Have the Nuclear Power Risk Assessors Failed?

  • Leonard A. Sagan
Part of the Environmental Science Research book series (ESRH, volume 21)


Over the past several years, a number of investigators have attempted estimates of the risks to health from the operation of nuclear power plants1. Quite consistently these studies have concluded that the generation of electricity from nuclear fuels is no more hazardous, and may well be considerably less hazardous, than generation of an equal quantity of electrical energy from, conventional sources, and in one study from solar generation2. Other studies demonstrate that nuclear generation is more economic than generation from fossil fuels, and the growing worldwide commitment to nuclear by private utilities suggests that their experience is consistent with that conclusion.


Nuclear Power Plant Public Concern Fuel Cycle Occupational Risk Risk Assessment Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. (1).
    Comar, C. and Sagan, L.: Health Effects of Energy Production and Conversion. Ann. Rev. of Energy, 1, 581–600, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. (2).
    Inhaber, H.: Risk with Energy from Conventional and Nonconventional Sources. Science, 203:718–23, 1979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. (3).
    Starr, C.: Social benefit versus technological risk. Science, 165:1232–1238 (1969)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. (4).
    Slovic, P.: Images of Disaster: Perception and acceptance of risks from nuclear power. In Perceptions of Risk, Proc. Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Washington, D.C., Mar. 14–15, 1979Google Scholar
  5. (5).
    United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation: Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. 1977 Report to thre General Assembly, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. (6).
    Kristol, I.: Two Cheers for Capitalism. Basic Books, N.Y., pg. XI (1978)Google Scholar
  7. (7).
    Reed, J. and Wilkes, J.: Nuclear Knowledge and Nuclear Attitudes: An Examination of Informed Opinion. Unpublished ManuscriptGoogle Scholar
  8. (8).
    DuPont, R.L.: Nuclear Phobia—Phobic Thinking About Nuclear Power. The Media Institute, Washington, D.C. (1980)Google Scholar
  9. (9).
    Fox, R.C.: The Evolution of Medical Uncertainty. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 58 1–49, 1980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. (10).
    Thomas, L.: The Medusa and the Snail. New York: Viking, 1979.Google Scholar
  11. (11).
    Lovins, A.: Soft Energy Paths. Ballinger Publishing Co., Cambridge, Mass., p. 56 (1977)Google Scholar
  12. (12).
    Report of the President’s Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island. Washington, D.C., Oct. 30, 1979Google Scholar
  13. (13).
    Starr, C. and Whipple, C.: Risks of Risk Decisions. Science, 208:1114–1119 (1980)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. (14).
    Clark W.: Witches, Floods, and Wonder Drugs. Proc. of Symposium on Societal Risk Assessment sponsored by General Motors Corp., Warren, Mich., Oct. 7–9, 1979 (in press, Plenum Press, 1980)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leonard A. Sagan
    • 1
  1. 1.Electric Power Research InstitutePalo AltoUSA

Personalised recommendations