&lsquo;More Brent Geese than ever are visiting Bradwell&rsquo;: An examination of the public-facing media messages promoting nuclear energy in the 1950s and 1960s

Potter, Wenna

doi:10.5194/sand-2025-6

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/sand-2025-6

Preprints

12 Sep 2025

| 12 Sep 2025

Status: this preprint was under review for the journal SaND. A revision for further review has not been submitted.

‘More Brent Geese than ever are visiting Bradwell’: An examination of the public-facing media messages promoting nuclear energy in the 1950s and 1960s

Wenna Potter

Abstract. In the 1950s, rapidly increasing electricity consumption prompted the conception of an ambitious nuclear energy programme in the UK. The need for nuclear was framed alongside continued building of coal and oil power stations, but promoted as a solution to the geographical and supply issues to each respectively. The process of producing electricity from nuclear fission was unknown to many, and information on the development of nuclear energy was largely government and industry led.

This paper draws together official industry media to examine how nuclear energy was promoted to the public. It will argue that aspects of process of generating nuclear electricity were framed as exceptional and mundane to ensure public enthusiasm and support. However, the narrative of the exceptional and mundane was facilitated by the systematic omission of information throughout the dissemination process, to hide elements of contest and gatekeep knowledge in an attempt to maintain the illusion.

Received: 31 Aug 2025 – Discussion started: 12 Sep 2025

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Wenna Potter

Status: closed (peer review stopped)

RC1:
'Comment on sand-2025-6', Linda Ross, 28 Oct 2025
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’…
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sand-2025-6-RC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on RC1', Wenna Potter, 05 Dec 2025
  Thank you very much for your detailed and thoughtful comments, and the time you have taken to review. All comments have been carefully considered and addressed in the revised manuscript.
  A revised section has been included in the introduction to explain the role of the UKAEA, CEGB and SSEB, and a short paragraph in the discussion to consider the why of the industry’s actions.
  
  Many thanks for your direction on literature- this was very constructive and has been included in appropriate sections.
  
  A statement outlining the current decommissioning status of the power stations discussed has been included.
  
  The structure of the article has been reviewed and adapted to meet the comments which identify the article as more descriptive than critical analysis. It is hoped this has allowed space for more critical reflection on the significance of the archival analysis.
  
  All technical corrections have been made.
  
  All additions and corrections are marked in red.
  
  Many thanks for your support with this.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sand-2025-6-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on sand-2025-6', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Oct 2025

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.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sand-2025-6-RC2
- AC2:
  'Reply on RC2', Wenna Potter, 05 Dec 2025
  Thank you for taking the time to review, and for your positive feedback and helpful comments. The manuscript has been revised to reflect this.
  The introduction to the archival material has been revised to ensure that it is clear that the guidebooks are published by the nuclear industry and discussion of the newsreels has been removed to ensure clarity of the voice speaking through the material.
  
  Discussion of the concept of nuclearity has been removed as it is probably outside the scope of the argument and material included.
  
  The background section has been edited and restructured to better reflect the content of the article. Sastre-Juan and Valentines-Álvarez’s Fun and Fear has been further reflected on, particularly in relation to emotional responses.
  
  The structure of the article has been changed to meet the revised archival content included and to hopefully ensure a more streamlined argument. A discussion section has been included to address comments regarding the focus of the article and allow expanded critical analysis.
  
  All technical corrections have been made.
  
  All additions and corrections are marked in red.
  
  Many thanks for your guidance.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sand-2025-6-AC2

Status: closed (peer review stopped)

RC1:
'Comment on sand-2025-6', Linda Ross, 28 Oct 2025
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’…
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sand-2025-6-RC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on RC1', Wenna Potter, 05 Dec 2025
  Thank you very much for your detailed and thoughtful comments, and the time you have taken to review. All comments have been carefully considered and addressed in the revised manuscript.
  A revised section has been included in the introduction to explain the role of the UKAEA, CEGB and SSEB, and a short paragraph in the discussion to consider the why of the industry’s actions.
  
  Many thanks for your direction on literature- this was very constructive and has been included in appropriate sections.
  
  A statement outlining the current decommissioning status of the power stations discussed has been included.
  
  The structure of the article has been reviewed and adapted to meet the comments which identify the article as more descriptive than critical analysis. It is hoped this has allowed space for more critical reflection on the significance of the archival analysis.
  
  All technical corrections have been made.
  
  All additions and corrections are marked in red.
  
  Many thanks for your support with this.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sand-2025-6-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on sand-2025-6', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Oct 2025

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.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sand-2025-6-RC2
- AC2:
  'Reply on RC2', Wenna Potter, 05 Dec 2025
  Thank you for taking the time to review, and for your positive feedback and helpful comments. The manuscript has been revised to reflect this.
  The introduction to the archival material has been revised to ensure that it is clear that the guidebooks are published by the nuclear industry and discussion of the newsreels has been removed to ensure clarity of the voice speaking through the material.
  
  Discussion of the concept of nuclearity has been removed as it is probably outside the scope of the argument and material included.
  
  The background section has been edited and restructured to better reflect the content of the article. Sastre-Juan and Valentines-Álvarez’s Fun and Fear has been further reflected on, particularly in relation to emotional responses.
  
  The structure of the article has been changed to meet the revised archival content included and to hopefully ensure a more streamlined argument. A discussion section has been included to address comments regarding the focus of the article and allow expanded critical analysis.
  
  All technical corrections have been made.
  
  All additions and corrections are marked in red.
  
  Many thanks for your guidance.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sand-2025-6-AC2

Wenna Potter

Viewed

Total article views: 354 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
262	60	32	354	38	60

HTML: 262
PDF: 60
XML: 32
Total: 354
BibTeX: 38
EndNote: 60

Views and downloads (calculated since 12 Sep 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Sep 2025	102	2	2	106
Oct 2025	49	17	10	76
Nov 2025	30	15	6	51
Dec 2025	38	14	8	60
Jan 2026	35	10	4	49
Feb 2026	8	2	2	12

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 12 Sep 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Sep 2025	102	2	2	106
Oct 2025	49	17	10	76
Nov 2025	30	15	6	51
Dec 2025	38	14	8	60
Jan 2026	35	10	4	49
Feb 2026	8	2	2	12

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 341 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 341 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 08 Feb 2026

Short summary

Producing electricity from nuclear fission was a new concept in the 1950s. To engage the public, the industry publicised the construction and opening of each new power station in the 1950s–60s. This article examines the industry narrative and argues that aspects were emphasized or hidden to suit the industry needs. Emphasis on scientific innovation and protection of the natural environment is evident, while elements of risk are omitted to promote an ideal method of electricity generation.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0