Abstract
The author explores two points raised by Miller Spangler in a January 1981 issue: public perception of risks involving nuclear power plants relative to those of conventional plants and criteria for evaluating the way risk analyses are made. On the first point, he concludes that translating public attitudes into the experts' language of probability and risk could provide better information and understanding of both the attitudes and the risks. Viewing risk analysis methodologies as filters which help to test historical change, he suggests that the lack of information favors a lay jury approach for energy decisions. Spangler responds that Congress is an example of lay decision making, but that a lay jury, given public disinterest and polarization, would probably not improve social justice on the nuclear issue. 5 references, 4 figures. (DCK)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
