Abstract
This conference has emphasized the difficulty in estimating energy-entailed health risks engendered by the differences between objective measures of risk - the estimated real or actual risk of a process - and the subjective perception of these risks. The subjective perception of risk colours the thinking of most decision-makers (including governments and their regulatory bodies), likewise the public. This confusion (apart from any fundamental psychological processes that may be involved) stems from the following: 1. Assessment of the health effects from different energy systems has had only brief and sparsely supported investigations to date, e.g., only seven years ago did government agencies in the USA evince interest in assessing their health effects. Less than seven years ago was there funding for work at Brookhaven. 2. Assessment differs from research. Assessing the health and environmental costs of energy production and use requires scrutiny of various diverse areas of research. Research is needed to define the pollutants emitted by various stages in various fuel cycles, including end-use, and to trace, then quantitate their chemical transformations, transport, including chemical and biological conversion through air, water, food, finally reaching man and important animals and crops. 3. In assessment, because of the state of knowledge
More>>
Hamilton, L D
[1]
- Brookhaven National Lab., Upton, NY (USA)
Citation Formats
Hamilton, L D.
Comparative risks from different energy systems: Evolution of the methods of studies.
IAEA: N. p.,
1980.
Web.
Hamilton, L D.
Comparative risks from different energy systems: Evolution of the methods of studies.
IAEA.
Hamilton, L D.
1980.
"Comparative risks from different energy systems: Evolution of the methods of studies."
IAEA.
@misc{etde_5523252,
title = {Comparative risks from different energy systems: Evolution of the methods of studies}
author = {Hamilton, L D}
abstractNote = {This conference has emphasized the difficulty in estimating energy-entailed health risks engendered by the differences between objective measures of risk - the estimated real or actual risk of a process - and the subjective perception of these risks. The subjective perception of risk colours the thinking of most decision-makers (including governments and their regulatory bodies), likewise the public. This confusion (apart from any fundamental psychological processes that may be involved) stems from the following: 1. Assessment of the health effects from different energy systems has had only brief and sparsely supported investigations to date, e.g., only seven years ago did government agencies in the USA evince interest in assessing their health effects. Less than seven years ago was there funding for work at Brookhaven. 2. Assessment differs from research. Assessing the health and environmental costs of energy production and use requires scrutiny of various diverse areas of research. Research is needed to define the pollutants emitted by various stages in various fuel cycles, including end-use, and to trace, then quantitate their chemical transformations, transport, including chemical and biological conversion through air, water, food, finally reaching man and important animals and crops. 3. In assessment, because of the state of knowledge (or lack of it), one frequently must make do with, say, only 60 per cent certainty rather than with the 95 per cent significance level that one strives to achieve from research. This statistical gap itself attracts special interest groups, e.g., governments and utilities, who, from the earliest beginnings of comparative assessments, have for one or another reason exploited confusion between reality and perception of risk.}
journal = []
volume = {22:5/6}
journal type = {AC}
place = {IAEA}
year = {1980}
month = {Oct}
}
title = {Comparative risks from different energy systems: Evolution of the methods of studies}
author = {Hamilton, L D}
abstractNote = {This conference has emphasized the difficulty in estimating energy-entailed health risks engendered by the differences between objective measures of risk - the estimated real or actual risk of a process - and the subjective perception of these risks. The subjective perception of risk colours the thinking of most decision-makers (including governments and their regulatory bodies), likewise the public. This confusion (apart from any fundamental psychological processes that may be involved) stems from the following: 1. Assessment of the health effects from different energy systems has had only brief and sparsely supported investigations to date, e.g., only seven years ago did government agencies in the USA evince interest in assessing their health effects. Less than seven years ago was there funding for work at Brookhaven. 2. Assessment differs from research. Assessing the health and environmental costs of energy production and use requires scrutiny of various diverse areas of research. Research is needed to define the pollutants emitted by various stages in various fuel cycles, including end-use, and to trace, then quantitate their chemical transformations, transport, including chemical and biological conversion through air, water, food, finally reaching man and important animals and crops. 3. In assessment, because of the state of knowledge (or lack of it), one frequently must make do with, say, only 60 per cent certainty rather than with the 95 per cent significance level that one strives to achieve from research. This statistical gap itself attracts special interest groups, e.g., governments and utilities, who, from the earliest beginnings of comparative assessments, have for one or another reason exploited confusion between reality and perception of risk.}
journal = []
volume = {22:5/6}
journal type = {AC}
place = {IAEA}
year = {1980}
month = {Oct}
}