World Congress on Risk 2015
19-23 July, 2015, Singapore
Session Schedule & Abstracts
* Disclaimer: All presentations represent the views of the authors, and not the organizations that support their research. Please apply the standard disclaimer that any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations in abstracts, posters, and presentations at the meeting are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other organization or agency. Meeting attendees and authors should be aware that this disclaimer is intended to apply to all abstracts contained in this document. Authors who wish to emphasize this disclaimer should do so in their presentation or poster. In an effort to make the abstracts as concise as possible and easy for meeting participants to read, the abstracts have been formatted such that they exclude references to papers, affiliations, and/or funding sources. Authors who wish to provide attendees with this information should do so in their presentation or poster.
Risk governance of nuclear power plant accidents and of natural disasters
Room: Discovery 15:30–17:00
|Chair(s): Jun Sekizawa
1 Establishment of Scheme for Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know. Sekizawa Jun (113)|
Abstract: Human security, in place of national security which has been pursued traditionally, should be the aim of the emergency planning. People need to protect themselves, and recover their lives after the disaster or accident. But how? They really need good, reliable information to make appropriate decisions. Especially important things for this is, that information is available to them not after the accidents, but to be supplied before accidents Risk analysis which analyze potential risk and can provide reliable information should be a precious tool for this purpose. In Japan we have been suffering various natural disasters every year which in several ways accompanied with human failure and insufficient preparedness. Fukushima nuclear power plant accident and the following disaster is one of the worst examples of unpreparedness. In addition to this, Japanese government has been carrying out mostly monetary compensation and physical restoration and/or construction works of the damaged sites, however we really need to establish good framework for emergency planning and community right-to-know for preparedness against the coming future disaster, too. .Outcomes of examination regarding establishing this framework will be presented based on analysis of the situations and problems encountered until now will be presented.
2 Current Situation and Issues on Decontamination of Radioactive substances and Rehabilitation from Nuclear disaster in Fukushima. Murayama Takehiko (123)|
Abstract: On 11th March 2011 an earthquake of Magnitude 9.0 and subsequent tsunami triggered a serious nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan. Significant amounts of radiation were released to the surrounding environment. This paper reviews how radiation risk was communicated between local governments and the public, and how these different views led to increased public anxiety and a breakdown in trust. Afterwards, it comprises the lessons to be learnt from this situation from the following aspects; understanding of the characteristics of risk perception among the public, rebuilding trustworthy relationship among the public, governments and experts. As a case of stakeholdersâ€™ involvement, it referred a local decontamination panel of Fukushima City, which gives suggestions on local situations and requests specific procedures, and local residents participate in explanatory meetings on decontamination and discuss in tripartite meetings for specific measure for each house. Overviewing the complicated situation on rehabilitation from nuclear disaster, which includes both returns to contaminated areas and resettlement to other surrounding areas, the paper discuss about better ways for evacuees in terms of risk management as well as reconstruction of their lives.
3 Risk governance of natural disasters, and nuclear power plants based on preparedness. Chang Peter (69)|
Abstract: Major nuclear disasters did not occur often, but usually with significant global impacts when it happened. The disaster from Fukushima nuclear power plant accident in 2011 reminded people in Japan as well as those in the region and globally that threats from nuclear disaster would be continuous realities. After the developments of the nuclear technology since middle of last century, now it has only been realized that the safety of the nuclear power plants built several decades ago relied not only on technology development, but also on management and safety culture of the society, and usually the governments, involved. The experiences in Taiwan after the Fukushima disaster provided an important reflection on this observation since March 2011. Several surveys conducted right after the accident demonstrated that the risks perceived by the public toward nuclear power operations were strongly influenced by the performance and capacity of governmental and regulatory agencies, as well as the safety culture of the nuclear corporations. Interestingly, the perceived risks on the nuclear power plants in Taiwan had also been significantly modulated by the disaster from the Fukushima accident. This might be explained by geo-political relationship between two countries, as well as other bilateral socio-economic partnership historically. The mechanisms of such influences were multi-disciplinary, usually beyond national borders, and deserved further analysis. On the other sides, the preparedness toward nuclear accidents and the local as well as international media coverage were significantly different between different countries. These may shape the risks perceived by the public differentially. Further exploratory researches will be presented in the Conference.
4 Nuclear Risk Governance in South Korea: Unprepared and Unreliable. Yun Sun-Jin (121)|
Abstract: The Fukushima nuclear disaster in March 2011 in Japan was a shocking event especially to its neighbor, South Korea. South Korea, currently ranking 5th in the world in terms of nuclear installation capacity and number of reactors, 4th in terms of nuclear electricity generation, and 1st in terms of nuclear reactor density, is in a critically risky condition. In particular, more than 5 million people live within 30km of nuclear power plants. Under these circumstances, how well prepared and reliable is South Koreaâ€™s risk governance? This study explores the risk governance system in South Korea, discovers problems and their sources, and suggests alternatives. What kinds of institutions have been arranged? How properly have they been operated? Who has participated in risk governance or who are allowed to? What kind of information has been produced and how has the information been circulated? This study explores critical events related to nuclear risk and investigates institutional responses. Even though the South Korean government established the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission in October 2011 in order to mitigate the anxiety resulting from the Fukushima nuclear disaster, emergency planning has not been sufficiently prepared and nuclear accident simulations have not been undertaken. Safety and Security related agencies are dominated by pro-nuclear groups based on opaque and closed decision-making processes. Bribery and corruption around the procurement of nuclear reactor parts are another significant source of nuclear risks in Korea. It concludes that the current nuclear risk governance in South Korea is inadequate, unprepared, and unreliable.
5 Consumers Judgment Criteria on Radionuclide Contamination in Foods after Fukushima Nuclear Accident. Hosono Hiromi (203)|
Abstract: Since the explosion of Fukushima 1st nuclear power plant, consumer anxiety on foods produced in adjacent area has spread widely. Intensive inspection on foods as well as agricultural land decontamination has started soon after the disaster. And most inspected foods, except marine products and wild plants/animals, contaminate negligible level of radioactive substances as time goes along. However, people are not convinced the safety of foods produced in adjacent area and market price as well as trade quantity is not yet recovered. Weâ€™d like to present the transition of consumer attitude and food choice behavior based on a series of consumer survey implemented since 2011. The results indicated followings; consumer trust on radiation risk management has recovered considerably between 2nd and 3rd year since the accident; risk perception, knowledge on radiation risk and risk management measures, and willingness to pay for foods produced in adjacent area were comparatively stable; concern on the Great East Japan Earthquake and the situation of affected area has diminishing; enhancement of inspection and decontamination of environment were expected while providing information or risk communication was regarded as unwelcome measure when national budged is utilized.
[back to schedule]