IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v15y2021i4p1304-1325.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Empires built on sand: On the fundamental implausibility of reactor safety assessments and the implications for nuclear regulation

Author

Listed:
  • John Downer
  • M. V. Ramana

Abstract

This paper explores the nature of expert knowledge‐claims made about catastrophic reactor accidents and the processes through which they are produced. Using the contested approval of the AP1000 reactor by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as a case study and drawing on insights from the Science and Technology Studies (STS) literature, it finds that the epistemological foundations of safety assessments are counterintuitively distinct from most engineering endeavors. As a result, it argues, those assessments (and thus their authority) are widely misconstrued by publics and policymakers. This misconstrual, it concludes, has far‐reaching implications for nuclear policy, and it outlines how scholars, policymakers, and others might build on a revised understanding of expert reactor assessments to differently frame, and address, a range of questions pertaining to the risks and governance of atomic energy.

Suggested Citation

  • John Downer & M. V. Ramana, 2021. "Empires built on sand: On the fundamental implausibility of reactor safety assessments and the implications for nuclear regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1304-1325, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:15:y:2021:i:4:p:1304-1325
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12300
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12300
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12300?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Slovic & Baruch Fischhoff & Sarah Lichtenstein, 1982. "Why Study Risk Perception?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 83-93, June.
    2. Sheila Jasanoff, 1993. "Bridging the Two Cultures of Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 123-129, April.
    3. John Perkins, 2014. "Development of risk assessment for nuclear power: insights from history," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 4(4), pages 273-287, December.
    4. Lennart Sjöberg, 2004. "Local Acceptance of a High‐Level Nuclear Waste Repository," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 737-749, June.
    5. Behnam Taebi, 2017. "Bridging the Gap between Social Acceptance and Ethical Acceptability," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(10), pages 1817-1827, October.
    6. Spencer Wheatley & Benjamin Sovacool & Didier Sornette, 2017. "Of Disasters and Dragon Kings: A Statistical Analysis of Nuclear Power Incidents and Accidents," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 99-115, January.
    7. M.V. Ramana & Ashwin K. Seshadri, 2015. "Negligence, capture, and dependence: safety regulation of the design of India's Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(8), pages 1030-1050, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andree Ehlert & Jan Seidel & Ursula Weisenfeld, 2020. "Trouble on my mind: the effect of catastrophic events on people’s worries," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 951-975, August.
    2. Yi-Hui Christine Huang & Xiao Wang & Ivy Wai-Yin Fong & Qiudi Wu, 2021. "Examining the Role of Trust in Regulators in Food Safety Risk Assessment: A Cross-regional Analysis of Three Chinese Societies Using an Integrative Framework," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, November.
    3. Xiao Wang & Yi-Hui Christine Huang & Qiudi Wu & Ivy Wai-Yin Fong, 2021. "Exploring the Effects of Instructional Message Strategies on Risk Perceptions and Behavioral Intentions: The Case of a Substandard Vaccine Incident," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, November.
    4. Stephen Jarvis & Olivier Deschenes & Akshaya Jha, 2022. "The Private and External Costs of Germany’s Nuclear Phase-Out," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 20(3), pages 1311-1346.
    5. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    6. Nathalie de Marcellis-Warin & Ingrid Peignier, 2022. "Baromètre de la confiance des consommateurs québécois à l’égard des aliments -1 re édition," CIRANO Project Reports 2020rp-39, CIRANO.
    7. Shi-jie Jiang & Feiyun Xiang & Iris Yang, 2023. "Effect of Prevention Focus on the Relationships Among Driving Accident History, Risk Perception, and Consumers’ Automobile Insurance Coverage Decisions," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, July.
    8. Lekfuangfu, Warn N., 2022. "Mortality risk, perception, and human capital investments: The legacy of landmines in Cambodia," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    9. Elisa Morgera, 2015. "Fair and Equitable Benefit-Sharing at the Cross-Roads of the Human Right to Science and International Biodiversity Law," Laws, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-29, December.
    10. Yingyu Zhang & Hui Luan & Wei Shao & Yingjun Xu, 2016. "Managerial risk preference and its influencing factors: analysis of large state-owned enterprises management personnel in China," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(2), pages 135-158, August.
    11. Emmanuel Somers, 1995. "Perspectives on Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(6), pages 677-684, December.
    12. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2012. "Systems‐Based Guiding Principles for Risk Modeling, Planning, Assessment, Management, and Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1451-1467, September.
    13. Claya, Pablo Mac & Accursia, Federico M. & Harmath, Pedro, 2022. "Surviving as an Argentine Farmer: Factors that Influence Risk Management Strategies," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 13(04), December.
    14. Ayoub, Ali & Stankovski, Andrej & Kröger, Wolfgang & Sornette, Didier, 2021. "Precursors and startling lessons: Statistical analysis of 1250 events with safety significance from the civil nuclear sector," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    15. Laura K. Siebeneck & Thomas J. Cova, 2012. "Spatial and Temporal Variation in Evacuee Risk Perception Throughout the Evacuation and Return‐Entry Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1468-1480, September.
    16. Suh, Jung Woo & Sohn, So Young & Lee, Bo Kyeong, 2020. "Patent clustering and network analyses to explore nuclear waste management technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    17. Andy S. L. Tan & Susan Mello & Ashley Sanders‐Jackson & Cabral A. Bigman, 2017. "Knowledge about Chemicals in e‐Cigarette Secondhand Vapor and Perceived Harms of Exposure among a National Sample of U.S. Adults," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(6), pages 1170-1180, June.
    18. Dupras, Charles & Birko, Stanislav & Affdal, Aliya O. & Haidar, Hazar & Lemoine, Marie-Eve & Ravitsky, Vardit, 2022. "Governing the futures of non-invasive prenatal testing: An exploration of social acceptability using the Delphi method," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    19. Peng Liu & Run Yang & Zhigang Xu, 2019. "How Safe Is Safe Enough for Self‐Driving Vehicles?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 315-325, February.
    20. Noland, Robert B & Kunreuther, Howard, 1995. "Short-run and long-run policies for increasing bicycle transportation for daily commuter trips," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 67-79, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:15:y:2021:i:4:p:1304-1325. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.