|Statement||edited by Roger E. Kasperson & Jeanne X. Kasperson.|
|Series||The risks & hazards series,, 4, Risks & hazards series ;, 4.|
|Contributions||Kasperson, Roger E., Kasperson, Jeanne X., Beijer Institute., Kungl. Svenska vetenskapsakademien.|
|LC Classifications||TK9153 .N857 1987|
|The Physical Object|
|Pagination||xiii, 242 p. :|
|Number of Pages||242|
|LC Control Number||87012588|
Title(s): Nuclear risk analysis in comparative perspective: the impacts of large-scale risk assessment in five countries/ edited by Roger E. Kasperson & Jeanne X. Kasperson. Country of Publication: United States Publisher: Boston: Allen & Unwin, Nuclear Risk Analysis in Comparative Perspective: The Impacts of Large-Scale Risk Assessment in Five Countries Creator Kasperson, Roger E. and Kasperson, Jeanne X. Nuclear Risk Analysis in Comparative Perspective: The Impacts of Large-Scale Nuclear Risk Asessment in Five Countries. London: Allen and Unwin. Risk Management and Political Culture: A Comparative Author: Maurie Cohen. The book concludes with a discussion on passive safety features of advanced nuclear energy systems under development and approaches taken for risk-informed regulations for nuclear plants. Author Bios JOHN C. LEE, PhD, has been Professor of Nuclear Engineering at the University of Michigan since , following five years of employment at.
Vohra, K.G.: , A Perspective on the Radiation Protection Problem and Risk Analysis for the Nuclear Era. Presented at the International Conference on Nuclear Power and Its Fuel Cycle; International Atomic Energy Agency, Salzburg, Austria, May, Google Scholar. Nuclear safely The future role of risk assessment in nuclear safety by R. Niehaus* The past decade has seen a growing number of scientific publications [ 1 ] and conferences on risk assess ment. In some countries professional societies for risk analysis have been founded. Risk assessment studies have been performed on such diverse problems as. A Comparative Analysis of Accident Risks in Fossil, Hydro, and Nuclear Energy Chains. ENSAD database, severe accident, energy sector, comparative risk as-sessment, external costs. His publications include Communicating Risks to the Public (with J. Stallen, ), Nuclear Risks in Comparative Perspective (), Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Hazard Management (with J. X. Kasperson, ), and Regions at Risk (with J. X. Kasperson and B. L. Turner, ).
This book describes a number of the more important improvements in risk assessment methodology in the nuclear industry, developed over the last decade. It presents them in an instructive way so as to be suitable for those wishing to understand the techniques. The methodology of modern probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) is discussed in detail. Risk from an objective perspective means the probability and possibility that a certain event will occur, while risk from a subjective perspective is the perceived risk of an individual that may be affected by fear, control, seriousness, familiarity, or conviction (Cha, , Slovic et al., ). Most research on the effect of risk on public. This publication draws on the results of a coordinated research project on comparative analysis of methods and tools for knowledge preservation in nuclear organizations. The project was initiated by the IAEA in order to enhance the capacity of Member States to maintain and preserve the information and knowledge resources related to the peaceful. Abstract. The Fukushima nuclear disaster presented a familiar scenario from a risk perception standpoint. It combined a classic “dread risk” (radioactivity), a punctuating event (the disaster itself), and resultant stigmatization (involving worldwide repercussions for nuclear power).