choose to analyze guidebooks and on what grounds the guidebooks would be any less the subjective political opinion of its author than news articles. How are the guidebooks linked to the nuclear industry? Who wrote them? Who published/paid for them? As you state in your conclusion (465) “This paper offers a look into the methods and materials used to publicise the very first nuclear power stations as examples of the latest technological innovation, which offers a case study examination of a formative portrayal of nuclear energy to the public.” The question of who speaks through your material is crucial to understand what it is you are analyzing.

Your employment of the concept Nuclearity engages with the nuclear as a concept “used subjectively to aid political and commercial motivations.”(70) This implies an objective way of constructing what is nuclear. You return to this in your conclusion, concluding that “nuclearity is used in a subjective manner” (457). The engagement with Hecht is otherwise sparce throughout the text. First, I would argue that if you keep the concept of nuclearity it needs to be developed further. Nuclearity is not “used” in a subjective manner, but is an ontological problem (Hecht, 2006, p. 322). As such it is not its subjectivity that is the point, but rather how the distribution (or removal) of the (political) potential to be nuclear amongst matter creates hierarchies and exerts power. Secondly, I don’t know if you need the concept of nuclearity to explain your case, it depends on what you want to say with it, and right now you are not saying a lot through the concept of nuclearity.

My last general comment also concerns theory. Your background section, in my understanding, act as a bit of a literature review, while also presenting the theories you will use to analyze your case. This section is somewhat scattered, and what concepts are to be used and which are not used isn’t really clear. Other works, such as Kasperski, comes in much later but is not mentioned here. I think some form of streamlining of this section is necessary to help the reader understand what the paper will contribute to conceptually, and furthermore, what dynamic(s) within nuclear communication you identify as crucial. One suggestion (I am sure there are many others) would be to build on what is now your most fleshed out section, Sastre-Juan and Valentines-Álvarez, 2019, theorization of exceptionality and banality in nuclear communication. If that is the route you go, then I think there would be more opportunities further into your paper to more concretely engage with how the exceptionality-banality dualism constructs ways of differentiating nuclear from other social activities through a play with emotions?

Specific Comments

64 “The article will conclude by drawing together the included and omitted narratives from each section to argue that.” I cannot really see how you do this in the conclusion? Secondly, is the papers main theme around inclusion/omission or exceptionality/banality?

information was curated and controlled to uphold a mystical image of nuclear energy to encourage public support.

104, which are the themes you are discussing?

105: The headline the mighty atom is to refer to the construction of the nuclear as spectacular. Yet what I find you talk about through the data is less the spectacular and more the construction of the nuclear as a question of expertise beyond the possibility for the ordinary citizen to grasp. More akin to the (re)construction of the nuclear as a sociotechnical problem as for example discussed by Anshelm and Galis, 2011. Of course, this could be an issue of exceptionalism, but then the technoscientific status of the nuclear object must be more clearly connected to the spectacular.

140 – 155: the connection between “children as ideal audiences” as identified by Kaspierski and the “arcane” message is unclear. Can Kaspierski instead be moved into your theory and posed and more clearly connected to the banal-exceptional dualism?

Technical Corrections

55 Technology repeated to many times, interrupts flow

105 Is the headline after the name of the guidebook? In that case it says might atom, not mighty atom in the references (475).

400+ The reference list must be seen over. I cannot find Onion 2016 or Hill 2016 (2019)? Moreover, do you refer to Fun and Fear article (520) through their journal(80)? Additionally, 485-490, Cs should be after Ce.