對核能的認知框架影響政治爭論甚深,而既有研究對於福島核災之後的政治爭論,多半著眼於經濟價值和風險認知兩個理論典範。本研究則重新指出認知框架面向的轉變的重要性,福島核災之後的最關鍵轉變,則是從原先以「正當性」為主的討論,轉向「防範危害」的總體認知。藉由回顧福島核災前後台灣核能政治當中的代表性爭議,以凸顯此一轉變的關鍵性。傳統上核能政治爭議以正當性追求為主要的議程,廢核四到復建核四的相關爭議當中,造成以法制、程序為名,實質上利用「能源產值」與「風險」議題進行黨派性的爭辯。然而,在福島核災之後,核能政治爭議轉向對核電主管機關能否防範核能運作的潛在危害,並呈現於政治爭議當中對核能機關「專業權威」質疑和檢視。
Frame of NUKE is significant on nuclear-political debates. Existing research has concentrated on risk perception and economic losses. The paper proposes that from "legitimacy" to "hazard" was the key frame change to know how Fukushima catastrophe formulated the debates of nuclear poltics in Taiwan's public sphere. By means of comparing two typical disputes before/after Fukushima disaster, it shows that the critical transformation happened. During the period of 2000-2001, it was the main task to scramble for legitimacy in nuclear political debates. Politicians struggled with their opponents through economic interests and nuclear risk, in the name of procedural justice. After Fukushima, the debates shifted toward whether nuclear competent authority's limited expertise on protection from hazard.