Evaluation of energy related risk acceptance (APHA energy task force) Page: 6 of 18
16 pagesView a full description of this article.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
3
Though we may not place identical agreement on the value of the benefits or on
the undesirability of the risks, it seems obvious that as an initial general princi-
ple, we would like to maximize the benefits and to minimize the risks. A suggestion
of the direct relationship between the value of the benefits and the acceptance of
degree of risk is shown in Figure 1 (from reference 1). It is also apparent, as
shown in Figure 1, that risk acceptance is influenced by the extent to which it is
perceived as a voluntary or an involuntary risk. Much larger risks seem to be accepted
when the individual feels some degree of control of them (i.e., sports or driving an
automobile), than for activities which are imposed on or over which the individual
feels less control (i.e., air pollution or traveling by air). The number of persons
who may collectively be involved on any one occasion also influences societal risk
perception (2). Comparatively little attention is paid to single fatality incidents,
even though they are the cause of most accidental deaths, whereas infrequent disasters,
in which more than a few people perish are widely publicized (i.e., airplane crashes)
and better controlled. It is also obvious that the degree to which, a risk is known
and/or familiar is an important factor. For example, even though they are demonstra-
bly greater, the health effects of fossil fuel power plants effluents appear to arouse
relatively little public concern, compared to those from nuclear power plants.
Additionally, we are faced with the balancing of short and long term health
effects. For example, we have on one hand a concern over the genetic legacy of the
additional exposure to radiation produced by the nuclear fuel cycle, and on the other,
the potential change in insolation which may be produced by the combustion of addi-
tional fossil fuels.
Each of us has an individual value system which influences the importance we
attach to each of the above and other factors in risk assessment, so that it contains
a strong subjective element. Nevertheless, it is to be hoped that the identification
of the objective elements may be conducive to agreement.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This article can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Article.
Hull, A.P. Evaluation of energy related risk acceptance (APHA energy task force), article, January 1, 1977; Upton, New York. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1066667/m1/6/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.