Skip to main content

Science and Its Limits

The Regulator’s Dilemma

  • Chapter
De Minimis Risk

Part of the book series: Contemporary Issues in Risk Analysis ((CIRA,volume 2))

Abstract

William Ruckelshaus, in his beautiful essay “Risk, Science and Democracy,”1 has expressed very clearly what I shall call the regulator’s dilemma. “During the past 15 years there has been a shift in public emphasis from visible and demonstrable problems, such as smog from automobiles and raw sewage, to potential and largely invisible problems, such as the effects of low concentrations of toxic pollutants on human health. This shift is notable for two reasons. First, it has changed the way in which science is applied to practical questions of public health protection and environmental regulation. Second, it has raised difficult questions as to how to manage chronic risks within the context of free and democratic institutions.”1

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. W. D. Ruckelshaus, “Risk, Science, and Democracy,” Issues in Science and Technology 1 (3), 19–38, Spring 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Reactor Safety Study: An assessment of Accident Risk in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Plants,“ WASH-1400, NUREG 75/014, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  3. N. Rasmussen, “Methods of Hazard Analysis and Nuclear Safety Engineering” in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 365, 29–33, April 24, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  4. David Okrent, Nuclear Reactor Safety, On the History of the Regulatory Process, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Risk Assessment Review Group Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ H. W. Lewis, Chairman, NUREG/CR-0400, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., September 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Reviews of Modern Physics 47, Supplement 1, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  7. The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: 1980, “ BEIR-III, Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  8. The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation,“ BEIR-I, Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bruce N. Ames, “Dietary Carcinogens and Anticarcinogens,” Science 221(4617): 1249–1256, September 23, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  10. John R. Totter, “Spontaneous Cancer and its Possible Relationship to Oxygen Metabolism,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 77 (4): 1763–1767, April 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Alvin M. Weinberg and John B. Storer, “On `Ambiguous’ Carcinogens and Their Regulation,” Risk Analysis 5 (2): 151–155, June 1985.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Alice Whittemore, “Facts and Values in Risk Analysis for Environmental Toxicants,” Risk Analysis 3 (1): 23–33, March 1983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. J. Ben-David, “Emergence of National Traditions in the Sociology of Science, The United States and Great Britain,” Social Inquiry 48 (3–4): 197–218, 1978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Trevor J. Pinch and Wiebe E. Bijker, “The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other,” Social Studies of Science 14: 399–441, 1984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. K. Hannerz, “Towards Intrinsically Safe Light Water Reactors,” Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Institute for Energy Analysis, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, ORAU/IEA-83–2(M) Rev., June 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Herbert Reutler and Gunther H. Lohnert, “The Modular High Temperature Reactor,” Nuclear Technology 62: 22–30, July 1983.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Trevor A. Kletz, Cheaper, Safer Plants or Wealth and Safety at Work—Notes on Inherently Safer and Simpler Plants, The Institution of Chemical Engineers, Rugby, England, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  18. H.I. Adler and A.M. Weinberg, “An Approach to Setting Radiation Standards,” Health Physics 34: 719720, June 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  19. T. Westermark, “Persistent Genotoxic Wastes—An Attempt at a Risk Assessment,” Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  20. William C. Clark, “Witches, Floods, and Wonder Drugs: Historical Perspectives on Risk Management,” RR-81–3, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, March 1981.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1987 Plenum Press, New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Weinberg, A.M. (1987). Science and Its Limits. In: Whipple, C. (eds) De Minimis Risk. Contemporary Issues in Risk Analysis, vol 2. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-5293-8_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-5293-8_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4684-5295-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4684-5293-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics