Public Involvement in Decisions to Avoid Costly Consequences Later
Description
There should be an agreement of goals in any project that could produce harm. Why are we developing this technology? Who benefits and who pays? What would a 'cleanup' entail? There must be consideration of alternatives with a focus on reducing harm rather than just meeting allowable limits or promising that they will be met in the future. When alternatives are weighed, the burden should be on the proponent of the activity to provide truthful information to the public and provide access and resources necessary for participation. There must be a formal, legal obligation or duty to consider science as well as non-scientific information. It should not be up to those harmed to prove the damage and force the responsible parties to make retribution. It should be the burden of the proponents to measure potential risks, and prove that the benefits to everyone outweigh the risks to everyone. The role of government in decision making should also be redefined. The considerations now seem to be limited to whether or not an action is 'legal' or if it is 'safe'. There should also be a determination that it is 'necessary'. That may seem to be a very difficult question but put simply, if there are alternatives then a thing is not 'necessary'. Governmental decision makers would say: 'We acknowledge that our world will never be free from risk. However, any risk that is unnecessary or not freely chosen is not acceptable'. There must be a move away from situations where prior, important decisions resulted in winners and losers; wealthy beneficiaries and underprivileged victims. There must be recognition that decision making needs to be inclusive, extensive and democratic and that the end products and final results are necessary and worthwhile before projects begin. They must be visible, accessible, and must reflect the cost of doing business which includes taking the time, finding the information and involving the people who will work together to make sure that harm is avoided and common goals are achieved
Files
37101575.pdf
Files
(145.5 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:21dca94e130eacec753aa1958632dec9
|
145.5 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Identifiers
Publishing Information
- ISBN
- 91-6318876-7
- Imprint Title
- VALDOR 2006. Values in Decisions on Risk. Proceedings
- Imprint Pagination
- 616 p.
- Journal Page Range
- p. 359-363
- Report number
- NEI-SE--613
Conference
- Title
- VALDOR 2006. Values in Decisions on Risk
- Dates
- 14-18 May 2006
- Place
- Stockholm (Sweden)
INIS
- Country of Publication
- Sweden
- Country of Input or Organization
- Sweden
- INIS RN
- 37101575
- Subject category
- S12: MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES, AND NON-RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM NUCLEAR FACILITIES;
- Resource subtype / Literary indicator
- Conference
- Descriptors DEI
- DECISION MAKING; INTEREST GROUPS; RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT; RISK ASSESSMENT
- Descriptors DEC
- MANAGEMENT; WASTE MANAGEMENT
Optional Information
- Notes
- 8 refs.