Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Science, Politics and Morality pp 43–60Cite as

Probabilistic Uncertainty and Technological Risks

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Theory and Decision Library ((TDLA,volume 17))

Abstract

New applications of science and technology are typically saddled with high levels of uncertainty. Whether one is dealing with genetically engineered organisms, hazardous chemicals, or energy facilities, new applications of science and technology have not withstood the test of time. Safe periods of operating experience have not been established because, by defmition, the applications are new, and many of their risks are unknown.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. A. Weinberg, “Risk Assessment, Regulation, and the Limits, ” in Phenotypic Variation in Populations, ed. A. Woodhead, M. Bender, and R. Leonard (New York: Plenum, 1988), pp. 121–128; hereafter cited as: Weinberg, Risk 1988, in Woodhead, Variation 1988.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. M. Maxey, “Managing Low-Level Radioactive Wastes”, in Low- Level Radioactive Waste Management (Williamsburg, Virginia: Health Physics Society, 1979), pp. 400–409.

    Google Scholar 

  3. See, for example, B. Cohen, “Risk Analyses of Buried Wastes, ” in The Risk of Environmental and Human Health Hazards, ed. D. J. Paustenbach (New York: John Wiley, 1989), p. 575; hereafter cited as: Cohen, Risk 1989, in Paustenbach, RA 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  4. See also C. Whipple, “Nonpessimistic Risk Assessment, ” in Paustenbach, RA 1989, pp. 1112–1113; hereafter cited as: Whipple, Risk 1989. Finally

    Google Scholar 

  5. see B. Cohen and I. Lee, “A Catalog of Risks, ” Health Physics 36, no. 6 (1979): 707;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. W. Hafele, “Energy, ” in Science, Technology, and the Human Prospect, ed. C. Starr and P. Ritterbush (New York: Pergamon, 1979), p. 139;

    Google Scholar 

  7. W. Hafele, Starr, “Benefit- Cost Studies in Sociotechnical Systems,” in Perspectives on Benefit-Risk Decision Making, ed. Committee on Public Engineering Policy (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Engineering, 1972), p.26–27, hereafter cited as: BCS; and L. Lave, “Discussion”, in Symposium/Workshop... Risk Assessment and Governmental Decision Making, ed. Mitre Corporation (McLean, Virginia: Mitre Corporation, 1979), p. 484, hereafter cited as: Symposium.

    Google Scholar 

  8. See, for example, Cohen, Risk 1989, p. 575, and Whipple, Risk 1989, pp. 1112–1113. See also K. S. Shrader-Frechette, “Economics, Risk-Cost Benefit Analy-sis, and the Linearity Assumption, ” in PSA 1982, ed. P. Asquith and T. Nickles (East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association, 1982), and

    Google Scholar 

  9. K. S. Shrader-Frechette, Risk and Rationality (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), ch. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  10. L. Cox and P. Ricci, “Legal and Philosophical Aspects of Risk Analysis, ” in Paustenbach, RA 1989, pp. 1017–1046; hereafter cited as: Cox and Ricci, Legal 1989. See also

    Google Scholar 

  11. W. Rowe, An Anatomy of Risk (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1977), p. 926; hereafter cited as: Anatomy.

    Google Scholar 

  12. B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic, and S. Lichtenstein, “Facts and Fears, ” in Societal Risk Assessment, ed. R. Schwing and W. Albers (New York: Plenum, 1980), p. 207; here-after cited as: FF and SRA.

    Google Scholar 

  13. See also R. Kates and A. Weinberg, et al., Hazards: Technology and Fairness (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1986), Part 2; hereafter cited as: Kates, Hazards 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  14. S. Samuels, “The Arrogance of Intellectual Power, ” in Woodhead, Variation 1988, pp. 113–120; hereafter cited as: Samuels, Power 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  15. See also P. D. Pahner, “The Psychological Displacement of Anxiety: An Application to Nuclear Energy, ” in Risk-Benefit Methodology and Application, ed. D. Okrent (Los Angeles: UCLA School of Engineering and Applied Science, 1975), p. 575; hereafter cited as: RBMA.

    Google Scholar 

  16. P. Gleick and J. Holdren, “Assessing the Environmental Risks of Energy, ” in American Journal of Public Health71, no. 9 (September 1981): 1046; hereafter cited as: Gleick and Holdren, Risk 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  17. See also A. J. Van Horn and R. Wilson, “The Status of Risk-Benefit Analysis, ” discussion paper (Cambridge, Massachussetts: Harvard University Energy and Environmental Policy Center, 1976), p. 19.

    Google Scholar 

  18. B. Cohen, Risk 1989, pp. 575–575. See also C. Starr and Whipple, “Risks of Risk Decisions, ” Science 208, no. 4448 (June 6, 1980): 1116; hereafter cited as: Risks.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Starr, BCS, pp. 26–27.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Starr, BCS, pp. 29–27.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cohen, Risk 1989, p. 575. Starr and Whipple, Risks, p. 1116; and Starr, Current Issues in Energy (New York: Pergamon Press, 1979), pp. 16–17.

    Google Scholar 

  22. H. Otway, “Risk Assessment and the Social Response to Nuclear Power, ” Journal of the British Nuclear Engineering Society 16, no. 4 (1977): 331; hereafter cited as: Response.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Otway, Response, p. 331.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Otway, Response, p. 332.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Otway, Response, p. 332.

    Google Scholar 

  26. E. Lawless, Technology and Social Shock (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1977), pp. 497–498, 512; hereafter cited as: TSS.

    Google Scholar 

  27. J. W. Falco and R. Moraski, “Methods Used in the United States for the Assessment and Management of Health Risk Due to Chemicals, ” in Risk Management of Chemicals in the Environment, ed. H. M. Seip and A. B. Heiberg (New York: Plenum, 1989), pp. 37–60; hereafter cited as: Falco and Moraski, Methods 1989, in seip and Heiberg, Risk 1989.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. R. Reitz, F. Smith, et al, “Use of Physiological Pharmacokinetics in Cancer Risk Assessments, ” in The Risk Assessment of Environmental and Human Health Hazards, ed. D. J. Paustenbach, RA 1989, pp. 238–265, esp. p. 258; hereafter cited as: Reitz, Risk 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Falco and Moraski, Methods 1989, p. 55.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lawless, TSS, pp. 349–357, 434–435, 490.

    Google Scholar 

  31. See note 6 and B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read and B. Combs, “How Safe is Safe Enough?” Policy Sciences 9, no. 2 (1978): 150; hereafter cited as: HSSE. See also Cox and Ricci, Legal 1989, pp. 1017–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Fischhoff et al, FF, p. 192.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Fischhoff et al., FF, p. 192.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Fischhoff et al, HSSE, pp. 140–142, and FF, p. 202. See also R. Kasper, “Percep-tions of Risk and Their Effects on Decision Making, ” in Schwing and Albers, SRA, p. 75; hereafter cited as: Perceptions.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Fischhoff et al, HSSE, pp. 148–149; and H. Green, “Cost- Benefit Assessment and the Law, ” George Washington Law Review 45, no. 5 (1977): 909–910.

    Google Scholar 

  36. See also L. Clarke, Acceptable Risk? (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), pp. 178–182; hereafter cited as: Clarke, Risk 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Fischhoff et al, FF, p. 208; and Rowe, Anatomy, p. 290. See Cox and Ricci, Legal 1989, pp. 1036–1037.

    Google Scholar 

  38. J. Yellin, “Judicial Review and Nuclear Power,” George Washington Law Review 45, no. 5 (1977): 992; hereafter cited as: JRNP.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Yellin, JRNP, p. 987. See Whipple, Risk 1989, p. 1111.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Yellin, JRNP, pp. 983–984.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Yellin, JRNP, pp. 987–988. See P. Huber, “The Bhopalization of American Tort Law, ” in Kates, Hazards 1986, pp. 89–110; hereafter cited as: Huber, Tort 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Clarke, Risk 1989, p. 181.

    Google Scholar 

  43. R.N. Andrews, “Environmental Impact Assessment and Risk Assessment, ” in Environmental Impact Assessment, ed. Peter Wathern (London: Unwin Hyman, 1988), pp. 85–97; hereafter cited as: Andrews, RA 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Starr and Whipple, Risks, p. 1116.

    Google Scholar 

  45. NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, WASH-1400 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975), pp. 15, 40, 96–97, 224; hereafter cited as: NRC.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Cox and Ricci, Legal 1989, p. 1027.

    Google Scholar 

  47. D. Okrent and C. Whipple, Approach to Societal Risk Acceptance Criteria and Risk Management, PB-271264 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1975), p. 10. For methylene Chloride risk Information, see Falco and Moraski, Methods 1989, and Reitz, Risk 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  48. W. Lowrance, “The Nature of Risk, ” in Schwing and Albers, SRA, p. 6; hereafter cited as: NR. See Rowe, Anatomy, p. 264.

    Google Scholar 

  49. W. Fairley, “Criteria for Evaluating the ‘Small’ Probability, ” in Okrent, RBMA, p. 425; hereafter cited as: Criteria.

    Google Scholar 

  50. See Notes 18 and 19. See also NRC, Appendix XI, 2–1–2–14; W. Hafele, “Benefit-Risk Tradeoffs in Nuclear Power Generation, ” in Energy and the Environment: A Risk-Benefit Approach, ed. H. Ashley, R. Ashley, R. Rudman, and C. Whipple (New York: Pergamon, 1976), pp. 159–169; Lieberman, GH, pp. 250–255. See Whipple, Risk 1989, and Cohen, Risk 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Gleick and Holdren, Risks 1981, p. 1046.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Gleick and Holdren, Risks 1981, pp. 1046, 1049. R. Zeckhauser, “Procedures for Valuing Lives, ” Public Policy 23, no. 4 (1975): 445; Committee on Public Engineering Policy, Perspectives on Benefit-Risk Decision Making (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Engineering, 1972), p. 10. See also Lowrance, NR, p. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  53. N. C. Rasmussen, “Methods of Hazard Analysis and Nuclear Safety Engineering, ” in The Three Mile Island Nuclear Accident, ed. T. Moss and D. Sill (New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1981), p. 29.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Fairley, Criteria, p. 406–407.

    Google Scholar 

  55. L. Philipson, “Panel, ” in Mitre Corporation, Symposium, p. 246.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Fischhoff et al., HSSE, pp. 144–149, 215. See Cox and Ricci, Legal 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Kasper, Perceptions, p. 73. D. Cleverly, et al., Municipal Waste Combustion Study (New York: Taylor and Francis, 1989), pp. A-10, 2–6, 2–12, and 3–18, for examples of these uncertainties.

    Google Scholar 

  58. L. Cox and P. Ricci, “Risk, Uncertainty, and Causation, ” in Paustenbach, RA 1989, p. 151;

    Google Scholar 

  59. See also L. Maxim, “Problems Associated with the Use of Conservative Assumptions in Exposure and Risk Analysis, ” in Paustenbach, RA 1989, pp. 526 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  60. A. Lovins, “Cost-Risk-Benefit Assessment in Energy Policy, ” George Washington Law Review 45, no. 5 (1977): 926. Similar problems are expressed, for example, by

    Google Scholar 

  61. J. Harkins, E. Scott, and W. Walsh, “A Legal Viewpoint, ” in Woodhead, Variation 1988, pp. 218 ff.;

    Google Scholar 

  62. see also R. Cortesi, “Variation in Individual Response, ” in Woodhead, Variation 1988, pp. 288–289.

    Google Scholar 

  63. NRC, pp. 108–109, 118, 186, 239, 245–246.

    Google Scholar 

  64. See Cohen, Risk 1989, p. 575, and Whipple, Risk 1989, pp. 1111–1113. See also K. S. Shrader-Frechette, Risk and Rationality (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), ch. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  65. H. Stretton, Capitalism, Socialism, and the Environment (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1976), p. 51; hereafter cited as: CSE. See Andrews, RA 1988, pp. 85–97.

    Google Scholar 

  66. D. Dickson, The Politics of Alternative Technology (New York: Universe Books, 1975), p. 189; hereafter cited as: PAT. See also

    Google Scholar 

  67. See also K. S. Shrader-Frechette, Risk and Rationality (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), chs. 2 and 5.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Dickson, PAT, and Stretton, CSE.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Samuels, Power 1988, p. 118.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Cited in D. Bazelon, “Risk and Responsibility, ” Science 205, no. 4403 (1979): 277–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of South Florida, USA

    Kristin S. Shrader-Frechette

Authors
  1. Kristin S. Shrader-Frechette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Brabant, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    René Von Schomberg

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1993 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Shrader-Frechette, K.S. (1993). Probabilistic Uncertainty and Technological Risks. In: Von Schomberg, R. (eds) Science, Politics and Morality. Theory and Decision Library, vol 17. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8143-1_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8143-1_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4211-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-015-8143-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation