[en] In early 2011, BHP Billiton published the supplement to the 2009 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for its proposed expansion of the Olympic Dam operation. The overall EIS process provides opportunity for public and government feedback on draft EIS and the supplement addresses the issues raised in formal submissions by the public and the government on the content of the draft EIS. The two documents together form the EIS for the proposed expansion and consist of some 10,000 pages of information, comment and conclusions. Of over 4,000 submissions received on the draft EIS, there were 372 unique submissions with the rest being form letters. Submissions were received on all aspects of the proposed expansion and this paper focuses on those related to radiation. Overall, there were minimal positive radiation related comments and comments were either; seeking more information or clarity on key areas of interest, voicing ideological concerns or reiterating common misconceptions or errors of fact. The public comments provide an insight into the radiation related issues that are causing concern in sections of the community, providing an opportunity to target either awareness or education programs:He aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the key issues raised and describe how they were addressed in the supplement to the EIS.

[en] Cuba's efforts and especially those of the CIEN to ensure the scientific and technical information to specialist, as well as the disclosure of nuclear issues island wide, are treated in this paper

[en] The philosophically coloured paper on the aspects of risk communication patterns in society shows that debates about risks are governed by a number of stereotype characters representing the individualist and manager type, bureaucracy and law-and-order type, ego-centered embarrassment activist, and fundamentalist. Every risk-relevant group in the study tries to push forward its own interests. Risk communication is understood as a process of social dealing. (HP)

[en] Scientists and engineers have a responsibility to speak out when their findings and recommendations lead to public harm. This can happen in several ways. One is when the media misinterpret or sensationalize a scientific fact misleading the public and creating unwarranted fear. Another is when regulations or public policy decision are purportedly based on scientific data but are, in fact, scientifically invalid. Fear of radiation has been far more detrimental to health than radiation itself. The author knows of no deaths to the public from accidental release of radiation, but the consequences of fear have been deadly

[en] Risk perceptions are only slightly correlated with the expected values of a probability distribution for negative health impacts. Psychometric studies have documented that context variables such as dread or personal control are important predictors for the perceived seriousness of risk. Studies about cultural patterns of risk perceptions emphasize different response set to risk information, depending on cultural priorities such as social justice versus personal freedom. This chapter reports the major psychological research pertaining to the factors that govern individual risk perception and discusses the psychometric effects due to people's risk perception and the experience of severe stress. The relative importance of the psychometric content variables, the signals pertaining to each health risks and symbolic beliefs are explained. (Author)

[en] The history of military and civilian nuclear energy is not only a matter of hard technology, politics, and economics. Our thinking about bombs and reactors is also affected by images with a curious and sometimes overwhelming power. Weird rays that can transform flesh or create monsters, the atom-powered marvels of a future uptopia, the mad scientist who plots to destroy the world: all have an influence on the way people think. Already decades before scientists had discovered how to exploit nuclear energy, a web of interconnected symbols was fully formed in the public mind. These images can be traced back to primitive imagery and, still deeper, into common human experiences, but they were often connected specifically to nuclear energy by nuclear scientists themselves. After the actual development of nuclear technology, a variety of groups used the old symbolism for their propaganda. Since nuclear energy was the most impressive case of the application of the arcane mysteries of science by modern technological authorities, it came to stand for all that people hoped, and still more what they feared, from such authorities

[en] There is often excessive euphoria about new technologies. This can lead to disillusionment and then excessive fear. Excessive fear can arise on its own. There are many indications that those who understand nuclear power are more willing to accept it. The author will present from his own experience several occasions in which lack of understanding has led to opposition and how the lack of understanding can be modified. But once a person is already opposed it is hard to change his actions

[en] Public support for nuclear power has declined greatly, driven by a number of powerful forces and events. Numerous studies have demonstrated the public's extreme perceptions of risk and negative attitudes regarding nuclear power. This negativity is remarkable in light of the confidence most technical analysts have regarding the safety of this technology. Public fears and opposition to nuclear power can be seen as a crisis in confidence, a profound breakdown in trust in the scientific, governmental, and industrial managers of nuclear technologies. The problem is not due to public ignorance or irrationality, but is deeply rooted in individual psychology and the adversarial nature of our social, institutional, legal, and political systems of risk management. In the absence of revolutionary changes in the ways that risks are managed in our society, it is unlikely that public trust, confidence, and acceptance of nuclear power can be regained

[en] Short communication

[en] Until the early 1970s, the tide of public opinion in the United States was strongly in favor of nuclear power. New power plants were coming on line frequently, and in 1973-74, there were close to 40 new orders per year for new reactors in the United States. Official government projections estimated 1000 operating reactors by the year 2000. Fuel reprocessing, plutonium recycle, and breeder reactor development were also proceeding smoothly and rapidly. But, in the mid-1970s, the tide suddenly turned against the nuclear industry. How did this come about? In the late 1960s, energetic and idealistic young people who had never experienced economic insecurity or World Wars came of age. Environmentalism was an attractive outlet for their activity in most of the Western world. In the United States, opposition to the Vietnam War, in which these young people had a personal stake, was even more popular at first, but by the early 1970s, Vietnam was winding down, and they turned also to Environmentalism. Numerous environmental groups started up, aided heavily by the favorable connotation of the very word open-quotes environmentalistclose quotes in the public mind. Their organizational experience, political savvy, and media connections gained from their antiwar protests were powerful assets. But the groups needed specific targets to attack, and they soon found that nuclear power was well-suited for that purpose. Here was a new technology, coming on at a very rapid pace. To the public, radiation was highly mysterious, and people were well aware that it could be dangerous. And, the word danger had taken on a new meaning. Previous generations were well acquainted with death and were much less averse to risk-taking than the generation of the 1970s