Public Perception of Industrial Risks: A Free-Response Approach

Authors

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Additional informationNotes on contributorsCharles W. BagnalCharles W. Bagnal Jr. (BS, nuclear engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1980) is a consulting engineer at GRP Consulting, Inc., currently engaged in reactor physics methods development and nuclear engineering support services. He has been involved in nuclear reactor design analysis and software development for six years. His experience includes advanced light water reactor (LWR) and heavy water reactor designs, including extended burnup fuel cycles using gadolinia burnable poison.Gerard P. CavanaughGerard P. Cavanaugh (BS, physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1969; MS, 1970, and PhD, 1976, nuclear engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign) worked from 1973 to 1975 in the Neutronics Physics Division at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. He is currently supervisor of radiation physics and criticality analysis at Combustion Engineering, Inc. (C-E). His primary technical interests are in the areas of radiation transport, stochastic sampling methodologies, and computer applications ranging from mainframes to personal computers.Robert P. HarrisRobert P. Harris (BS, 1974, and MS, 1975, nuclear engineering, and MS, 1984, metallurgy, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute) has worked in the core design, safety analysis, and licensing of C-E pressurized water reactors since 1973. He is currently involved in the neutronic design of advanced burnable poisons and fuel assemblies. He consults in the areas of core fuel management, safety analysis, and startup physics testing.Regis A. MatzieRegis A. Matzie (BS, physics, U.S. Naval Academy, 1965; MS, 1971, and PhD, 1976, nuclear engineering, Stanford University) is currently the manager of analog plants in the nuclear engineering department at C-E. His current technical interests include advanced LWR designs, methods of improving fuel utilization and fuel cycle costs in current design LWRs, and alternate fuel cycles for advanced converter reactors.Laszlo B. TarkoLaszlo B. Tarko (BS, physics, University of Connecticut, 1980) is currently the lead engineer in the radiation physics group at C-E. His current technical interests include radiation transport, ex-core radiation physics, dose rates, energy deposition, and associated computer techniques.Howard OckenHoward Ocken (D. Eng., metallurgy, Yale University, 1966) is a project manager in the Nuclear Power Division of the Electric Power Research Institute. He has managed projects that addressed materials performance in nuclear core components. His current interests include materials aspects associated with reducing radiation fields, especially replacing cobalt sources and decontamination and preconditioning technology.Per Hedemann JensenPer Hedemann Jensen (BSc, electronic engineering, Technical University, Aarhus, Denmark, 1970) is a senior health physicist at Ris0 National Laboratory, where he is head of the Section for Applied Health Physics. He has been involved in studies of radiological consequences from hypothetical core-melt accidents at nuclear power plants. His current technical interest is experimental work on internal dosimetry problems.Ian J. HastingsIan J. Hastings (PhD, metallurgical science, University of Queensland, 1968) is head of the Fuel Properties and Behaviour Group in the Fuel Materials Branch at the Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories (CRNL) of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. His current interests are in oxide fuel behavior under irradiation, particularly release of short-lived fission products under normal and accident conditions, and in fusion ceramics.Elio MizzanElio Mizzan (BA Sc, chemical engineering, University of Toronto, 1949) is a supervisor at the Fuel Materials Branch Hot Cell Facility at CRNL. His interests have been in the areas of postirradiation examination of reactor fuels and materials, particularly postdefect handling of spent U02 fuel.Alan M. RossAlan M. Ross (BSc, general, University of London, 1953) is a supervisor at the Recycle Fuel Fabrication Laboratories of the Fuel Materials Branch of CRNL. His interests include the fabrication, nondestructive assay, properties, irradiation behavior, and neutron radiography of current and advanced thermal reactor fuels.John R. KelmJohn R. Kelm is a research technician in the Fuel Materials Branch at CRNL. His research responsibility is the operation of a special project hot cell. His current interest is U02 oxidation and stress corrosion cracking.Real J. ChenierReal J. Chenier is a research technician in the Fuel Materials Branch at CRNL. His current research responsibility is operation of the postirradiation metallographic facilities.D. H. RoseD. H. Rose is a research technologist in the Fuel Properties and Behaviour Group of the Fuel Materials Branch at CRNL. His current responsibility is fabrication and operation of instrumented in-reactor experiments.J. NovakJ. Novak (BASc, engineering science, University of Toronto, 1974) is employed in Central Nuclear Services, Nuclear Generation Division of Ontario Hydro. Since 1976 he has been engaged in the areas of nuclear fuel production and development. His current technical interests include behavior of irradiated fuel in air, U02 powder characteristics, and fuel performance improvement.Claudio RonchiClaudio Ronchi (Dr. rer. nat. phys., State University, Milan, Italy, 1965) is a research officer at the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the Commission of European Communities. After having worked in the research and development of advanced fuels for fast breeders, he is now engaged in reactor safety studies.Jacques van de LaarJacques van de Laar (Ingenieur Fysische Techniek, H.T.S., Heerlen, The Netherlands, 1974) works in thec mathematical modeling department of JRC-Karlsruhe. He is currently involved in the development and execution of computer programs for reactor fuel performance and safety analysis.Hubert BlankHubert Blank (PhD, metal physics, Technical University of Stuttgart, 1957), head of the Physics Division of the European Institute for Transuranium Elements, Karlsruhe, has directed the “Swelling of Advanced Fuels” project at this institute since 1973.Tetsuo FukasawaTetsuo Fukasawa (BS, 1976; MS, 1978; and Dr. Eng., 1981, nuclear engineering, Tohoku University) is a researcher in the Energy Research Laboratory (ERL), Hitachi, Ltd. He has specialized in the radiochemistry of actinide elements and is currently working in the field of low-level radioactive waste treatment and spent fuel reprocessing.Koichi ChinoKoichi Chino (BS, 1972, and MS, 1974, mechanical engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology) is a researcher at ERL. His primary areas of interest are transport phenomena and radioactive waste management.Osamu KuriyamaOsamu Kuriyama (BS, 1973, and MS, 1975, Tohoku University) is a researcher at ERL. His current interests include the radioactive waste management and chemistry of nuclear waste.Fumio KawamuraFumio Kawamura (BS, chemical engineering, Gunma University,1970; MS, 1972, and Dr. Eng., 1976, Tohoku University) is a researcher at ERL where he is involved in radioactive waste management and reactor water chemistry.Hideo YusaHideo Yusa (BS, physics, Tohoku University, 1959; Dr. Eng., Osaka University, 1969) is a chief researcher at ERL. He is responsible for the research and development of radioactive waste management systems.Bernard L. CohenBernard L. Cohen (BS, Case Institute of Technology, 1944; MS, University of Pittsburgh, 1948; DSc, Carnegie Institute of Technology, 1950) did basic research on nuclear structure using accelerators at Oak Ridge National Laboratory from 1950 to 1958 and at the University of Pittsburgh until the mid-1970s. He then turned his research efforts to the environmental impacts of energy generation, including studies of radioactive waste, health effects of radiation, risk and risk aversion, radon problems, and reactor safety. He is a professor of physics at the University of Pittsburgh and a former director (1965 to 1978) of its Scaife Nuclear Laboratories.K. TasakaK. Tasaka (PhD, nuclear engineering, University of Tokyo, 1976) first worked in breeder reactor safety and fission product characteristics research for ten years and in light water reactor (LWR) safety research for nine years at the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI). He is the project leader of the Rig of Safety Assessment (ROSA) program, and his current interests include analysis of thermal-hydraulic behavior during a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) and an anticipated transient without scram in LWRs.M. SuzukiM. Suzuki (MS, mechanical engineering, Kyoto University, 1971) has worked for the ROSA program since 1974. His current interests include safety evaluation of an LWR.Y. AnodaY. Anoda (PhD, mechanical engineering, University of Tokyo, 1979) is a research engineer for the ROSA program. His current interests include two-phase flow during a LOCA.Y. KoizumiY. Koizumi (PhD, mechanical engineering, University of Tokyo, 1977) is a research engineer for the ROSA program. His current interests include analysis of thermal-hydraulic behavior during a LOCA with emphasis on two-phase flow characteristics and heat transfer.T. YonomotoT. Yonomoto (MS, nuclear engineering, University of Osaka, 1982) is a research engineer for the ROSA program. His current interests include analysis of thermal-hydraulic behavior during a LOCA.H. KumamaruH. Kumamaru (PhD, nuclear engineering, University of Tokyo, 1980) is a research engineer for the ROSA program. His current interests include core heat transfer under LOCA conditions.H. NakamuraH. Nakamura (MS, crystalline material engineering, Nagoya University, 1981) is a research engineer for the ROSA program. His current interests include analysis of thermal-hydraulic behavior during a LOCA.M. ShibaM. Shiba (MS, mechanical engineering, Waseda University, 1959) is the general manager of Reactor Safety Laboratory 1 at JAERI. He has worked for 22 years at JAERI in the field of reactor engineering and safety and is currently responsible for simulated LOCA experiments.Genichi MatsumotoGenichi Matsumoto (BS, physics, Tokyo University, 1946) has been an associate professor of nuclear engineering at Nagoya University from 1963 to the present, where he is responsible for research and education in nuclear reactor engineering. He worked as a member of the Scientific Research Institute of Tokyo following his graduation from Tokyo University, and from 1950 to 1963, he served on the technical staff of the Research Reactor Operation Division of the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute. His current research field includes nuclear safety, neutron radiography (especially neutron television technology), and heat pipe technology.Soichi DoiSoichi Doi (BS, 1976, and MS, 1978, nuclear engineering, Nagoya University) has been employed by the Mitsubishi Atomic Power Industry Co. since 1978, where he is responsible for the nuclear fuel engineering of light water reactors.Kohei OhkuboKohei Ohkubo (BS, mechanical engineering, Aichi Institute of Technology, 1975) is a staff member of Nagoya University.Yasushi IkedaYasushi Ikeda (BS, physics, 1963, and PhD, nuclear engineering, 1982, Nagoya University) has been an assistant staff member of Nagoya University from 1964 to the present. He has investigated thermodynamics of nuclear materials using mass spectrometric technology; neutron radiography technology is also included in his research interests.Günther HesselGünther Hessel [BS, physics, Technical University Dresden, German Democratic Republic (GDR), 1970] is a research scientist at the Central Institute of Nuclear Research (CIN), Rossendorf. He is involved in experimental investigations and developments for technical diagnosis, especially at nuclear power plants.Hans-Erich KöppenHans-Erich Köppen (BS, computer science, Technical University Dresden, 1973) is a research scientist at the CIN. His area of expertise is microprocessor hard- and software and the construction of autonomously working monitors.Peter LiewersPeter Liewers (BS, physics, University of Halle, GDR, 1957; PhD, physics, University of Leipzig, GDR, 1962) is the scientific leader of the group for reactor diagnostics at the CIN. His interests and activities have shifted from reactor physics to technical diagnostics.Peter SchumannPeter Schumann (BS, nuclear engineering, Technical University Dresden, 1963; PhD, physics, Bergakademie Freiberg, GDR, 1970) is a staff scientist at the CIN where he is concerned with digital signal processing and computer software. Formerly he worked in the field of in-core measuring techniques and neutron spectrometryFrank-Peter WeiβFrank-Peter Weiβ (BS, physics, Technical University Dresden, 1973) is a research scientist in the group for technical diagnostics at the CIN. His current interest is the application of statistical pattern recognition to technical diagnostics.

This paper discusses the public perception of risk, which is considered as a complex and dynamic process, by developing a new conceptual model based on currently available models and approaches to studying risk perception as well as the system theory. Emphasis on this model is placed on the first-hand risk perception, the dynamics and complexity of the risk information transmission and the interaction of multifaceted dimensions including the psychological, societal and cultural, and political influence on risk perception. These features are arguably to characterize the public perception of risk. The conceptual model has subsequently been used to interpret public perception of nuclear power risk, which is a problematic and contradictory process by nuclear experts. The key influential factors to public perception of risk as elaborated in the model have provided guideline to executing nuclear power public communication program. Finally, some thoughts and suggestions inferring from the conceptual model and discussions are given to enhance the effectiveness for nuclear power public communication in China, where the public acceptance has become a key issue for its nuclear power program development after Fukushima accident.

Working in nuclear cycle facilities such as nuclear power plants, fuel mining, milling and fabrication, waste management, and reprocessing facilities can pose various industrial health and safety risks to the workers due to hazardous processes and materials. Conventional or non (ionizing) radiation-related occupational health and safety (OHS) in nuclear facilities is a multidimensional area that involves hazard identification, protective measures, safety culture, emergency response, and workers’ well-being. This article aims to highlight the International Atomic Energy Agency’s perspective of OHS, the common conventional OHS hazards in nuclear cycle facilities, and the measures taken to mitigate risks from these hazards. By implementing comprehensive OHS management system, nuclear facilities can create an occupationally healthy and safe working environment.

ABSTRACTOperational radioactive waste is generated during routine operation of nuclear power plants (NPP). This waste must be solidified in order to ensure safe conditions of storage and disposal. Vitrification of NPP operational waste is a relative new solidification option being developed for last years. The vitrification technology comprises a few stages, starting with evaporation of excess water from liquid radioactive waste, followed by batch preparation, glass melting, and ending with vitrified waste blocks and some relative small amounts of secondary waste. Application of induction high frequency cold crucible type melters facilitates the melting process and significantly reduces the generation of secondary waste. Two types of glasses were designed in order to vitrify operational waste depending on the reactor type at the NPP. For the NPP with RBMK-type reactors the glass 16.2Na2O 0.5K2O 15.5CaO 2.5 Al2O3 1.7Fe2O3 7.5B2O3 48.2SiO2 1.1 Na2SO4 1.2NaCl (5.7 others) was produced. For NPP with WWER reactors the glass 24.0Na2O 1.9K2O 6.2CaO 4.3Al2O3 1.8Fe2O3 9.0B2O3 46.8SiO2 0.8Na2SO4 0.9NaCl (4.3 others) was produced. The melting temperatures of both glass formulations were 1200–1250 C, specific power consumption was 5.2 ± 0.8 kW h/kg, 137Cs loss was within the range 3 - 4 %. The specific radioactivity of glass reached 7.0 MBq/kg. Glass blocks obtained were studied both in laboratory and field conditions. Long-term studies revealed that vitrified NPP operational waste has the minimal impact onto environment. Since the glass has excellent resistance to corrosion it gives the basic possibility of maximal simplification of engineered barrier systems in a disposal facility. The simplest disposal option for vitrified NPP waste is to locate the packages directly into earthen trenches provided the host rock has the necessary sorption and confinement properties.

Due to the increasing demand for energy in the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is currently reviewing permit applications for 26 new nuclear power reactors. However, the previous generation of U.S. civilian nuclear plant construction experienced significant cost and schedule overruns. Previous research identified “regulatory ratcheting” (continuous, retroactive change in nuclear plant regulations) as one of the primary causes of this poor performance. Regulatory ratcheting was enabled by the nuclear industry’s two-step permitting and licensing process for civilian power plant construction, which allowed society’s perception of the risks associated with nuclear plant operation to impact nuclear plant construction. How will public policy and societal risk perception affect the next generation of U.S. civilian nuclear plant construction? This question is investigated using a dynamic simulation model of the public policy and social feedback processes that impact U.S. nuclear plant con...

During the 2000 presidential election, in that time before the September 11th terrorist attacks, the stump speeches of George W. Bush and his Democratic opponent, Al Gore, focused on protecting Social Security, saving American education, expanding Medicare, raising or lowering taxes, and readying the military. If science was mentioned at all, it was usually in the context of missile defense, global warming, or Gore’s role in creating the internet. With the exception of the debate over stem-cell research, science remains a background topic in the current campaign. Democratic candidate John Kerry has occasionally highlighted US science policy and used it against President Bush, charging that the administration has put politics and ideology ahead of science. “Let scientists do science again,” a headline on the Kerry election website says.Bush has responded, primarily through his science adviser, John Marburger, by pointing to the 44% increase in federal R&D since fiscal year 2001 and the record $132 billion in the administration’s FY 2005 R&D budget. “Kerry ignores President Bush’s record science investments,” reads a headline on the Bush reelection website.Kerry answers by noting that most of the R&D money is going for weapons systems and defense spending related to the war in Iraq, not basic science programs. Marburger and other administration officials point to several R&D initiatives, including new nanotechnology centers, the Moon/Mars space initiative, and the program to develop hydrogen fuel technology. In an effort to get the candidates to specifically address questions of interest to the science community, Physics Today has continued a tradition begun in 1976; it asked Bush and Kerry nine questions covering a range of science topics. Their answers, sometimes direct and sometimes vague, show fundamental differences on several key issues.On missile defense, Bush says his request of $10 billion in FY 2005 for development and deployment of such a system fulfills a pledge he made to the American people. Kerry says we should not be “falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system.”On global warming, Kerry talks of both near- and long-term programs to deal with the problem. Bush promotes his “comprehensive climate change strategy.” The candidates also address a host of other issues ranging from space exploration to energy policy. During the 2000 presidential election, in that time before the September 11th terrorist attacks, the stump speeches of George W. Bush and his Democratic opponent, Al Gore, focused on protecting Social Security, saving American education, expanding Medicare, raising or lowering taxes, and readying the military. If science was mentioned at all, it was usually in the context of missile defense, global warming, or Gore’s role in creating the internet. With the exception of the debate over stem-cell research, science remains a background topic in the current campaign. Democratic candidate John Kerry has occasionally highlighted US science policy and used it against President Bush, charging that the administration has put politics and ideology ahead of science. “Let scientists do science again,” a headline on the Kerry election website says.Bush has responded, primarily through his science adviser, John Marburger, by pointing to the 44% increase in federal R&D since fiscal year 2001 and the record $132 billion in the administration’s FY 2005 R&D budget. “Kerry ignores President Bush’s record science investments,” reads a headline on the Bush reelection website.Kerry answers by noting that most of the R&D money is going for weapons systems and defense spending related to the war in Iraq, not basic science programs. Marburger and other administration officials point to several R&D initiatives, including new nanotechnology centers, the Moon/Mars space initiative, and the program to develop hydrogen fuel technology. In an effort to get the candidates to specifically address questions of interest to the science community, Physics Today has continued a tradition begun in 1976; it asked Bush and Kerry nine questions covering a range of science topics. Their answers, sometimes direct and sometimes vague, show fundamental differences on several key issues.On missile defense, Bush says his request of $10 billion in FY 2005 for development and deployment of such a system fulfills a pledge he made to the American people. Kerry says we should not be “falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system.”On global warming, Kerry talks of both near- and long-term programs to deal with the problem. Bush promotes his “comprehensive climate change strategy.” The candidates also address a host of other issues ranging from space exploration to energy policy. 1Section:ChooseTop of page1 <<BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Missile defense: The present administration is requesting more than $10 billion this year for development and deployment of a missile defense system. Many scientists say the system, given current and foreseeable technology, cannot be effective. What proof of effectiveness should be required before the system is fully deployed? Given the low-tech nature of terrorist attacks and the limited missile capabilities of North Korea and other hostile nations, does missile defense continue to be a wise investment? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1Bush <<Kerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryOur policy is to develop and deploy, at the earliest possible date, a weapons system that would defend the United States homeland against nuclear attack, including ballistic missile defenses drawing on the best technologies available. Early in my administration, I called for the examination of the full range of available technologies and basing modes for missile defenses that could protect the United States, our deployed forces, and our friends and allies.The FY 2005 Defense Appropriations Act provides $10 billion that I requested for systems to defend against the threat from ballistic missiles. Later this year, the first components of America’s missile defense system will become operational, and we are on schedule for the next stages of the project. My administration will develop and deploy the technologies necessary to protect our people, fulfilling a pledge I made to the American people more than four years ago.KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry <<2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryA missile defense that works is a wise investment, but one that pours money into defenses at the expense of other immediate national security needs is not. And that’s what this administration has done. Missile defense should be one element of a comprehensive national security strategy. But a single-minded focus on this technology and the threat it is designed to meet ignores the very real danger of terrorism and our greatest danger—terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.John Edwards and I will be committed to developing a missile defense system that works, is fully tested, and geared to the threats we face. But I will refocus our efforts on preventing the spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and dramatically accelerating the security of nuclear weapons and material in Russia and around the world. We will not sit by, falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system, while these threats continue to fester.2Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2 <<BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Climate change: Virtually all reputable research in recent years has reinforced the scientific conclusion that global warming is a real and growing crisis caused, at least in part, by the burning of fossil fuels. Do you accept that scientific consensus? Under what circumstances would you regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2Bush <<Kerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryGlobal climate change is a serious long-term issue. In 2001, I asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to provide the most up-to-date information about the science of climate change. The academy found that considerable uncertainty remains about the effect of natural fluctuations on climate and the future effects climate change will have on our environment.My administration is now well along in implementing a comprehensive climate change strategy to advance the science, expand the use of transformational energy and carbon sequestration technologies, and mitigate the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and in partnership with other nations. I created the new US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) to refocus the federal government’s climate research programs, for which my 2005 budget seeks nearly $2 billion to fund research across the federal government. The NAS endorsed the CCSP strategic plan, noting that it “articulates a guiding vision, is appropriately ambitious, and is broad in scope.”I also committed the nation to a goal of reducing American greenhouse gas intensity by 18% over the next 10 years, which would prevent more than 500 million tons of carbon emissions through 2012. To help achieve this goal, I created the Climate Vision program in 2003 to reduce the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by energy-intensive industrial sectors. Participants in the Climate Vision program account for between 40 and 45% of US greenhouse gas emissions. I have strongly supported over $4 billion in tax incentives for renewable and energy-efficient technologies, including wind and solar energy and hybrid and fuel-cell vehicles. Also, in April 2003, my administration raised the fuel economy standards for light trucks and SUVs [sport utility vehicles] for the first time since 1996, saving 3.6 billion gallons of gasoline. And in my 2003 State of the Union [address], I announced a $1.7 billion hydrogen fuel initiative to accelerate research that could lead to hydrogen-powered, no-emission vehicles within a generation.Additionally, my administration is participating in robust international partnerships to promote clean, renewable, commercially available fusion energy and to construct the $1 billion FutureGen project, which will test the latest technologies to generate electricity, produce hydrogen, and sequester greenhouse gas emissions from coal. KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry <<3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryI recognize the risk of climate change, and I have outlined a balanced set of programs that will have impact both in the near term and over the long term. My plan will also provide balanced support for technology that can increase the efficiency and cut greenhouse emissions in transportation systems, buildings, and industry that are attractive to consumers and US producers. Our programs will encourage the use of renewable fuels such as ethanol and renewable electric generation that produce little or no net greenhouse gases. I will expand the production tax credit for wind and biomass energy to cover the full array of renewable energy sources and increase Department of Energy (DOE) research into renewable energy sources and their applications. And I will propose an aggressive program of research, standards, and incentives to accelerate electric generation from renewable energy. Clean coal technology can play a critical role, given technology to cut carbon dioxide emissions.My plan would encourage energy efficiency with programs such as updated fuel efficiency standards, new tax incentives for automakers to build the new, more efficient automobiles of the future, and tax incentives for families to purchase more energy-efficient cars, trucks, and SUVs.3Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3 <<BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Science investment: There is concern in the science and economic communities that the US is losing its world leadership in the sciences, which they say bodes ill for future economic growth and global competitive-ness. To address that concern, should the US increase funding for basic science, and should the administration fully fund the 2001 bill, signed by the president, to double NSF’s budget? How would you reinvigorate science education for US-born students? What is the role of foreign scientists and students in the US scientific enterprise? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3Bush <<Kerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryIncluding my FY 2005 budget request, total federal R&D investment during the first term will have increased 44% to a record $132 billion in 2005. My FY 2005 budget request commits 13.5% of total discretionary outlays to R&D, the highest level in 37 years. In the context of the overall economy, federal R&D spending in the FY 2005 budget is the greatest share of GDP [gross domestic product] in over 10 years. Funding for basic research, the fuel for future technology development, is at an all-time high of $26.8 billion in FY 2005, a 26% increase over FY 2001. Funding for NSF during the four years of my administration has increased 30% over FY 2001 to $5.7 billion in FY 2005. NSF’s broad support for basic research, particularly at US academic institutions, provides not only a central source for discovery in many fields but also encourages and supports development of the next generation of scientists and engineers. Moreover, in fulfilling its mission, NSF has used its funding efficiently and effectively.As for the American scientific enterprise, it is important in this information and technological age that our students receive a first-rate science education, just as they receive quality instruction in reading, writing, and math. The federal government has no control over local curricula, and it is not my job to tell states and local boards of education what they should teach in the classroom. Nevertheless, the No Child Left Behind Act, one of my proudest legislative achievements this term, is improving our schools and, consequently, the teaching of science. NCLB requires, for the first time, assessments in science to give us better information about how our students are performing and how to improve instruction in science. I have also proposed creating the Presidential Math and Science Scholars Fund to provide $100 million in grants to low-income students who study math or science. This will ensure that America’s graduates have the training they need to compete for the best jobs of the 21st century.I also value the contributions that foreign scientists and students make to our nation’s scientific enterprise, while recognizing the importance of safeguarding our security. We will continue to welcome international students and scientists while implementing balanced measures to end abuses of the student visa system. My administration has already achieved several notable successes in reducing delays now being experienced by some visa seekers. We have increased security while speeding up the clearance process; approximately 1000 back-logged applications have already been cleared out.KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry <<4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryFor three years, the Bush administration has squandered America’s leadership in the world, putting politics before science and doing nothing to create jobs while our workers fall further behind. The administration has proposed cuts for scientific research and grossly distorted and politicized science on issues from mercury pollution to stem-cell research. This approach not only limits the research that our scientists are doing today, it undermines important discoveries of tomorrow and threatens America’s critical edge in innovation. I will reverse this course by restoring America’s scientific leadership, helping find new cures, moderating healthcare costs, and developing new technologies that will create good jobs. I will boost support for the physical sciences and engineering by increasing research investments in agencies such as NSF, the National Institutes of Health, DOE, NIST, and NASA. This funding will help with the broad areas of science and technology that will provide the foundations for economic growth and prosperity in the 21st century.4Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4 <<BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Nuclear weapons: Does the US need to develop a new class of nuclear weapons to deal with the changing threats of the 21st century? Is there any circumstance in which you would support the resumption of nuclear testing? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4Bush <<Kerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryThe Nuclear Posture Review, released by my administration in January 2002, noted that the nation’s nuclear infrastructure had atrophied since the end of the cold war and that the evolving security environment requires a flexible and responsive weapons complex infrastructure. To that end, my FY 2005 budget reflects an increase over the 2004 enacted level in the weapons activities account, which encompasses the stockpile stewardship programs. There is no current need for testing due to the sophistication of computer modeling and other new technologies, but we must maintain the capability to test in case such testing becomes necessary in the future to ensure the safety and reliability of our defensive arsenal. We have not identified any need for developing new nuclear weapons. KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry <<5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryNo, and a Kerry–Edwards administration will stop this administration’s program to develop a new class of nuclear weapons. This is a weapon we don’t need, and it undermines our ability to persuade other nations to forego development of these weapons.5Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5 Nuclear There is serious concern many that could or a nuclear in a US Do you the US is doing to and control of nuclear weapons and material both in the US and BushSection:ChooseTop of administration in has more to and control nuclear weapons and material than US weapons and are and both the Department of Defense and are to make more My administration has increased funding to weapons and material in the Union and has by years the schedule the administration for security in We are with Russia to end the production of and to weapons for of weapons. the my administration the to or and material We have already weapons material from several our in its for nuclear weapons. To against we the international in a global effort to account and of sources that could be used in such We activities in over 40 on this as well as with international the Energy the the and the of Defense we have dramatically our ability to that could be a threat to us and to our friends and my administration the billion initiative to support and nuclear safety in the This of the international is to a more of nation’s highest must be preventing from to nuclear weapons and the material to make We must in a global partnership with other nations to prevent the spread of these weapons. the Bush administration’s have in the have the we need to advance our security. September they have not nearly to and on the while the nuclear from and North Korea have Our security requires an immediate change of I have proposed a comprehensive strategy to of weapons and including an of programs to all nuclear weapons and within the and at research in the within four production of new material for nuclear weapons by a global on production of new of nuclear weapons and by development of the new generation of nuclear accelerating in US and nuclear and reducing of in nuclear weapons programs in hostile including by with North Korea to ensure the and of its nuclear weapons program and a global effort to prevent from the necessary to build nuclear weapons. international efforts to by and and as well as improving the security a presidential to prevent nuclear terrorism who will focus on a effort to all nuclear weapons and around the world and prevent a nuclear terrorist of Energy than of and have not in a comprehensive US energy policy. years into the future, what do you the US energy should How would you the US in that BushSection:ChooseTop of and energy is critical to America’s and homeland security. We will be more and more we are on foreign sources of energy. The of a comprehensive and balanced national energy policy has been one of my During my first in I proposed a national energy policy that would our energy production and systems, reduce our on foreign promote efficiency and increase domestic production from all of energy including renewable energy and continue to our economy and create new jobs. We will continue to with on the energy to the administration has nearly all of the more than in the comprehensive national energy policy that not as increasing reliability R&D to help prevent and the to its of million to provide energy security in case of of have proposed an program of research, and standards that would increase the efficiency of energy use and use of new energy sources that can ensure a and while reducing the risk of climate change. The program would be supported in by a billion energy security and from federal and gas the in by I have to around the and a of that can meet US needs both in the term and for in the Given the long time required to over energy investments such as of and trucks, industrial and we must a broad set of new technologies as as possible we have any of US energy use in the near term, many of the most control systems, and other technologies to improve the energy of buildings, and industrial that the US to reduce its on from the and I will set for fuels such as I will support research and incentives that will dramatically increase use of from wind and other renewable And I will encourage development of technology and nuclear generation with high standards for stewardship and of Nuclear recent by that nuclear is the best energy source to meet the US while protecting the renewable energy can be deployed on a Do you increasing the use of nuclear If what would you do with the BushSection:ChooseTop of support the further development of nuclear technologies as a clean, and to meet this nation’s future energy Nuclear for of our This which no pollution or greenhouse gas can play an expanding role in our energy future while the we with energy national energy policy several to encourage increased use of nuclear and to the that through the Nuclear my administration is with industry to the for an of a new US nuclear within the next years. through the the United States is with around the to develop a next generation of more and more nuclear that can also produce hydrogen and my administration has made a to the nuclear and the of a long-term at We are ahead with the of a to the Nuclear at the end of this administration is also committed to and in new technologies that will change the we generate I committed the United States to the international fusion energy as in is a important to test the of nuclear fusion as a source of and the of a nearly source of energy the that long-term of Nuclear can play an role in energy while reducing the risk of climate key such as nuclear nuclear and security must be John Edwards and I will ensure safety and science We George Bush’s plan to over the of a Kerry–Edwards administration will on science. John Edwards and I do not support as a nuclear and will that nuclear and transportation only on the of science and that to and the John Edwards and I will George Bush and to from a for an NAS study to is the as to long-term and or some other technology. an international to scientific for nuclear and nuclear from terrorist John Edwards and I will improve and security at nuclear In we will nuclear to to improve including measures to reduce to the an of National National Nuclear the national weapons continue to be with security spending and What would you to improve at the Does the current plan of the to the risk of the in the of the war on BushSection:ChooseTop of national are doing to deal with the threats of the 21st are a in our efforts to improve homeland are the source of technological and are helping the war on With their at the highest level in years, National National and National are also on the edge of defense research, protecting the nation’s infrastructure from terrorist attacks, and developing a that the of a nuclear This is we billion on weapons research and production in FY 2004 and I for billion for We must and security My administration has made effort to improve the the weapons do and one of efforts is that in all areas of central to the war on we can use our more and focus on his or of national play a critical role in our nuclear weapons stockpile and that our nation’s nuclear weapons are and The national also have an important role in preventing the spread of weapons of mass and in science for our nation’s have a of our nation’s but this record has been by and security at the has been John Edwards and I are committed to and and restoring the at these critical national of is being to the long-term of to the and Many scientists the will money from science How do you the importance of science exploration What is the funding between the BushSection:ChooseTop of I announced my for the future of America’s space exploration this will the of both and science will as to the and other vehicles continue to their and of to we have systems on and around a system and one on its to the for cannot be by the most or the most We need to and and for And only are of to the by space we our on the we are developing a new exploration to our This will be by and its first no than will to the as as and no than and use it as a for the We will with to the and for future will with the goal of and there for of Edwards and I will continue America’s long tradition of leadership in and space exploration as of a program to broad for this will not to programs such as the Bush administration’s Program that from in the with no or will in new programs to set by scientific in and other Our administration will on the of the scientific to the most for research and the most for these the of or are most to the 2004 American of

The role of risk perception and technical information in scientific debates over nuclear waste storage

Objective To investigate the attitude toward and perception of the risk of nuclear power plant among the public residing in vicinity of nuclear power plant,as well as the related factors.Methods A face-to-face interview on perceived radiation risks was conducted among 1408 individuals in Liangyungang City, Jiangsu Province.where the Tianwan nuclear power plant was under construction.The four groups was defined according to the distance between the residence of the subjects and the Tianwan nuclear power plant:<4 km,4- 8 km,8-30 km and 30-50 km.A was used to collect information on education,working history,religion, perception of major industries hazards especially nuclear power plant,and major factors may influence their perceptions.Ordinal logistic regression model was used to analyze the data.Results About 91.18% of the interviewee heard about the nuclear power plant,35.36% of them had knowledge about Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident,71.05% of them believed that the nuclear power plant had no negative effects on environments, 37.03% of them believed that the nuclear energy was safe.74.27% of them believed that it was necessary for China to develop nuclear energy.63.29% of them supported the construction of the nuclear power plant in local area.Ordinal logistic regression analysis revealed that the higher education,higher family annual income,male, economic benefits from the nuclear power plant construction,and trust in local government having competency to handling emergencies were positive factors;otherwise,impression on nuclear power plant of bad influences on environment and health were negative factors.An inverted U-shaped with a right tailing relationship between negative attitudes toward nuclear power plant and distance to the plant was found.Conclusions Education, gender,family annual income and expectation of economic benefit returns were the major factors influencing the perception of and attitudes toward nuclear power plant.More works needed to be done to mitigate the negative attitude of the residents in vicinity of nuclear power plant and enhance the public acceptability . Key words: Nuclear power plant; Radiation; Risk; Public perception

In the post-Fukushima accident era, the participation of local residents and their acceptance of nuclear power plants (NPPs) have become significant issues. Using the case of Qinshan NPP in China, this study examined the factors affecting public acceptance of NPPs and explored the ways in which public participation affects the public acceptance of NPPs through structural equation modeling. We found that public participation promotes public acceptance of NPPs through various paths, and there exist intermediary factors, namely trust and risk perception. Public participation improves the public acceptance of NPPs indirectly by increasing trust and decreasing risk perception. Trust can directly improve the public acceptance of NPPs and indirectly influence it through benefit perception and risk perception. In this study, we also proposed recommendations for policy and practice to enhance the level of public acceptance of NPPs.

Seismic protection systems (SPS) have been developed and used successfully in conventional structures, but their applications in nuclear power plants (NPPs) are scarce. However, valuable research has been conducted worldwide to include SPS in nuclear engineering design. This study aims to provide a state-of-the-art review of SPS in nuclear engineering and to answer four significant research questions: (1) why are SPS not adopted in the nuclear industry and what issues have prevented their deployment? (2) what types of SPS are being considered in nuclear engineering research? (3) what are the strategies for location of SPS within NPPs? and (4) how may SPS provide improved structural performance and safety of NPPs under seismic actions? This review is conducted following the procedures of systematic reviews, where possible.The issues concerning the use of SPS in NPPs are identified: cost, safety, licensing and scarcity of applications. NPPs demand full structural integrity and reactor's safe shutdown during earthquake actions. Therefore, horizontal isolation may be insufficient in active seismic zones and isolation in the vertical direction may be required. Based on the results in this review, it is likely that next generation reactors in seismic zones will include state-of-the-art SPS to achieve full standardised design.

Nuclear power is a highly controversial and salient example of environmental risk. The siting or operating of a nuclear power plant often faces widespread public opposition. Although studies of public perceptions of nuclear power date back to 1970s, little research attempts to explain the spatial heterogeneity of risk attitude toward nuclear power among individuals or communities. This article intends to improve the knowledge about the major factors contributing to nuclear power plant risk perceptions by mapping the geographical patterns of local risk perception and examining the determinants in forming the nature and distribution of the perceived risk among potentially affected population. The analysis was conducted by a case study of the Second Nuclear Power Plant (SNPP) in Taiwan by using a novel methodology that incorporates a comprehensive risk perception (CRP) model into an ethnographic approach called risk perception mapping (RPM). First, we examined the determinants of local nuclear power risk perceptions through the CRP model and multivariate regression analysis. Second, the results were integrated with the RPM approach to map and explain the spatial pattern of risk perceptions. The findings demonstrate that the respondents regard the nuclear power plant as an extremely high-risk facility, causing them to oppose the SNPP and reject the compensation payment to accept its continuing operation. Results also indicate that perceptions of nuclear power risk were mainly influenced by social trust, psychological and socioeconomic attributes, proximity, and the perceived effects of the SNPP on the quality of everyday life.

Quantifying the social costs of nuclear energy: Perceived risk of accident at nuclear power plants

Living with nuclear power: Sense of place, proximity, and risk perceptions in local host communities

A decommissioning program “RECYCLE SIMULATOR” should be put into practice in careful consideration of both recycle of non-radioactive wastes and reduce of radioactive wastes in the coming circulatory social system. Nevertheless current support systems for decommissioning planning mainly deal with decontamination, safety storage and dismantlement, so-called the prior part of the total decommissioning process. Authors emphasize the necessity of total planning of decommissioning including recycle or reuse of a large amount of demolition materials and are propelling the development of the multi expert system named “RECYCLE SIMULATOR”. This paper presents an algorithm of the recycling and reusing scenario of demolition materials and a summarized configuration. RECYCLE SIMULATOR for the demolished concrete was developed in 2000 and presented at 10th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering (icone10). Construction of a supporting multi expert system for the totally planning of decommissioning projects is objected by expansive development of the previous version. Main conclusions obtained from this paper are under this. (1) The previouslly developed expert system was advanced in its estimational function toward the satisfaction of decommissiong planners. (2) The applicability of the system was enlarged to all the radioactive and non-radioactive wastes, demolished metal and concrete products, in a corresponding site of decommissioning. (3) Finally decommissiong recycle simulator was completed in a harmonized unification.