Nuclear controversy and the limitations of decision-making by experts. [Example of California initiative]
Policy makers must stop waiting for technical consensus where none is possible, and concentrate instead of how to minimize the social costs of uncertainty. The author feels that the California Nuclear Safeguards initiative presents such an opportunity. Answers are not in unison about the toxicity of plutonium, the probability of certain kinds of reactor accidents, about damage a large accident wuld cause, or about the adequacy of various proposals for the management of radioactive wastes. The author explains why he believes the inability of experts to agree on such issues exists for such matters as power plant security and safeguards for special nuclear materials; he then explains what it means for the formation of nuclear policy in general. The toughest questions cannot be resolved by technical expertise, but the experts should clarify the options and the range of technical uncertainty as best they can. The public-policy question in the nuclear controversy deals mostly with weighing risks against benefits; for example, weighing the high routine impact of some technologies (e.g., burning coal) against the small chance of a big disaster associated with others (e.g., nuclear reactors). This places the major decisions in the hands of those most directly accountable to the public through the political process. The California initiative is explained in detail. (MCW)
- Research Organization:
- Univ. of California, Berkeley
- OSTI ID:
- 7199950
- Journal Information:
- Bull. At. Sci.; (United States), Vol. 32:3
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Risk reporting in the Chinese news media in response to radiation threat from the Fukushima nuclear reactor crisis
California Nuclear Safeguards Initiative