Fukushima: Probing the analytical and epistemological limits of risk analysis

Journal of Risk Research

Volumn 15, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 801-815

  Hagmann, Jonas ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

concept analysis; Fukushima; knowledge politics; Risk analysis; risk communication

Indexed keywords

CONCEPT ANALYSIS; CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION; DISASTER MANAGEMENT; FUKUSHIMA; INTERNATIONAL SECURITY; KNOWLEDGE POLITICS; POLICY SECTORS; RISK ANALYSIS METHODS; RISK COMMUNICATION; STATE REGULATIONS; TECHNICAL PROTECTION MEASURES;

DISASTER PREVENTION; DISASTERS; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; RISK MANAGEMENT;

RISK ANALYSIS;

EID: 84864060542     PISSN: 13669877     EISSN: 14664461     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2012.657223     Document Type: Review

References (56)

1. Adcock, R., and D. Collier. 2001. Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review 95, no. 3: 529-46.
2. Alexander, C., and M.I. Marshall. 2006. The risk matrix: Illustrating the importance of risk management strategies. Journal of Extension 44, no. 2. http://www.joe.org/joe/2006april/ tt1.php.
3. Annaka, T., K. Satake, T. Sakakiyama, K. Yanagisawa, and N. Shuto. 2007. Logic-tree approach for probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis and its applications to the Japanese coasts. Pure and Applied Geophysics 164: 577-92. (Pubitemid 46567244)
4. Barnett, M., and R. Duvall. 2005. Power in international relations. International Organization 59: 39-75.
5. Bechmann, G. 2011. Tschernobyl und die Risikokultur: Die Formel des Todes [Chernobyl and risk culture: the formula of death]. Der Spiegel, April 26. Spiegel. http://www.spiegel. de/kultur/gesellschaft/0,1518,758978,00.html.
6. Beck, U. 1993. Die Erfindung des Politischen [The invention of politics]. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
7. Bruijne, M., J. Koppenjan, and N. Ryan. 2010. Coping with unknown unknowns and perverting effects: An introduction to the crisis of risks management in public infrastructure management. Bern: International Research Society for Public Management.
8. Busby, C. 2011. Fukushima disaster health risk grossly underestimated and far worse than Chernobyl. Examiner. http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in- jersey-city/physicist-fukushima- risk-grossly-underestimated-and-far-worse-than- chernobyl.
9. Chapman, R.J. 2006. Simple tools and techniques for enterprise risk management. Chichester: Wiley.
10. Choi, H., E. Pelinovsky, H.J. Lee, and S.B. Woo. 2005. Estimates of tsunami risk zones on the coasts adjacent to the East (Japan) Sea based on the synthetic catalogue. Natural Hazards 36: 355-81. (Pubitemid 41581996)
11. Cornell, A.C. 1968. Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 58, no. 5: 1583-606.
12. Deutscher Bundestag. 2011. Anlagenspezifische Sicherheitsü berprüfung deutscher Kernkraftwerke unter Berücksichtigung der Ereignisse in Fukushima-I (Japan) [Installationspecific security assessment of German nuclear power plants, with consideration of the events in Fukishima-I (Japan)]. RSK Online. http://www.rskonline.de/downloads/rsk-sn- sicherheitsueberpruefung-20110516-hp.pdf.
13. Eidgenössisches Nuklearsicherheitsinspektorat. 2011a. Analyse Fukushima 11032011: Vertiefende Analyse des Unfalls in Fukushima am 11. März 2011 unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der menschlichen und organisatorischen Faktoren [Analysis Fukushima 11032011: Deep analysis of the Fukushima accident of 11 March 2011, with special consideration to human and organisational factors]. Eidgenössisches Nuklearsicherheitsinspektorat. http://static.ensi.ch/1314626452/ensi-analyse-290811-web.pdf.
14. Eidgenössisches Nuklearsicherheitsinspektorat. 2011b. Sicherheit ist kein Zustand, Sicherheit ist ein Prozess [Security is no status, security is a process]. Eidgenössisches Nuklearsicherheitsinspektorat. http://www.ensi.ch/de/2011/07/05/sicherheit-ist-kein-zustand-sicherheit- ist-ein-prozess.
15. Feyerabend, P. 1981. How to defend society against science. In Scientific revolutions, ed. I. Hacking, 159-67. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. Fitzgerald, K. 1989. Nuclear weapons reactors: Too hot to handle? IEEE Spectrum 26, no. 6: 37-41.
17. Foucault, M. 1991. Governmentality. In The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality, ed. G. Burchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller, 87-104. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
18. Geist, E., and T. Parsons. 2006. Probabilistic analysis of tsunami hazards. Natural Hazards 37: 277-314. (Pubitemid 43216620)
19. Government of Japan Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters. 2011. Report of Japanese Government to the IAEA Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety: The accident at TEPCO's Fukushima nuclear power stations.
20. Greiving, S., M. Fleischhauer, and J. Lückenkötter. 2006. A methodology for an integrated risk assessment of spatially relevant hazards. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 49, no. 1: 1-19. (Pubitemid 43135178)
21. Gusterson, H. 2004. People of the bomb: Portraits of America's nuclear complex. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
22. Hagmann, J. 2011. Risikominderung: Konzept der Risikovorbeugung [Risk mitigation: concept of risk prevention]. Zurich: Center for Security Studies, ETH Zurich.
23. Hagmann, J., and M. Dunn Cavelty. 2012. National risk registers: Security scientism and the propagation of permanent insecurity. Security Dialogue 4, no. 1: 79-96.
24. Hameiri, S., and F. Kühn. 2011. Introduction: Risk, risk management and international relations. International Relations 25, no. 3: 274-9.
25. Hassan, Y. A. (ed). 2011. Nuclear Engineering and Design 241, no. 8: 2629-3374.
26. Hayek, F.A. 1974. The pretence of knowledge. The American Economic Review 79, no. 6: 3-7.
27. Jasanoff, S. 2003. Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41, no. 3: 223-44. (Pubitemid 41341976)
28. Jasanoff, S. 2009. Beyond calculation: A democratic response to risk. In Disaster and the politics of intervention, ed. A. Lakoff, 14-40. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
29. Kadritzke, U. 2011. Vorwärts und stets vergessen: Die unbelehrbare Wissensgesellschaft nach Fukushima und Finanzkrise [Steaming on and constantly forgetting: the unteachable knowledge society after Fukushima and the financial crisis]. Le Monde Diplomatique 9494, May 13. Le Monde. http://www.monde- diplomatique.de/pm/2011/2005/2013. mondeText.artikel,a0012.idx,2015.
30. Kaplan, S., and J.B. Garrick. 1981. On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis 1, no. 1: 11-27. (Pubitemid 12121289)
31. Kasperson, R.E., O. Renn, P. Slovic, H.S. Brown, J. Emel, R. Goble, J.X. Kasperson, and S. Ratick. 1988. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis 8, no. 2: 177-87.
32. Kauermann, G., and H. Küchenhoff. 2011. Nach Fukushima stellt sich die Risikofrage neu [After Fukushima the risk question is posed anew]. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, March 30. FAZ Onlnie. http://www.faz.net/ artikel/C32436/reaktorsicherheit-nach-fukushima- stellt-sich-die-risikofrage- neu-30332029.html.
33. Kazarians, M., N. Siu, and G. Apostolakis. 1985. Fire risk analysis for nuclear power plants: Methodological developments and applications. Risk Analysis 5, no. 1: 33-51. (Pubitemid 15149717)
34. Kennedy, R.P., and M.K. Ravindra. 1984. Seismic fragilities for nuclear power plant risk studies. Nuclear Engineering and Design 79: 47-68. (Pubitemid 14604410)
35. Kernkraftwerk Gösgen. 2010. Technik und Betrieb. Kernkraftwerg Gösgen. http://www.kkg.ch/upload/cms/user/KKG-Broschre-D-2010.pdf.
36. Knight, F. 1921. Risk, uncertainty and profit. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
37. Krause, K. 1991. Military statecraft: Power and influence in Soviet and American arms transfer relationships. International Studies Quarterly 35, no. 3: 313-36.
38. Lund Peterson, K. 2011. Risk analysis - a field within security studies. European Journal of International Relations. Pre-published 23 August 2011 as DOI 10.1177/13540661 11409770.
39. Mohrbach, L. 2011. Unterschiede im gestaffelten Sicherheitskonzept: Vergleich Fukushima Daiichi mit deutschen Anlagen [Differences in the graded security concept: Comparison Fukushima-Daiichi to German installations]. Internationale Zeitschrift für Kernenergie 56: 4-5.
40. Molak, V. 2011. The concept of risk. Gaia Foudnation. http://www.gaiafoundation.net/ FRARM%20Conclusion.pdf.
41. Netherlands. 2008. National risk assessment method guide 2008. The Hague: National Safety and Security Programme.
42. Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ). 2009. Ja, Kernkraftwerke bergen Risiken [Yes, nuclear power plants are risky]. Neue Zürcher Zeitung, November 10. http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/ blogs/nzzvotum/nzzvotum-akw-schweiz-energie/ja- kernkraftwerke-bergen-risiken-1.22 16243.html.
43. Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ). 2011a. Noda macht Gesten zur Einheit [Noda makes gesture of unity]. August 31, p. 5.
44. Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ). 2011b. Atomkraft bleibt eine Option: Ständeratskommission will keine neuen Kraftwerke [Nuclear power remains an option: Upper house does not want new nuclear power plants]. Neue Zürcher Zeitung, August 30. http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/politik/schweiz/schweiz- atomkraft-option-staenderat-kommission-1.1224091 9.html.
45. North, D.W. 1995. Limitations, definitions, principles and methods of risk analysis. Revue Scientifique et Technique 14, no. 4: 913-23.
46. Onishi, N., and J. Glanz. 2011. Japanese rules for nuclear plants relied on old science. New York Times, March 26. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/ world/asia/27nuke.html?pagewanted= all.
47. Oregon. 2011. One-page Fukushima tsunami plan ruled out disaster. Oregon, May 27. http:// www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2011/05/one-page-fukushima- tsunami-plan-ruled-out-disaster.html.
48. Sjöberg, L. 2000. Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis 20, no. 1: 1-11. (Pubitemid 30412178)
49. Taleb, N.N. 2007. The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. London: Random House.
50. Tokyo Electric Power Company. 2001. The assessment of effects related to the Japan Society of Civil Engineers' guidelines on tsunami assessment for nuclear power plants - Fukushima Daiichi and Daini nuclear power plants. Tokyo: Tokyo Electric Power Company.
51. Trochim, W. 2001. The research methods knowledge base. Cincinnati, OH: Atomicdog.
52. Türschmann, M., and A. Wielenberg. 2011. Was ist eigentlich ein Restrisiko? [What is residual risk?] Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, April 28. FAZ Online. http://www.faz.net/artikel/ C30950/kernkraftwerke-was-ist- eigentlich-ein-restrisiko-30335354.html.
53. United Kingdom Cabinet Office. 2010. National risk register of civil emergencies. http:// www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/ nationalriskregister-2010.pdf.
54. Waever, O. 1995. Securitization and de-securitization. In On security, ed. R. Lipschutz, 46-86. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
55. Yanagisawa, K., F. Imamura, T. Sakakiyama, T. Annaka, T. Takeda, and N. Shuto. 2007. Tsunami assessment for risk management at nuclear power facilities in Japan. Pure and Applied Geophysics 164: 565-76. (Pubitemid 46567243)
56. Yoshioka, R. 2011. Fukushima accident report. Shippai. www.shippai.org/images/html/ news559/FukushimaReport-4.pdf.