Risk perception and energy infrastructure

[KimChin]

Real interesting collection of reports to the Science & Technology Committee on Risk perception and energy infrastructure (PDF at the bottom of the message). Reports contributed by:

00 - Department of Energy & Climate Change
01 - PCAH (Parents Concerned About Hinkley)
02 - National Physical Laboratory
03 - Royal Society of Chemistry
04 - Professor Wade Allison
05 - British Geological Survey
06 - Mr Fred Dawson
07 - Martin J Goodfellow and Adisa Azapagic
08 - Professor Tom Horlick-Jones
09 - Royal Statistical Society
10 - Georges Mercadal
11 - Nuclear Industry Association
12 - EDF Energy
13 -The Society for Radiological Protection
14 - Applied Policy Sciences Unit, University of Central Lancashire
15 - Sedgemoor District Council
16 - The Geological Society of London
17 - Sense about Science
18 - Greenpeace
19 - Energy Networks Association

[Fedya Rovic]

Impressive list of papers, Kimchin. I haven't read all of them, yet, but I like the fact that they come from such varied sources. And, I think papers and analyses of this type are very important, because most of us don't really have a good handle on risk. We all have our own perspectives on it and that's fine, but many (most ?) of us usually confuse risk, danger and fear. Nevermind being able to compare two processes on their relative risk.

Thanks again for posting the report. I used to visit this forum once in a while, but I now find myself visiting multiple times a day. Your posts, those of Hellen22 and the other posters make this an awesome place to come for info.

Keep them coming!

[KimChin]

Thanks They are indeed interesting and there is lots of interesting information out there, I wish I din't have to work for a living so that I could spend my days reading "interesting" stuff and learning things.

Was any of the specific reports of particular interest to you? Just wondering...

[Fedya Rovic]

I liked professor Allison's paper. I haven't read his book, but I did get the book's conclusions that he references in the paper and have attached it below for everyone here. He makes a lot of good points and I think he talks to the points of the "other" paper that I like by the "Parents Concerned About Hinkley". As a matter of fact, I think that group makes a very good point. Very often the experts of the industry talk down to them, as in "you are not smart enough to understand this complicated subject, so I won't bother trying to explain it". And that attitude doesn't make people any less "against" the Nuclear industry, if anything it frustrates them and makes them oppose it even more.

Anyway, the other papers from the collection, that I read, are pretty good, but these two I think deal with the primary goal which is to really understand nuclear risk. Of course, other opinions may vary.

There was also a small format book for dummies that was published in the U.K. by Logica a while ago, "New Nuclear Power for Dummies", ISBN 978-1-119-96247-2. If you can get your hands on a copy, I strongly recommend it. Very good for relaying concepts to those not specializing in the field.

Oh, yeah, and here are the conclusions of Prof. Wade Allison's book (Radiation and Reason).

[GradPhys]

I think this may be what you are talking about.

New Nuclear Power for Dummies
http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/260 ... 2603b328/1

It is indeed a very interesting booklet, written so that most people of all disciplines can understand it.

Also, here is another "risk-type" book/paper that I think may be of interest to others here,