Acceptability, acceptance and decision making

There is a fundamental difference between the acceptability of a civilizatory or societal risk and the acceptability of the decision-making process that leads to a civilizatory or societal risk. The analysis of individual risk decisions - regarding who, executes when which indisputably hazardous, unhealthy or dangerous behaviour under which circumstances - is not helpful in finding solutions for the political decisions at hand in Germany concerning nuclear energy in particular or energy in general. The debt for implementation of any technology, in the sense of making the technology a success in terms of broad acceptance and general utilisation, lies with the particular industry involved. Regardless of the technology, innovation research identifies the implementation phase as most critical to the success of any innovation. In this sense, nuclear technology is at best still an innovation, because the implementation has not yet been completed. Fear and opposition to innovation are ubiquitous. Even the economy - which is often described as 'rational' - is full of this resistance. Innovation has an impact on the pivotal point between stability, the presupposition for the successful execution of decisions already taken and instability, which includes insecurity, but is also necessary for the success of further development. By definition, innovations are beyond our sphere of experience; not at the level of reliability and trust yet to come. Yet they are evaluated via the simplifying heuristics for making decisions proven not only to be necessary and useful, but also accurate in the familiar. The 'settlement of the debt of implementation', the accompanying communication, the decision-making procedures concerning the regulation of averse effects of the technology, but also the tailoring of the new technology or service itself must be directed to appropriate target groups. But the group often aimed at in the nuclear debate, the group, which largely determines political discussion, defines itself through the explicit and total rejection of nuclear energy. The opponents of nuclear energy are immune to conviction because of their specific decision-making strategy. Because they value the residual risk as a criterion against the use of nuclear energy that can not be compensated by any benefit, their strategy is described as non-compensatory strategy. Any communication about the technology but also concerning proceedings must be directed to target groups using decision-making strategies that are open to receiving new information. Also to be taken into account is that the opponents try to convince others about their decision strategy. Openness and transparency in decision-making processes regarding radiation protection and the nuclear industry are necessary conditions for further progress on radiation protection issues. However, they are not sufficient, because discussion on energy policy is trivialized, simplified and politically abused. For society, the benefits of nuclear technology in the energy sector are out of focus. (author)