Risk Assessment in the Nuclear Age

This paper is presented in the spirit of the stated intentions for the Workshop on Comparative Risk Assessment; Woods Hole, Massachusetts; March 31-April 4, 1975. A brief discussion of several topics is provided in the hope of stimulating further consideration in the area of "risk assessment". Included are observations, experiences, clinical impressions, and speculative thoughts reflective of, the writer's growing interest in this relatively new field of scientific inquiry. A particular methodology for. quantifying the perceived "risk" of various environmental hazards and/or technological advances is proposed. A more detailed and comprehensive approach to many of these issues is the aim of the author after his appointment as Research Scholar with the collaborative International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis--International Atomic Energy Agency--Project (Vienna, Austria) in June, 1975

A Psychological Perspective of the Nuclear Energy Controversy

This report concerns the following: (1) the nuclear energy debate as a focal point for a wide range of societal concerns; (2) general considerations regarding the impact of technology on society and on the individual; (3) psychological determinants in the nuclear energy controversy; (4) potential symbolic constraints posed by nuclear energy; and (5) the possible role of social-behavioral researchers in the nuclear energy debate

Social Values in Risk Acceptance

Section I outlines the general structure of risk assessment, and in Section II the process of risk assessment as applied to technological systems, such as energy systems, is discussed. The research program of the Joint IAEA/IIASA Project is reported in Section III and some preliminary results are presented. Details of the Joint Project staffing and organization are presented in the Appendix

Perception of Technological Risks: The Effect of Confrontation

The response of the individual to potentially threatening situations is based upon his perception of the hazard involved. In this pilot study, 148 subjects were asked to quantitatively rank the hazard they felt to be involved in living near seven different types of technological facility. The subjects were divided into four groups: AN, living about 500 m away from a research reactor; AF, living about 1.4 km away from this reactor; two small groups living at similar distances from a district heating facility and a control group about 10 km distant from both facilities. All groups, except AN, found the item "nuclear reactor" to be the most hazardous (total sample, 3.1 on a 4 point scale). Group AN (N = 32) found this item to be the third most hazardous, 2.88/4.0; group AF (N = 31) rated the item 3.55/4.0. The difference in this response between groups AN and AF is highly significant (Mann-Whitney U-test p <= 1%). Several explanations for this finding are discussed

A Systems Analysis Approach to Nuclear Facility Siting

In recent years there has been a growing tendency in science to conduct multi-disciplinary studies of large-scale systems. These studies include the entire spectrum of economic, technological, environmental and societal factors which characterize the complex problems of advanced industrialized societies. One of the more promising ways of addressing these problems is the broad research strategy of applied systems analysis. Basically this is a rational approach to problem-solving which attempts to identify and model interactions between the systems under study and all other systems. This results in a thorough understanding of the system being studied which may then serve as an aid in decision-making. This paper attempts to demonstrate an application of the techniques of systems analysis, which have been successful in solving a variety of problems, to the question of nuclear facility siting

The Determinants of Risk Perception: The Active-Passive Dimension

In this paper the suitability of using photographs as a testing technique for identifying additional factors as determinants of risk perception is discussed. A survey was performed, showing 30 slides to 222 respondents (90 males, 132 females). The risk situations presented were to be evaluated on a rating scale. Factor analytical treatment of data revealed two factors, where the first factor can be interpreted as a "general risk" factor. The second factor displayed a two-dimensional structure, the poles of which were designated "active" and "passive" with regard to the persons depicted in the various, situations. The "active" dimension is described by a permanent struggle with the event, whereas the "passive" dimension is characterized by a submissive ability of endurance with little influence through personal skill on the situation. Technological risk situations (i.e., interaction between man and his technical environment) are mainly located on the passive side of this bi-polar continuum. Here also statistically significant differences between male and female respondents were found

A systems analysis approach to nuclear facility siting

This paper attempts to demonstrate an application of the techniques of systems analysis, which have been successful in solving a variety of problems, to the question of nuclear facility siting. Within the framework of an overall, regional land use plan, a methodology for establishing the acceptability of a combination of site and facility is discussed. The consequences, e.g., the energy produced, thermal and chemical discharges, radioactive releases, aesthetic values, etc., of the site-facility combination are identified and compared with formalized criteria in order to ensure what might be called legal acceptability. Failure of any consequences to satisfy standard requirements results in a feedback channel which works to effect design changes in the facility. When legal acceptability has been assured, the project enters the public sector for consideration. The responses of individuals and of various interested groups to the external attributes of the nuclear facility gradually emerge. The criteria by which interest groups judge technological advances reflect both rational assessment and unconscious motivations. This process operates on individual, group, societal and international levels and may result in two basic feedback loops: one which might act to change regulatory criteria; the other which might influence facility design or site selection. Such reactions and responses on these levels result in a continuing process of confrontation, collaborative interchange and possible resolution in the direction of an acceptable solution. Finally, a Paretian approach to optimizing the site-facility combination is presented for the case where there are several possible combinations of site and facility. A hypothetical example of the latter is given, based upon typical preference functions determined for four interest groups. The article summarizes the research efforts of the Project on Energy systems of the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis, IIASA, in Laxenburg, Austria, and its joint research project with the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, on risk assessment