Decision-Making in Extreme Situations Following the Fukushima Daiichi Accident

The nuclear accident at Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCo)’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant on March 11, 2011, triggered by the Great East Japan Earthquake and subsequent Tsunami, is probably the worst “catastrophic technological risk” ever experienced by Japan. Whether this serious accident could have been prevented or managed better is the key question that we need to pursue. Technology Assessment (TA), which is intended to help decision making by assessing possible societal impacts of particular technology, can play significant role in managing catastrophic technological risks by providing an objective assessment of technological risks before it happens, while it is happening and even after the accident. In this special issue on TA, we are fortunate to have papers and reviews from both distinguished experts as well as young scholars. The variety of the subject is also very useful to see how TA can be applied under the different situations. In particular, in the post 3.11 society, we believe it is a good occasion to consider institutionalization of TA in Japan.

Download Full-text

The new mandate and work of ICRP Committee 4

Annals of the ICRP ◽

10.1177/0146645318756254 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 47 (3-4) ◽

pp. 214-220 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

D.A. Cool

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Power Plant ◽

Nuclear Power Plant ◽

Nuclear Power ◽

Ethical Principles ◽

International Commission ◽

Radiological Protection ◽

Additional Information ◽

Wide Range ◽

Fukushima Daiichi

Committee 4 of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) is charged with the development of principles and recommendations on radiological protection of people and the environment in all exposure situations. For the term beginning in July 2017, the Committee has a total of 18 members from 12 countries. The programme of work includes a wide range of activities in five major thematic areas. The first is the consolidation and preparation of reports elaborating application of the system of protection in existing exposure situations. Second is the continuation of work on emergency exposure situations, and ICRP updates to recommendations in light of the accident at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Third is examination of fundamentals of protection recommendations, including the ethical principles underlying the recommendations and application of those principles in practical decision making. Fourth is the new area of integration of protection of the environment into the system of protection. Finally, Committee 4 continues work to prepare specific topical reports on subjects in which additional information is useful to understand and apply the Commission’s recommendations in particular circumstances.

Download Full-text

Analysis on the Decision Making Situation of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster in Japan- Focused on the standpoint of the 4th Dimension space-time model -

The Japanese Modern Association of Korea ◽

10.16979/jmak..36.201205.315 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol null (36) ◽

pp. 315-340

Author(s):

전영상

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Space Time ◽

Time Model ◽

Nuclear Disaster ◽

Fukushima Daiichi ◽

Dimension Space ◽

Space Time Model

Download Full-text

Discarding optimality: Throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

Behavioral and Brain Sciences ◽

10.1017/s0140525x18001401 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 41 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Patrick Simen ◽

Fuat Balcı

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Perceptual Decision Making ◽

Reward Rate ◽

Perceptual Decision ◽

Standard Observer ◽

Rate Maximization ◽

Reward Rate Maximization ◽

Descriptive Standard ◽

Observer Model

AbstractRahnev & Denison (R&D) argue against normative theories and in favor of a more descriptive “standard observer model” of perceptual decision making. We agree with the authors in many respects, but we argue that optimality (specifically, reward-rate maximization) has proved demonstrably useful as a hypothesis, contrary to the authors’ claims.

Download Full-text

LPCD framework: Analytical tool or psychological model?

Behavioral and Brain Sciences ◽

10.1017/s0140525x18001383 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 41 ◽

Author(s):

David Danks

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Analytical Tool ◽

Mathematical Framework ◽

Bayesian Decision ◽

Perceptual Decision Making ◽

Psychological Model ◽

Psychological Reality ◽

Psychological Theories ◽

Target Article ◽

Bayesian Decision Making

AbstractThe target article uses a mathematical framework derived from Bayesian decision making to demonstrate suboptimal decision making but then attributes psychological reality to the framework components. Rahnev & Denison's (R&D) positive proposal thus risks ignoring plausible psychological theories that could implement complex perceptual decision making. We must be careful not to slide from success with an analytical tool to the reality of the tool components.

Download Full-text

Elaborating the role of reflection and individual differences in the study of folk-economic beliefs

Behavioral and Brain Sciences ◽

10.1017/s0140525x18000274 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 41 ◽

Author(s):

Kevin Arceneaux

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Individual Differences ◽

Cognitive Processes ◽

Evolutionary History ◽

Behavioral Responses ◽

History Of ◽

Economic Beliefs

AbstractIntuitions guide decision-making, and looking to the evolutionary history of humans illuminates why some behavioral responses are more intuitive than others. Yet a place remains for cognitive processes to second-guess intuitive responses – that is, to be reflective – and individual differences abound in automatic, intuitive processing as well.

Download Full-text