Nuclear Waste: Knowledge Waste?

Rosa, Eugene A.; Tuler, Seth; Fischhoff, Baruch; Webler, Thomas; Friedman, Sharon M.; Sclove, Richard E.; Shrader‐Frechette, Kristin; English, Mary R.; Kasperson, Roger E.; Goble, Robert; Leschine, Thomas M.; Freudenburg, William R.; Chess, Caron; Perrow, Charles; Erikson, Kai T.; Short, James F.

doi:10.1126/science.1193205

Cited by 41 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent studies from the US National Academy of Sciences call for adaptive risk management as the best way to cope with "America's climate choices" (32)(33)(34)(35)(36). Similar arguments are made for nearly all domains of environmental policy, sustainability, energy policy, and policy around NBICs (37)(38)(39)(40)(41). Although the character of adaptive risk management will differ across applications, the core idea is that decisions should take explicit account of uncertainty, facilitate social learning, maintain some flexibility, and revisit the decision periodically.…”

mentioning

confidence: 85%

Bringing values and deliberation to science communication

Dietz

2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

383

314

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decisions always involve both facts and values, whereas most science communication focuses only on facts. If science communication is intended to inform decisions, it must be competent with regard to both facts and values. Public participation inevitably involves both facts and values. Research on public participation suggests that linking scientific analysis to public deliberation in an iterative process can help decision making deal effectively with both facts and values. Thus, linked analysis and deliberation can be an effective tool for science communication. However, challenges remain in conducting such process at the national and global scales, in enhancing trust, and in reconciling diverse values.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 85%

Bringing values and deliberation to science communication

Dietz

2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

383

314

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Ocean Health Index (79,80) uses natural and decision science to identify the impacts that various stakeholders value and then synthesize the evidence relevant to them. The Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future adapted its ambitious plans for public consultation in response to social science input about how to establish trusted communication channels (81,82). Its recommendations called for sustained communications, to ensure that proposals for nuclear power and waste disposal receive fair hearings (83).…”

Section: Organizing For Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The sciences of science communication

Fischhoff

2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

355

259

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The May 2012 Sackler Colloquium on “The Science of Science Communication” brought together scientists with research to communicate and scientists whose research could facilitate that communication. The latter include decision scientists who can identify the scientific results that an audience needs to know, from among all of the scientific results that it would be nice to know; behavioral scientists who can design ways to convey those results and then evaluate the success of those attempts; and social scientists who can create the channels needed for trustworthy communications. This overview offers an introduction to these communication sciences and their roles in science-based communication programs.

show abstract

“…There is little variation among the non-trusted sources in different countries (European Commission 2007OECD 2010). Lessons learned from the history of nuclear power on transparency and public involvement are not always included in current plans for expansion, siting, and waste handling of new nuclear power capacity, missing opportunities for greater legitimacy, trust and acceptance of nuclear power, and its risks (Poortinga and Pidgeon 2003;Rosa, Tuler, and Fischhoff 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nuclear power in China after Fukushima: understanding public knowledge, attitudes, and trust

Mol

Zhang

et al. 2012

Journal of Risk Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To meet the increasing demand for energy, the past decade has seen the revitalization of nuclear power technologies and many countries adopting nuclear power as a priority strategy in their energy policy. However, Japan's Fukushima nuclear crisis, following the tsunami on 11 March 2011, challenged perceptions of much of the world's nuclear power industry -but not in China. To explain how the future of nuclear power is decided in China, this study aims to understand the role of the public in the decision-making through exploring the current public knowledge of and trust in nuclear power, about which there is limited research compared to other environmental issues. Based on a questionnaire survey in Shandong province, this study concluded that, compared to many other countries with nuclear power, China had a different landscape of nuclear power information, knowledge, and trust. This paper helps to explain why the Chinese government is able to continue the development of nuclear power, without much public debate and participation.

show abstract

Nuclear Waste: Knowledge Waste?

Abstract: A stalled nuclear waste program, and possible increase in wastes, beg for social science input into acceptable solutions.

Cited by 41 publications

References 12 publications

Bringing values and deliberation to science communication

Bringing values and deliberation to science communication

The sciences of science communication

Nuclear power in China after Fukushima: understanding public knowledge, attitudes, and trust

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About