| Weiterer Inhalt |
Nuclear Waste Management, Nuclear Power, and Energy Choices; Foreword; Preface; Acknowledgments; Contents; List of Figures; List of Tables; Chapter 1: Managing the Nuclear Legacies; 1.1 Introduction; 1.1.1 Science and Technology; 1.1.2 Nuclear Weapons Proliferation; 1.1.3 Economic Costs and Benefits; 1.1.4 Multilayered Policy Puzzles; 1.1.5 Public Participation in Areas with Nuclear Facilities; 1.2 Showered with Mixed Messages; 1.3 Organization of the Book; References; Chapter 2: The United States Nuclear Factories; 2.1 Introduction; 2.2 Nuclear Weapons Factories. 2.3 Federal Government Management of Defense Nuclear Materials2.3.1 Office of Environmental Management; 2.3.2 Legal Framework for Defense Wastes; 2.4 Geography of Nuclear Defense Sites; 2.4.1 Hanford; 2.4.2 Idaho National Laboratory; 2.4.3 Savannah River; 2.4.4 Oak Ridge; 2.4.5 Los Alamos; 2.4.6 Waste Isolation Pilot Plant; 2.4.7 Closed Sites: Fernald, Mound, and Rocky Flats; 2.4.8 Economic Dependence and Public Preferences; 2.5 Nuclear Power; 2.5.1 Nuclear Power Life Cycle; 2.5.2 Nuclear Power Debates; 2.5.3 Uncertain Status and Future of Nuclear Power. 2.5.4 Geography of Nuclear Power, Other Electrical Energy Sources, and DOE Nuclear Facilities in the United StatesReferences; Chapter 3: Public Stakeholders: What We Know and Expect; 3.1 Introduction; 3.2 Surveys, 2005-May 2011; 3.3 Theory; 3.3.1 Affect and Worry; 3.3.2 Trust; 3.3.3 Demographic Attributes; 3.3.4 Cultural Worldviews; 3.3.5 Personal History; 3.4 More Detailed Presentations; 3.4.1 European Studies; 3.4.1.1 Eurobarometer Surveys; 3.4.1.2 University-Based Surveys in Europe; 3.4.2 United States Surveys; 3.4.2.1 Nuclear Energy Institute-Bisconti. 3.4.2.2 Pew, Gallup, and Harris Surveys3.4.2.3 US University-Based Surveys; 3.5 Post-TMI and Chernobyl Surveys; References; Chapter 4: CRESP Surveys of Major US Department of Energy Environmental Management Site Regions and of the National Population, 2005-2010; 4.1 Introduction; 4.2 Locations; 4.3 Survey Design; 4.4 Questions; 4.4.1 Future Nuclear Use; 4.4.2 Legacy Waste Management; 4.4.3 Correlates; 4.5 Results; 4.5.1 Question 1. Future Nuclear Use; 4.5.2 Question 2. Legacy Waste Management; 4.5.3 Question 3. Correlates; 4.5.3.1 Summary of Correlate Data. 4.5.3.2 Summary of Correlations with Preferences for Siting and Waste Management Policies4.6 Summary and Lessons Learned; 4.6.1 Limitations; 4.6.2 Results: New Activities at Legacy Sites; 4.6.3 Results: Legacy Waste Management; 4.6.4 Results: Correlates; 4.6.5 Policy-Related Results; References; Chapter 5: Impact of the Fukushima Events on Public Preferences and Perceptions in the United States, 2011; 5.1 Introduction; 5.2 Design of the Survey and Questions; 5.2.1 Questions; 5.2.1.1 Preferences and Perceptions; 5.2.1.2 Correlates; 5.2.2 Sampling Locations; 5.2.3 Survey Implementation. 5.3 Results |
| Kurzbeschreibung |
Hundreds of studies have investigated public perceptions and preferences about nuclear power, waste management, and technology. However there is clear lack of uniformity in the style, aims and methods applied. Consequently, the body of results is inconsistent and it is difficult to isolate relevant patterns or interpretations. Nuclear Waste Management, Nuclear Power and Energy Choices: Public Preferences, Perceptions and Trust presents a theoretical base for public reactions then classifies and reviews the large body of surveys carried out over the past decade. Particular focus is placed on residents within 50 miles US nuclear waste facilities due to the disproportionate presence of nuclear factors in their lives such as the legacy of nuclear waste disposal and job dependency. The motivations and reasons for their views such as fear, attraction to the economic benefits, trust of site managers and federal agencies, cultural views, personal history, and demographic attributes of the people are also considered to provide a balanced and detailed overview. Nuclear Waste Management, Nuclear Power and Energy Choices: Public Preferences, Perceptions and Trust includes a comprehensive treatment of the theories and literature, and most important is grounded in surveys in 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 which includes questions considering the impact of Fukushima on US public opinion. By including real life data alongside the analysis, Nuclear Waste Management, Nuclear Power, and Energy Choices: Public Preferences, Perceptions and Trust provides a relevant and concise reference for nuclear industry professionals. It also acts a resource for students and researchers studying nuclear-related topics including political, social and environmental factors. Particular focus is placed on residents within 50 miles US nuclear waste facilities due to the disproportionate presence of nuclear factors in their lives such as the legacy of nuclear waste disposal and job dependency. The motivations and reasons for their views such as fear, attraction to the economic benefits, trust of site managers and federal agencies, cultural views, personal history, and demographic attributes of the people are also considered to provide a balanced and detailed overview. Nuclear Waste Management, Nuclear Power and Energy Choices: Public Preferences, Perceptions and Trust includes a comprehensive treatment of the theories and literature, and most important is grounded in surveys in 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 which includes questions considering the impact of Fukushima on US public opinion. By including real life data alongside the analysis, Nuclear Waste Management, Nuclear Power, and Energy Choices: Public Preferences, Perceptions and Trust provides a relevant and concise reference for nuclear industry professionals. It also acts a resource for students and researchers studying nuclear-related topics including political, social and environmental factors.Particular focus is placed on residents within 50 miles US nuclear waste facilities due to the disproportionate presence of nuclear factors in their lives such as the legacy of nuclear waste disposal and job dependency. The motivations and reasons for their views such as fear, attraction to the economic benefits, trust of site managers and federal agencies, cultural views, personal history, and demographic attributes of the people are also considered to provide a balanced and detailed overview. Nuclear Waste Management, Nuclear Power and Energy Choices: Public Preferences, Perceptions and Trust includes a comprehensive treatment of the theories and literature, and most important is grounded in surveys in 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 which includes questions considering the impact of Fukushima on US p |
