Risk Assessment, Regulation, and the Limits of Science

  • Alvin M. Weinberg
Part of the Basic Life Sciences book series (BLSC, volume 43)


My paper deals with two different topics: first, the relation between population heterogeneity and dose-response at low dose; and second, the intrinsic limits to what science can say about dose-response at low dose, and how this affects regulatory policy.


Failure Probability Scientific Discourse Nuclear Regulatory Commission Linear Hypothesis Inherent Safety 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J. Totter and A. M. Weinberg, Repair and dose-response at low dose, ORAU/IEA(0)77–11, Institute for Energy Analysis, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, Tennessee (1977).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    W. Ruckelshaus, Risk, Science & Democracy, Issues in Science and Technology I: 19–38 (1985).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. M. Weinberg and J. B. Storer, On ambiguous carcinogens and their regulation, Risk Analysis 5: 151–155 (1985).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. N. Ames, Dietary carcinogens and anti-carcinogens, Science 221, 1256–64 (1983).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. R. Totter, Spontaneous cancer and its possible relation to oxygen metabolism, Proc. Nat’l Acad. Sciences 77: 1763–67 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Whittemore, Facts and values in risk analysis for environmental toxicants, Risk Analysis 3, 23–33 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    T. J. Pinch and W. E. Bijker, The social construction of facts and artifacts or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other, Social Studies of Science 14: 22–30 (1983).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Jasanoff, “Risk Management and Political Culture,” Russell Sage Foundation, New York, New York (1986).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Plants (WASH-1400, NUREG 75/014) Washington, D.C. (1975).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    T. Kletz, Inherent safety and the nuclear industry, The Chemical Engineer, p. 35 (July/August 1984). Also, T. Kletz, Cheaper, safer plants, or wealth and safety at work, Institution of Chemical Engineers (1984).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. Adler and A. M. Weinberg, An approach to setting radiation standards, Health Physics 34: 719–720 (1978).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    T. Westermark, Persistent Genotoxic Wastes: An Attempt at a Risk Assessment, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm (1980).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    W. C. Clark, Witches, Floods and Wonder Drugs: Historical Perspectives on Risk Management, RR-81–3, Laxenburg, Austria, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (1981).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alvin M. Weinberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Energy AnalysisOak Ridge Associated UniversitiesOak RidgeUSA

Personalised recommendations