Law Commons^™

Introduction To Special Issue On Radiation Effects, P. Andrew Karam

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] "How dangerous is radiation? How much radiation does it take to give us cancer? Are we wasting money on overly restrictive regulations, or are we not being sufficiently protective of our radiation workers and the public? How much clean-up is necessary on our Department of Energy facilities? What about Yucca Mountain and nuclear reactor plants – can they be made safe?

These are only a few of the questions that have been asked, and will continue to be asked, about radiation. Unfortunately, these all come down, in part or in whole, to the question “What is the shape of …

Effects Of The Shape Of The Radiation Dose-Response Curve On Public Acceptance Of Radiation And Nuclear Energy, Audeen W. Fentiman

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] “The public generally accepts the premise that exposure to radiation can have an undesirable effect. Furthermore, it believes that as the radiation dose increases, the magnitude of the effect will increase. On the other hand, while the background radiation dose varies from a few hundred millirem/year (a few millisieverts/yr) in some places to a few thousand millirem/yr (tens of millisieverts/yr) in others, researchers have been unable to find a correlation between the level of background radiation and incidence of cancer or other maladies attributable to radiation.

…

Because there is considerable controversy about the relationship between radiation dose and …

Risk Assessments For Chemical Stockpile Incinerators: Is The Supporting Guidance Adequate, Lawrence V. Tannenbaum

RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002)

The author identifies potential deficiencies in guidance used in the United States for risk assessments of chemical weapons incinerators.

How To Achieve Public Participation In Nuclear Waste Decisions: Public Relations Or Transparent Adversary Science, Judy Treichel

RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002)

[Excerpt] "Commercial nuclear reactors in the United States have been producing electricity and highly radioactive wastes for more than forty years. Originally, reluctant utilities built reactors at the urging of Congress, acting in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act. The Act called for promotion of nuclear technology and also provided a shield of secrecy allowing for extensive power to classify information. Wiretapping and other surveillance techniques were allowable if nuclear secrets or interference with nuclear programs were involved. During this time the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) provided films and comic books, and gave speeches in a public relations campaign designed …

Nuclear Waste And Native America: The Mrs Siting Exercise, M. V. Rajeev Gowda, Doug Easterling

RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002)

Drs. Gowda & Easterling provide cross-cultural perspectives on issues of risk perception, equity and policy as they affect nuclear waste storage on Native American sites.

Comparison Of Environmental Risk Provisions In The 103d Congress, Linda-Jo Schierow

RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002)

Dr. Schierow, an Analyst in Environmental Policy with the Congressional Research Service, presents a tabulated summary of comparable provisions in several bills with special attention to the Risk Assessment Improvement Act of 1994.

Preferences For Exposure Control Of Power-Frequency Fields Among Lay Opinion Leaders, Ann Bostrom, M. Granger Morgan, Jack Adams, Indira Nair

RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002)

The authors report on surveys, differing according to focus on remedial costs, of Pittsburgh-area adults indicating beliefs about possible health effects of electromagnetic fields and the acceptability of options for reducing or eliminating the potential impact.

Trace Substances, Science And Law: Perspectives From The Social Sciences, James F. Short Jr.

RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002)

Using advances in analytical technology as a point of departure, Dr. Short reviews what social science research reveals about perceptions, decision making processes and behaviors of organizations and individuals who try to cope with risk and uncertainty.

Book Review, Angela V. Tafro

RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002)

Review of: VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE, EARTH IN THE BALANCE: ECOLOGY AND THE HUMAN SPIRIT. (Plume 1993) [368 pp.] Acknowledgements, bibliography, figures, foreword, illustrations, index, notes. LC 92- 34013; ISBN 0-452-26935-0. [Paper $13.00. 375 Hudson Street, New York NY 10014.]

Book Review, Scott Hogan

RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002)

Review of: ROBERT A. SHANLEY, PRESIDENTIAL INFLUENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY. (Greenwood Press, 1992) [163 pp.] Abbreviations, acknowledgements, index, introduction, notes, selected bibliography. LC 92-15584; ISBN 0-313-25883-X. [$45.00 cloth. 88 Post Road West; Westport CT 06881.]

Proving Environmental Inequity In Siting Locally Unwanted Land Uses, Michael Greenberg

RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002)

This paper advances a process for determining whether, e.g., waste-to-energy facilities are disproportionately located in minority and poor communities, and the author asks others to join in searching for a scientifically sound and fair process of resolving conflicting interests in locating LULUs. He also discusses some difficult issues and argues that they need to be addressed by a representative panel.

Recognizing Risks And Paying For Risk Reduction, Gary W. Johnson

RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002)

Inspired by a recent report of EPA's Science Advisory Board, Mr. Johnson argues that it is imperative that we set regulatory priorities lest we invest available resources in reducing Risks that are lower than others that might instead be addressed.

Regulating Air Toxics In Rhode Island: Policy Vs. Technical Decisions, Julie A. Roque

RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002)

Dr. Roqu6 recounts her work as a doctoral candidate at Brown in developing standards for the regulation of airborne carcinogens. Based in part on this experience, she argues that care needs be taken lest those who regulate Risk bury key policy decisions within a mass of often irrelevant technical details.