Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-7f7b94f6bd-9g8ph Total loading time: 0.814 Render date: 2022-06-29T01:42:09.192Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Part III - Case Studies on Nuclear Accidents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2017

Edward J. Balleisen
Duke University, North Carolina
Lori S. Bennear
Duke University, North Carolina
Kimberly D. Krawiec
Duke University, North Carolina
Jonathan B. Wiener
Duke University, North Carolina
Get access


Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Policy Shock
Recalibrating Risk and Regulation after Oil Spills, Nuclear Accidents and Financial Crises
, pp. 204 - 242
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Behr, P. (2009) “Three Mile Island Still Haunts U.S. Nuclear Industry.” New York Times. Scholar
Epstein, W. (2011). “A Probabilistic Risk Assessment Practitioner Looks at the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami” A Ninokata Laboratory white paper, Tokyo Institute of Technology, April 2011.
Epstein, W. (2014). Personal communication.
Jaynes, E. T. (2003) Probability Theory: The Logic of Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (2011). Special Report on the Nuclear Accident at the Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, Atlanta, GA: INPO,
International Energy Agency (2012). Key World Energy Statistics. Paris, France: OECD.
International Energy Agency (2013). Annual Report. Paris, France: OECD.PubMed
Kaplan, S. and Garrick, B. J. (1981). “On the Quantitative Definition of Risk.” Risk Analysis, 1(1): 1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemeny, J. G. (1979). Report of the President’s Commission on the Three Mile Island Accident: the Need for Change, Washington, DC: The Commission.Google Scholar
LaPorte, T. R. (1996). “High Reliability Organizations: Unlikely, Demanding and At Risk.” Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management. 4(2): 6071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Office of Chancellor Merkel (2011). “Germany’s Energy Transition” Report of the Ethics Commission for a Safe Energy Supply, Berlin, Germany.
Paté-Cornell, M. E. (2009). “Probabilistic Risk Assessment” in The Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science, Cochran, J. J. (Editor-in-Chief), New York, NY: Wiley Pub.Google Scholar
Perrow, C. (1984). Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rees, J. V. (1996). Hostages of each other: the transformation of nuclear safety since Three Mile Island, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Reilly, W. (2013). “Valuing Safety Even When the Markets Do Not Notice” in Energy and Security, 2nd edition, Goldwyn, D. L. and Kalicki, J. (eds.), Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press: 107–20.Google Scholar
New York Times (December 26, 2011). “Japan Panel Cites Failures in Tsunami,” Op-ed by Tabushi, Hiroko.
New York Times (March 9, 2012). “Fukushima Could Have Been Prevented,” Op-ed by Acton, James M..
Nimmo, D. D. and Combs, J. E. (1989). Nightly Horrors: Crisis Coverage by Television Nightly News. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Smith, J. P. (March 30, 1979). “Pa. Reactor Mishap Called Worst in U.S. History; Accident Clouds Future Of Nuclear Power in U.S.; Future of Nuclear Power Is CloudedWashington Post.: A1.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D.. (1974). “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and BiasesScience 185 (4175): 1124–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) (2008). Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiations. United Nations, Geneva Switzerland.PubMed
UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) (2012). Interim Findings of Fukushima-Daiichi Assessment Presented at the Annual Meeting of UNSCEAR. United Nations Information Service, Geneva Switzerland.
USNRC, Rasmussen, Norman C. et al. (1975). Reactor Safety Study: An assessment of accidental risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-75/014 (Wash-1400). Washington DC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Google Scholar
USNRC (1979). Annual Report (NUREG-0690).
USNRC (2011). “Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century: The Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Daiichi Accident,” Washington DC.
USNRC (2013a). “Backgrounder on the Chernobyl Accident,”
USNRC (2013b). “Backgrounder on the Three Mile Island Accident” (NUREG-0558).
USNRC (2013c). “What Are the Lessons Learned from Fukushima.”
World Health Organization (2006). Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programmes, Report of the UN Chernobyl Forum, Bennett, B., Repacholi, M. and Carr, Z. (eds.), Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations.Google Scholar
Ahearn, J. F. and Birlhofer, A. (2011): Nuclear Power. In Wiener, J. B., Rogers, M. D., Hammit, J. K. and Sand, P. H. (eds.): The Reality of Precaution. Comparing Risk Regulation in the United States and Europe. Earthscan: London, pp. 121–41.Google Scholar
ASN (2011): Complementary Safety Assessments of the French Nuclear Power Plants (European “Stress Tests”). French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN), December.
Barke, R. P. and Jenking-Smith, H. C. (1993): Politics and Scientific Expertise: Scientists, Risk Perception, and Nuclear Waste Policy. Risk Communication, 13 (4): 425–39.Google ScholarPubMed
Bastide, S., Moatti, J.-P., Pages, J. -P. and Fagnani, F. (1989): Risk Perception and the Social Acceptability of Technologies: The French Case. Risk Analysis 9: 215–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, F. R. (1989): Independent and Politicized Policy Communities: Education and Nuclear Energy in France and in the United States. Governance, 2 (1): 4266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, U. (1992): Risk Society – Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Bella, D. A., Mosher, C. D. and Calvo, S. N. (1988): Technocracy and Trust: Nuclear Waste Controversy. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering, 114: 2739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosch, S. and Peyke, G. (2011): Gegenwind für die Erneuerbaren – Räumliche Neuorientierung der Wind-, Solar- und Bioenergie vor dem Hintergrund einer verringerten Akzeptanz sowie zunehmender Flächennutzungskonflikte im ländlichen Raum. Raumforschung und Raumordnung, 69 (2): 105–18.Google Scholar
Bruhns, H. and Keilhacker, M. (2011) “Energiewende” Wohin führt der Weg? Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 46–47: 2229.Google Scholar
Buchholz, W. (2011): Energiepolitische Implikationen einer Energiewende. Ifo-TUM Symposium zur Energiewende in Deutschland. Manuskript.
Corey, G. R. (1979): A Brief Review of the Accident at Three Mile Island, IAEA Bulletin, 21(5): 5459.Google Scholar
Delmas, M. and Heiman, B. (2001): Government Credible Commitment to the French and American Nuclear Power Industries. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20 (3): 433456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deubner, C. (1979): The Expansion of West-German Capital and the Founding of Euratom. International Organisation, 33: 203–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DGEMP (1993): Reforme de l’organisation electrique et gaziere francaise (the Mandil report). Paris: DGEMP.
EC (2011): Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Interim Report on the Comprehensive Risk and Safety Assessments (”Stress Tests”) of Nuclear Power Plants in the European Union. COM(2011) 784.
Ewald, F. (2002): The Return of Descartes’s Malicious Demon: An Outline of a Philosophy of Precaution. In Baker, T. and Simon, J. (eds.): Embracing Risk: The Changing Culture of Insurance and Responsibility. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 273302.Google Scholar
Ethik-Kommission (2011): Deutschlands Energiewende – Ein Gemeinschaftswerk für die Zukunft. Bericht der Ethik-Kommission “Sichere Energieversorgung” an die Bundesregierung Deutschland. Berlin: Kanzleramt.
French Government (1994): Debat national Energie & Environnement- Rapport de Synthese (the Souviron report). Paris: French Government.
Giddens, A. (1999): Risk and Responsibility. Modern Law Review, 62: 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, P. A. (2001): The Evolution of Varieties of Capitalism In Hancké, B., Rhodes, M., and Thatcher, M. (eds.): Beyond Varieties of Capitalism: Conflict, Contradictions, and Complementarities in the European Economy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press: 3985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, M. T. (1986): Politics and Nuclear Power – Energy Policy in Western Europe. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
Hecht, G. (1998): The Radiance of France: Nuclear Power and National Identity after World War II. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jones, C., and Ladurie, E. L. R. (1999): The Cambridge Illustrated History of France. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Joskow, P. L. and Parsons, J. E. (2012): The Future of Nuclear Power After Fukushima. MIT CEEPR, Working Paper 2012–001. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kern, K., Koenen, S., and Löffelsend, T. (2003): Die Umweltpolitik der rot-grünen Koalition: Strategien zwischen nationaler Pfadabhängigkeit und globaler Politikkonvergenz. Discussion Paper. Abteilung Zivilgesellschaft und transnationale Netzwerke des Forschungsschwerpunkts Zivilgesellschaft, Konflikte und Demokratie des Wissenschaftszentrums Berlin für Sozialforschung, No. SP IV 2003–103. Berlin: WZB.Google Scholar
Kingdon, J. (1984): Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Le JDD (2013): L’État va prolonger le nucléaire de dix ans.
Löfstedt, R. (2005): Risk Management in Post-Trust Societies. London: Earthscan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milward, A. (1992): The European Rescue of the Nation-State. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Nachhaltigkeitsbeirat Baden-Württemberg (Sustainability Council of Baden-Württemberg) (2012): Energiewende. Implikationen für Baden-Württemberg. Stuttgart: NBBW.
Patel, T. (2014): French Regulator Orders EDF to Make Additional Atomic Safeguards.
Pecebois, J. and Mandil, C. (2012): Energies 2050. Policy Brief 263.
Peters, E. and Slovic, P. (1996): The Role of Affect and Worldviews as Orienting Dispositions in the Perception and Acceptance of Nuclear Power. Applied Social Psychology, 26 (16): 1427–53Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (2000): Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review. 94: 251–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renn, O. (1995): Perzeption, Akzeptanz und Akzeptabilität der Kernenergie. In Michaelis, H. and Salander, H. (eds.): Handbuch Kernenergie. Kompendium der Energiewirtschaft und Energiepolitik. Frankfurt am Main: VVEW-Publisher, pp. 752–76.Google Scholar
Renn, O. (2008): Risk Governance. Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Renn, O. (2011): Energiesicherung. Zwischen Systemanforderungen und Akzeptanz. Transfer, 12: 2022Google Scholar
Renn, O. und Dreyer, M. (2013): Risiken der Energiewende: Möglichkeiten der Risikosteuerung mithilfe eines Risk-Governance-Ansatzes. DIW Vierteljahreshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, 82 (3): 2944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rucht, D (1990): Campaigns, skirmishes and battles: anti-nuclear movements in the USA, France and West Germany. Organization & Environment, 4: 193222Google Scholar
Rucht, D. (1994): The Anti-nuclear Power Movement and the State in France. In Flam, H. (ed.): States and Anti-Nuclear Movements. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 129–62.Google Scholar
Rüdig, W. (2000): Phasing Out Nuclear Energy in Germany. German Politics, 9: 4380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slovic, P. (1987): Perception of Risk. Science, 236: 280–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. (1981): Perceived Risk: Psychological Factors and Social Implications. Proceedings of the Royal Society. London A376: 1734.Google Scholar
Wasserman, S. and Renn, O. (2013): Offene Fragen der Energiewende: Aufbau und Design von Kapazitätsmärkten. GAIA, Ökologische Perspektiven für Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft, 22 (4): 237–41.Google Scholar
WEC (2012): World Energy Perspective: Nuclear Energy One Year After Fukushima. World Energy Council, London.
Cabinet Decision. (2011). The Guideline on Policy Promotion For the Revitalization of Japan.
Cabinet Office, Government of Japan (2012). Final Report. Investigation Committee on the Accident at Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of Tokyo Electric Power Company.
Energy and Environment Council Government of Japan (2012a). Options for Energy and the Environment.
Energy and Environment Council Government of Japan (2012b). Innovative Strategy for Energy and the Environment.
JAERO (2013). Public Opinion Survey on the unitization of Nuclear Energy in 2012 Fiscal Year. Japan Atomic Energy Relations Organization.
JSCE (2002). Tsunami Assessment Techniques for Nuclear Power Stations.
Kitada, A. (2003). Impact of TEPCO Scandals on Public Opinion toward Nuclear Power Generation; The Third Periodic Survey. INSS Journal 10, 4462 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
Kitada, A. (2006). Longitudinal Survey of Public Opinion on Nuclear Power Generation; The Result of a Survey Conducted One Year after the Mihama Unit 3 Accident. INSS Journal, 303–01 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
Kitayama, T. (2008). Innovation of Nuclear Oversight System, in Mabuchi, M. and Kitayama, T., eds. Policy Process during the Political Realignment. Jigakusha (in Japanese).Google Scholar
METI (2001). Securing the Safety Basis of Nuclear Power Generations. A Report of the Task Group on Nuclear Safety (in Japanese).
NAIIC (2012). National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission’s Final Report.
NHK Broadcasting Culture Research Institute (2013). Opinion Survey on Nuclear Power and Energy Issues (March 2013) (in Japanese).
Nippon Research Center (2012). National Opinion Survey about Time-Series Change of Attitude toward Nuclear Power after the Great East Japan Earthquake and Attitude toward Saving Electricity and Life (in Japanese).
Nishiwaki, Y. (2011). Transition of Countermeasures against Severe Accidents in Japan-When Did Nuclear Regulation Go Wrong? Nuclear Eye 57 (9): 3740 and 57(10): 4045 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters (2011). Report of Japanese Government to the IAEA Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety – The Accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations. .
Nuclear Safety Commission (1992). Accident Management as a Preparation for Severe Accidents at Commercial Light-Water Nuclear Reactor Facilities (in Japanese).
Nuclear Safety Commission (1999). A Summary of the Report of The Criticality Accident Investigation Committee. (Provisional Translation from the Japanese).
Nuclear Safety Commission (NRC) (2006). Regulatory Guide for Reviewing Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Reactor Facilities.
Pew Research Center (2012). Japanese Wary of Nuclear Energy, Disaster “Weakened” Nation, Survey Report.
Prime Minister’s Office (1968). National Opinion Survey on the Utilization of Nuclear Power for Peaceful Purposes (in Japanese).
Prime Minister’s Office (1969). National Opinion Survey on the Utilization of Nuclear Power for Peaceful Purposes (in Japanese).
Prime Minister’s Office (1976). National Opinion Survey on Science and Technology, and Nuclear Power (in Japanese).
Prime Minister’s Office (1980). National Opinion Survey on Energy Conservation (in Japanese).
Prime Minister’s Office (1981). National Opinion Survey on Energy Conservation (in Japanese).
Prime Minister’s Office (1984). National Opinion Survey on Nuclear Energy (in Japanese).
Prime Minister’s Office (1987). National Opinion Survey on Nuclear Energy (in Japanese).
Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation (2012). Investigation and Verification Report. Independent Investigation Commission on the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident (in Japanese).
Shibata, T. and Tomokiyo, H. (1999). Public Opinion on Nuclear Energy – Transition of Nuclear Perception Observed from Public Opinion Surveys. Energy Review Center Publications (in Japanese).
Shiroyama, H. (2010). Current situation and challenges of the Nuclear Safety Commission. The Jurist. 1399: 4452 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
Socioeconomic Productivity Headquarters (2002). Annual Report in 2001 (in Japanese).
Tajima, E. (1974 ). Who Does Control the Nuclear Administration? Economist 52(38): 4245 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
Togo, Y. (1987). Summary of Report on Chernobyl Accident Prepared by Special Committee in Japan Nuclear Safety Commission. Journal of the Atomic Energy Society of Japan. 29(11): 976–81 (in Japanese).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc. (2012). Fukushima Nuclear Accident Analysis Report. Fukushima Nuclear Accidents Investigation Committee.
WiN Gallup International (2012). Japan Earthquakes Jolts Global Views on Nuclear Energy.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats