Advancing US public acceptance of spent fuel storage and transport: proposed outreach services for ionising radiation education support

References

• Weart SR: ‘The rise of nuclear fear’; 2012, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN): 2012 Baromètre IRSN La Perception des Risques et de la Sécurité par les Français. IRSN, Siège social 31, avenue de la Division-Leclerc, 92260 Fontenay-aux-Roses, RCS Nanterre B 440 546 018
   Google Scholar
• Ropeik D: ‘The rise of nuclear fear – how we learned to fear radiation’; 2012, Scientific American Invited Guest Blog. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/06/15/the-rise-of-nuclear-fear-how-we-learned-to-fear-the-bomb/ (accessed 28 April 2013).
   Google Scholar
• National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and National Research Council: ‘Safety and security of commercial spent nuclear fuel storage’; 2005, Washington, DC, National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and National Research Council: ‘Going the distance? The safe transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in the United States’; 2006, Washington, DC, National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Deutch J, Moniz EJ, Ansolabehere S, Driscoll M, Gray P, Holdren JP, Joskow PL, Lester RK and Todreas NE: ‘The future of nuclear power – an interdisciplinary study’; 2003, Cambridge, MA, Massachusetts Institute of Technology – MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency: ‘Nuclear Energy Outlook 2008’; 2008, Bedfordshire, UK, OECD Publications. www.oecd.org/bookshop (accessed 19 April 2009).
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency: ‘Public attitudes on nuclear power’; 2010, NEA 6858. Bedfordshire, OECD Publications. www.oecd.org/bookshop (accessed 26 June 2012).
   Google Scholar
• Slovic P: ‘Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield’, Risk Anal., 1999, 19, (4), 689–701.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boice JD: Testimony before the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology’s Energy & Environment and Investigations & Oversight Committees hearings on nuclear energy risk management. May 13, 2011. http://www.hps.org/documents/John_Boice_Testimony_13_May_2011.pdf (accessed 10 December 2012).
   Google Scholar
• Allison W: ‘Public trust in nuclear energy’, in ‘World Nuclear Association (WNA) personal perspectives’, World Nuclear Association, London, UK, April 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI): ‘NEI nuclear notes, July 22, 2011, presentation citation. www.nei.org (accessed 14 April 2012).
   Google Scholar
• Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on America’s Nuclear Future (2012). Report to the Secretary of Energy. US, Department of Energy, Washington, DC. http://brc.gov (accessed May 16, 2012).
   Google Scholar
• Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) (2013). US Public Opinion National Survey Questionnaire – February 8–10, 2013. www.nei.org (accessed 13 May 2013).
   Google Scholar
• Freudenberg LS and Beyer T: ‘Subjective perception of radiation risk’, J. Nucl. Med., 2011, 52, (12 Suppl), 29S–35S.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jenkins-Smith HC, Silva CL, Herron KG, Ripberger KG, Nowlin M, Ripberger J, Bonano E and Rechard RP: ‘Public preferences related to consent-based siting of radioactive waste management facilities for storage and disposal: analyzing variations over time, events, and program designs’, US Department of Energy Used Fuel Storage and Transportation Planning Project, SAND 2013-0032P, Sandia National Laboratories, February 2013, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer MA: ‘The nuclear community and the public: cognitive and cultural influences on thinking about nuclear risk’, Nucl. Saf., 1996, 37, 2, 97–108.
   Google Scholar
• Slovic P, Fischhoff B and Lichtenstein S: ‘Why study risk perception? Society for risk analysis’, Risk Anal., 1982, 2, 2.
   Google Scholar
• Gray G and Ropeik D: ‘Dealing with the dangers of fear: the role of risk communication’, Health Affairs, 2002, 21, 6, 106–116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visschers VHM, Meertens RM, Passchier WF and de Vries NK: ‘How does the general public evaluate risk information? The impact of associations with other risks’, Risk Anal., 27, 715–727.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M Visschers VH, Meertens RM, Passchier WF and de Vries NK: ‘An associative approach to risk perception: measuring the effects of risk communications directly and indirectly’, J. Risk Res., 2007, 10, 371–383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visschers VHM, Meertens RM, Passchier WF and de Vries NK: ‘Video risk communication unraveled: short-term and long-term effects’, J. Risk Res., 2008, 11, 207–221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visschers VHM and Meertens RM: ‘Gut feeling vs. common sense: associative and cognitive processes in risk perception and communication’, Proc. 9th Int. Conf. on ‘Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management, Hong Kong, May, 2008, ISAPSAM, paper No. 246.
   Google Scholar
• Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel J, Goble R, Kasperson JX and Ratick S S: ‘The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework’, Risk Anal., 1988, 8, 2, 177–187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dauer LT, Thornton RH, Hay JL, Balter R, Williamson MJ and St Germain J: ‘Fears, feelings, and facts: interactively communicating benefits and risks of medical radiation with patients’, Am. J. Roentgenol., 2011, 196, (4), 756–761.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiedemann P: ‘EMF risk communication: themes challenges, and potential remedies’, Proc. Int. Seminar on ‘EMF risk perception and communication’, (ed. Repacholi M and Muc A); 1999, Geneva, World Health Organization WHO/SDE/OEH 99·01 , pp. 69-118.
   Google Scholar
• Korea Nuclear Energy Promotion Agency (KONEPA) (2012): ‘The energy that makes your life happier’. http://www.konepa.or.kr/eng/index.html (accessed 17 December 2012).
   Google Scholar
• Visschers VHM,Keller C and Siegrist M: ‘Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: investigating an explanatory model’, Energy Policy, 2011, 39, 3621–3629.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiorentini G, Lissia M, Mantovani F and Vannucci R: ‘Geo-Neutrinos: a new probe of Earth’s interior’, Earth Planet Sci. Lett., 2005, 238, 235–247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Idaho State University (ISU) (2011): ‘Radioactivity in nature, radiation information network. http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/ (accessed 3 December 2012).
   Google Scholar
• United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR): ‘Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation to the General Assembly, Annex B: Exposures from natural radiation sources’; 2000, Vienna, United Nations Publications.
   Google Scholar
• National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP): ‘Exposure of the population of the United States and Canada from natural background radiation’, report no. 94, NCRP, Bethesda, MD, USA, 1987.
   Google Scholar
• Baskaran M: ‘Po-201 and Pb-212 as atmospheric tracers and global atmospheric Pb-210 fallout: a review’, J. Environ. Radioact., 2011, 102, (5), 500–513.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA): ‘Cancer risk coefficients for environmental exposure to radionuclides’, Federal Guidance Report No. 13, EPA 402-R-99-001, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA, 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Pennington CW: ‘Nuclear energy safety: comparative assessments of radiological impacts on the public from the commercial nuclear fuel cycle in the US’ in ‘Advances in energy research’, (ed. Acosta M J), Vol. 5, 1–54; 2011, Hauppauge, NY, Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Pennington CW: ‘Exposing America: comparative assessments of ionizing radiation doses to US populations from nuclear and non-nuclear industries’, Prog Nucl En, 49/6, 2007, 473–485.
   Google Scholar
• National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP): ‘Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States’, report no. 160, NCRP, Bethesda, MD, USA, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC): ‘State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analysis (SOARCA) Report, Draft Report for Comment, NUREG-1935’; US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Washington, DC, USA, 2012. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html (accessed 20 January 2013)..
   Google Scholar
• Douple EB, Mabuchi K, Cullings HM, Preston DL, Kodama K, Shimizu Y, Fujiwara S and Shore RE: ‘Long-term radiation-related health effects in a unique human population: lessons learned from the atomic bomb survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki’, Disaster Med. Public Health Preparedness, 2011, 5, S122–S133.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mine M, Okumura Y, Kondo H and Mori H: ‘Effects of A-Bomb radiation on survivors’, Acta Med. Nagasakiensia, 1992, 37, (1–4), 116–119.
   Google Scholar
• Luckey TD: ‘Biological effects of ionizing radiation: a perspective for Japan’, J. Am. Phys. Surg., 2011, 16, 45–46.
   Google Scholar
• Okumura Y and Mine M: ‘Effects of low doses of A-bomb radiation on human lifespan’, in ‘Low doses of ionizing radiation: biological effects and regulatory control’, 414–416; 1997, IAEA-TECDOC-976, IAEA-CN-67/129.
   Google Scholar
• Cuttler JM and Pollycove M: ‘Nuclear energy and health’, Dose–Response, 2009, 7, 52–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollycove M and Feinendegen LE: ‘Low level radiation improvement of health and therapy of cancer’, in Proc. 10th Int. Cong. on ‘International radiation protection association’, Hiroshima, Japan, International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA), paper No. 2a-94, May 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Pollycove M and Feinendegen LE: ‘Biologic responses to low doses of ionizing radiation: detriment versus hormesis. Part 2: dose responses of organisms’, J. Nucl. Med., 2001, 42, (9), 26N-37N.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tubiana M, Feinendegen LE, Yang C and Kaminski KM: ‘The linear no-threshold relationship is inconsistent with radiation biologic and experimental data’, Radiology, 2009, 251, 1, 13–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olipitz W, Wiktor-Brown D, Shuga J, Pang B, McFaline J, Lonkar P, Thomas A, Mutamba JT, Greenberger JS, Samson LD, Dedon PC, Yanch JC and Engelward BP: ‘Integrated molecular analysis indicates undetectable change in DNA damage in mice after continuous irradiation at ∼400-fold natural background radiation’, Environ. Health Perspect., 2012, 120, (8), 1130–1136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkins-Smith H, Silva C, Herron K, Bonano E and Rechard R: ‘Designing a process for consent-based siting of used nuclear fuel facilities – analysis of public support’, The BRIDGE, 2012, 42, (3).
   Google Scholar