AW = radioactive waste
What is the reason that the necessary security requirements (protection of the biosphere - assessment of the risks of escape of radionuclides to the biosphere) for long-term storages of radioactive residues, especially uranium and thorium mill tailings and for long-term storages of radioactive waste (final disposal) with comparable inventories [activity, radiotoxicity, long-lived isotopes (half life) etc.] are valued socially so different?
Technically, risk is defined as the probability of an event (“objective” calculation) multiplied by its consequence (“subjective” evaluation). The significance of social consequences and implications of a risk event can only be surmised by taking into account the valuations of the people who may be affected.
Studies of risk perception have revealed clearly, however, that most persons have a much more comprehensive conception of risk. Clearly, other aspects of the risk such as voluntariness, personal ability to influence the risk, familiarity with the hazard, and the catastrophic potential shape public response.
The legal status of mill tailings, debated in many countries because the ambiguous origin of the waste (natural versus artificial), supports varied perceptions of it. It is relevant to note that people appear to underestimate levels of natural radioactivity.
Hi Florian,
I can argue with you not really, which corresponds to the public perception of risks!
But can an overwhelming, clearly data set and for everyone visible environmental impacts with subjective factors be so influenced, that the result stands in opposite to objective perception???
1/2 full = 1/2 empty /*2 result: full = empty
Is that right???
Many thanks for your answer
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Materials Engineering
- Powders