Deliberating over Britain's nuclear waste

Journal of Risk Research

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 1-11

  Ball, David J ^a  

^a MIDDLESEX UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Consultation; Deliberation; Management; Nuclear waste; Relativism; Science; United Kingdom

Indexed keywords

RISK MANAGEMENT; SOCIAL ASPECTS; WASTE MANAGEMENT;

CONSULTATION; DELIBRATION; RELATIVISM; SCIENCE; UNITED KINGDOM;

RADIOACTIVE WASTES;

EID: 29744460075     PISSN: 13669877     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13669870500288700     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. CERRIE (2004) Report of the Committee examining radiation risks of internal emitters, London.
2. Collier, D. (2004) Evaluation of the deliberative mapping pilot, Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, London.
3. Collier, D. (2005) CoRWM PSE1 Evaluation report, Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, London.
4. Durodié, B. (2003) Limitations of public dialogue in science and the rise of new 'experts', Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 6(4), pp. 82-92.
5. Eiser, J. R. (2004) Public perception of risk. Report for Foresight Office of Science and Technology, London.
6. European Commission (2005) Special Eurobarometer, Social values, science and technology. Brussels.
7. Fischhoff, B. (1995) Risk perception and communication unplugged: 20 years of process, Risk Analysis, 15(2), pp. 137-146.
8. st Century Philistinism (London: Continuum Press).
9. Graham, J. D. and Wiener, J. B. (1995) Risk versus Risk, Tradeoffs in Protecting Health and the Environment (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
10. th report, House of Lords paper 200.
11. House of Lords (2005a) Science and Technology Committee, Radioactive waste management: government response, House of Lords paper 89.
12. House of Lords (2005b) Radioactive waste management (S & T report), Hansard 12 January, columns 324-334.
13. Jasanoff, S. (1990) The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policy Makers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
14. Keeney, R. L., Renn, O. and von Winterfeldt, D. (1987) Structuring West Germany's energy objectives, Energy Policy, 8, pp. 352-362.
15. Löfstedt, R. E. and Vogel, D. (2001) The changing character of regulation: a comparison of Europe and the United States, Risk Analysis, 21(3), pp. 399-416.
16. Morgan, M. G. and Henrion, M. (1995) Uncertainty - A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Qualitative Risk and Policy Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
17. New Scientist (2005) Creationism, a sceptic's guide to intelligent design, 87(2507), pp. 5 and 10-12.
18. Pidgeon, N. and Gregory, R. (2004) Judgment, decision making, and public policy, in: N. Harvey & D. Koehler (Eds) Handbook of Judgement and Decision Making (Oxford: Blackwell).
19. Renn, O. (2003) The challenge of integrating deliberation and expertise: participation and discourse in risk management, in; T. McDaniels & M. Small (Eds) Risk Analysis and Society: An Interdisciplinary Characterisation of the field (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
20. Renn, O., Webler, T. and Löfstedt, R. (2003) A brief history of deliberation. Annex 1 to O. Renn, in: T. McDaniels & M. Small (Eds) Risk Analysis and Society: An Interdisciplinary Characterisation of the Field (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
21. Rothstein, H. (2003) Precautionary bans or sacrificial lambs? Discussion paper no. 15, Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation, London School of Economics, London.
22. Stern, P. C. and Fineberg, H. V. (1996) Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (Washington, DC: National Research Council).
23. Tait, J. (2001 ) More Faust than Frankenstein: the European debate about the precautionary principle and risk regulation for genetically modified crops, Journal of Risk Research, 4(2), pp. 175-189.
24. Webb, T. (2005) Nuclear advisers under pressure to quit after conflicts revealed. The Independent on Sunday, Business section, 8 May, p. 2.
25. Whyte, J. (2003) Bad Thoughts - A Guide to Clear Thinking (London: Corvo Press).