Summary of Panel Discussion and Commentary

  • Christoph Hohenemser
Part of the Advances in Risk Analysis book series (AIRA, volume 1)

Abstract

In summing up the lessons learned at this meeting, I would like to pass up further discussion of the symposium I chaired and comment instead on the overall theme of the conference: the comparison of “perceived” vs. “actual” risk.

Keywords

Dust Cadmium Ozone Uranium Aspirin 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    H. Joksch, this conference.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Harris, this conference.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. Hamilton, this conference.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Gelman, this conference.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Starr, this conference.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    N. Rasmussen, this conference.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein, In: Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough?, R. C. Schwing and W. A. Albers, Jr., eds., Plenum Press (1980).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Workshop on Perceived Risk, December 11–13, 1980, Eugene, Oregon, P. Slovic, ed., Decision Research (1981).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Wilson, Technology Review, 81, 40 (1979).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. Cohen and I. Lee, Health Physics, 36, 707 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. Starr, Science, 165, 1232 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    A fuller statement of the collaborative work of the Clark and Decision Research groups is forthcoming under the title “The Nature of Technological Hazard” (submitted for publication, July, 1981).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    I. Burton, R. W. Kates, and G. F. White, The Environment as Hazard, Oxford, New York (1978).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    W. D. Rowe, The Anatomy of Risk, Wiley, New York (1977).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. W. Kates, Risk Assessment of Environmental Hazard, Wiley, Chichester (1978).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Reactor Safety Study, NUREG 75/014 (1975).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    H. W. Lewis, Risk Assessment Review Group Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG 75/014; N.R.C., Washington (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    W. Haddon, Jr., Technology Review, 77, 52 (1975).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    T. Bick and R. E. Kasperson, Environment, 20, No. 8, 30 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein, Environment, 21, No. 3, 14 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    E. W. Lawless, Technology and Social Shock, Rutgers, New Brunswick, N. J. (1977).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Hohenemser
    • 1
  1. 1.Hazard Assessment GroupClark UniversityWorcesterUSA

Personalised recommendations