Welcome the Homepage of the New Hampshire Comparative Risk Projec
NH Comparative Risk Project Public Advisory Group Rationales for Nuclear Issues
The following table summarizes the rationales for ranking identified by Public Advisory Group (PAG) members during a ranking session on 8 June 1998 where two nuclear issues were ranked into the larger list of 53 risks. Rationales are synthesized from three small group sessions and the large group discussion prior to re-ranking. Brief definition of each nuclear issue is summarized from the technical reports. Rationales were sorted into one of five categories of consideration.
KEY: l = Rationales with no consensus on facts "s/b" = should be "b/c" = because
NON-REACTOR SOURCES OF RADIATION are non-federally regulated sources of radiation exposure or waste from either of two main sources: (1) Low level radioactive waste includes liquid or solid material such as filters, paper, protective clothing, tools, or equipment contaminated by radioactive elements or isotopes; and (2) non-reactor radioactive materials used in diagnostic and therapeutic medicine, industrial gauges and instruments, calibration of specialized equipment, and various research applications.
| ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY | PUBLIC HEALTH | QUALITY OF LIFE | ECONOMIC | OTHER |
| almost no exposure except accidental, with no record of significant or even measurable impact | l risk similar to X-rays, but s/b higher b/c some benefits from X-rays | exposure potential somewhat widespread | reasonably well-managed with current regulation | |
| l exposure far less than to X-rays | absence of disposal sites in NH | should be higher if consider risk of exposure from shipping out of state | ||
| l cumulative effects of smaller exposure could be significant | can individually self-manage any fear of exposure | potential for exposure or mismanagement is high b/c so widespread | ||
| l limited, low level exposure and distribution | l generally we know a lot about location, exposure, and lack of effects | much more known about high level exposure effects than low level | ||
| only very local effects | ||||
| l no evidence of effects from low level exposure |
NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED RADIOACTIVE WASTE (Seabrook and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plants and Portsmouth Naval Shipyard): facilities that create and maintain controlled nuclear fission reactions for the purpose of either generating electricity or producing nuclear materials for defense or biomedical use. Reactors generate both high and low level radioactive waste—only high level waste from spent fuel elements is considered here (low level wastes are included in Non-Reactor Sources of Radiation above).
| ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY | PUBLIC HEALTH | QUALITY OF LIFE | ECONOMIC | OTHER |
| concern with long-term effects of major accidental release | concern about synergistic effect of exposure to radioactive and other releases | data on "background’ exposure helps put potential risk into perspective | maintenance of storage equipment to prevent deterioration very expensive | l biggest concern is uncertain prospect for long term waste storage and mgmt. after disposal |
| don’t know effects of chronic exposure (too difficult to establish "safe" level) | don’t know effects of chronic exposure (too difficult to establish "safe" level) | more fear-based concerns, b/c more actual personal illness, injury, deaths with other risks (such as "extreme weather") | cost of controls and safeguards too expensive | l storage is political, not technical problem |
| more harm to date from 100+ years of fossil fuel use and emissions | huge uncertainty of catastrophic event | |||
| clean power, air pollutant emissions low | significant gap about costs and effects of decommissioning | |||
| waste more controllable than air pollutant emissions | highly regulated, so probability of a major release is very low | |||
| enforcement of regulations is questionable | ||||
| effects of 3 Mile Island very localized | ||||
| note that if government not around to manage these wastes, probably all other risks would increase also, b/c it would indicate major society-wide problem(s) | ||||
| Only major problems at 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl demonstrated that safeguards worked, and much learned since then | ||||
| of concern b/c global distribution of large quantities of waste | ||||
| other problems are more immediate, unless there is a catastrophic event/release. |
GENERAL COMMENTS:
Group experienced more substantive and wide ranging differences of opinion than for other risks. Seems like a different type of risk.
After a generation of use, we know a great deal about exposure and effects of higher levels of exposure, but don’t know about cumulative or synergistic effects of low level exposure.
Regulation of both non-reactor and reactor sources seems effective in reducing current risk; future risks uncertain.
No demonstrated public or ecological health impacts yet—in contrast to many other risks.
Shipping low or high level wastes out of state leaves a question of "conscience".
Issue demonstrates lack of ability to plan long term for long term issues.
Motercalo - Netlinking Casino -- Referencement - Fiches Pedagogiques - Annuaire