Die quantitative Bestimmung von Risiko

  • Stanley Kaplan
  • B. John Garrick

Zusammenfassung

Dem Leser dürfte bekannt sein, daß wir Risiken in unserem Leben nicht vermeiden können, sondern daß wir nur zwischen. Risiken wählen können. Rationale Entscheidungen setzen daher eine klare, quantitative Formulierung des Risikos voraus, so daß es im Entscheidungsprozeß zusammen mit allen anderen Kosten und Nutzen angemessen eingeschätzt werden kann.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. 1).
    W.D. Rowe, An Anatomy of Risk ( John Wiley Sons, New York, 1977 ).Google Scholar
  2. 2).
    B.L. Cohen and I.-S. Lee, A Catalogue of Risks Conference Record. IEEE Standards Workshop on Human Factors and Nuclear Safety (1979).Google Scholar
  3. 3).
    D. Okrent, Comment on societal risk. Science 208 (April 25. 1980 ).Google Scholar
  4. 4).
    Nach: Mackensen, Deutsches Wörterbuch (München, 9. Aufl. 1977 ). Kaplan und Garrick unterscheiden hier zwischen “Hazard” und “Danger”, die im Deutschen nicht trennscharf zu unterscheiden sind: “we find hazard defined as ‘a source of danger”’… gemäß: Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (G. C. Meriam Co., Springfield, 1977 ).Google Scholar
  5. 5).
    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Reactor Safety Study: Power Plants. WASH-1400 (NUREG-75/014) (October 1975).Google Scholar
  6. 6).
    B.J. Garrick and S. Kaplan, “Cost-Benefit Estimate of Transporting Spent Nuclear Fuel by Special Trains.” ANS Probabilistic Analysis of Nuclear Reactor Safety. Topical Meeting (May 1978).Google Scholar
  7. 7).
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Transportation Accident Risks in the Nuclear Power Industry. 1975–2020. NSS 8191. 1.Google Scholar
  8. 8).
    B. de Finetti, Theory of Probability. Vols. 1 and 2 ( John Wiley Sons, New York, 1974 ).Google Scholar
  9. 9).
    A. DeMorgan, Formal Logic ( Taylor and Walton, London, 1847 ).Google Scholar
  10. 10).
    D.V. Lindley. Introduction to Probability and Statistics from a Bayesian Viewpoint (Cambridge University Press, 1970 ).Google Scholar
  11. 11).
    G. Apostolakis. Probability and risk assessment: The subjectivistic viewpoint and some suggestions. Nuclear Safety 19 (3). 305–315 (May-June 1978 ).Google Scholar
  12. 12).
    H.W. Lewis et al, “Risk Assessment Review Group Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.” NUREG/CR-0400 (September 1978).Google Scholar
  13. 13).
    R.J. Breen, “Defense in Depth: Approach to Safety in Light of TMI-2.” Proceedings of American Nuclear Society$126th Annual Meeting, Las Vegas. Nevada (June 10, 1980 ).Google Scholar
  14. 14).
    S. Kaplan and B.J. Garrick, “On the use of a Bayesian reasoning in safety and reliability decisions - Three examples.” Nuclear Technology 44 (July 1979).Google Scholar
  15. 15).
    G. Apostolakis, S. Kaplan, B. Garrick and R. Duphily, Data specialization for plant specific risk studies. “ Nuclear Engineering and Design 56 (1980).Google Scholar
  16. 16).
    G. Apostolakis, S. Kaplan, B. Garrick and W. Dickter, “Assessment of the frequency of failure to scram in light-water reactors.” Nuclear Safety (1979).Google Scholar
  17. 17).
    S. Kaplan, B. Garrick and P.P. Bieniarz, “On the use of Bayes’ theorem in assessing the frequency of anticipated transients.” Nuclear Engineering and Design, to be published.Google Scholar
  18. 18).
    C. Starr, Social benefit vs. technological risk. Science 165. 1232–1238 (1969), dt. Übersetzung in diesem Band.Google Scholar
  19. 19).
    W.W. Lawrence, Of Acceptable Risk ( William Kaufmann Inc., Los Altos, 1976 ).Google Scholar
  20. 20).
    S. Kaplan, Notes on the LLL/NRC Waste Disposal Study II. Probabilistic Arithmetic, Lawrence Livermore Lab. UCRL 15005 (Also KAI-2).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Westdeutscher Verlag GmbH, Opladen 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stanley Kaplan
    • 1
  • B. John Garrick
    • 2
  1. 1.Kaplan Associates, Inc.IrvineUSA
  2. 2.Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc.USA

Personalised recommendations