[en] Radioactivity monitoring and import regulation of the contaminated foodstuffs executed by Minstry of Health and Welfare following the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident were reviewed as follows; 1) background of socio-psychological effects and environmental radioactivity leading to the regulation (to may 3, 1986); 2) intial intervention for imported foodstuffs in Japan (may 8, '86), and 3) in european countries (to may 31, '86), immediately after the Accident, respectively; 4) determination of the interim driven intervention level for radionuclides in imported foodstuffs ((¹³⁴Cs + ¹³⁷Cs): 370 Bq/Kg) and activation of the monitoring, 5) outline of the monitoring with elapsed time, number of foodstuffs monitored, number of foodstuffs exceeded radioactivity of the intervention level and re-exported; 6) guideline in international trade of radioactive contaminated foodstuffs adopted by CODEX Alimentarius Commission (FAO/WHO) and the intervention level recommended by ICRP following the Accident; 7) discussion for problems and scopes in future based on the results of monitoring. As the results, a number of imported foodstuffs (about 75,000 samples at present) has been monitored, 55 samples exceeding the interim intervention level were re-exported to each export's country, and socio-psychological doubts for radioactive contamination of imported foodstuffs have been dispersed. In addition, problems for several factors based on calculation of the interim intervention level, radioactivity level of foodstuffs exceeding about 50 Bq/Kg as radiocesiums and necessity of monitoring for the other radionuclides in foods except radiocesiums were also discussed. (author)

[en] There is the quite big difference between technological risk and social risk feeling. Various biases of social and sensational factors on accidents must be considered to recognize this difference. 'How safe is safe enough' is the perpetual thema concerning with not only technology but also sociology. The safety goal in aircraft design and how making effort to improve the present safety status in civil jet aircrafts is discussed as an example of social risk allowance. INSAG under IAEA started to discuss the safety culture after Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident on 1986. Safety culture and risk communication are the most important procedures to relieve the social impact for accidents. (author)

[en] The two Swedish state agencies handling radiation protection and nuclear safety are studied as to their information policies and documents, with special attention to Chernobyl. The principal aim is an assessment of policies and documents. A quantitative coding is made of the printed document's key features. The study is a part of a larger CEC-project, and similar studies are made in three other countries, according to common guidelines. The general radiation situation in Sweden and its historical background is described, generating a picture of a rather safe, tightly controlled and thoroughly researched issue. The agencies are very active in their information work, using just about every conceivable channel to disseminate radiation information. The intellectual range of the printed documents is great, as very different groups are targeted, from the general public to researchers and other state agency employees

[en] The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Fellowship Program began in April 1958 as a part of the Agency's Technical Cooperation (TC) Program. Through the TC Program, the IAEA provides technical assistance to meet the needs of recipient countries and to bring about a substantial transfer of technology. This is done by providing experts, equipment, fellowships, and training courses. This report addresses the US component of the fellowship program. These fellowships provide opportunities for research and training of scientists, engineers and physicians from developing countries in the peaceful application of nuclear energy. The fellowships are awarded to persons who are, or soon will be, trusted with responsibilities that are important to the development of their countries. Fellowship awards are classified into two groups, those financed by the IAEA General Fund or the UNDP Fund (Type 1 Fellowships and Scientific Visits), and those offered by Member States (Type 2 Fellowships). In placing individuals, preference is given to applicants from countries that are signatories to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons or to the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America

[en] The issue of communication between professionals and the wide public is discussed. It is concluded that we should encourage education about the understanding of risks and hazards. We must support education about our own subject and we should contribute to the development of the national curriculum. Above all we should try to help individual school teachers. We should try to provide a radiological protection input to courses on hazards and safety culture for undergraduates. We should try to improve the status of the profession and to ensure awareness of the profession in universities. We should see ourselves as partners with the media but we must learn interview technique. (P.A.)

[en] A deep gap, reflecting a persisting fear, separates the viewpoints of the experts and that of the public on the issue of the disposal of nuclear WASTES. The history of this field is that of the proliferation with time of spokesmen who pretend to speak in the name of the both humans and non humans involved. Three periods can be distinguished: 1940-1970, an era of contestation and confusion when the experts alone represents the interest of all; 1970-1990, an era of contestation and confusion when spokespersons multiply themselves, generating the controversy and the slowing down of most technological projects; 1990-, an era of negotiation, when viewpoints, both technical and non technical, tend to get closer and, let us be optimistic, leading to the overcome of the crisis. We show that, despite major differences, the options and concepts developed by the different actors are base on two categories of resources, namely Nature and Society, and that the consensus is built up through their 'hydridation'. we show in this part that the perception of nuclear power and, in particular of the underground disposal of nuclear wastes, involves a very deep psychological substrate. Trying to change mentalities in the domain by purely scientific and technical arguments is thus in vain. The practically instinctive fear of radioactivity, far from being due only to lack of information (and education), as often postulated by scientists and engineers, is rooted in archetypical structures. These were, without doubt, reactivated in the 40 s by the traumatizing experience of the atomic bomb. In addition, anthropological-linked considerations allow us to conclude that he underground disposal of wastes is seen as a 'rape' and soiling of Mother Earth. This contributes to explaining, beyond any rationality, the refusal of this technical option by some persons. However, it would naturally be simplistic and counter-productive to limit all controversy in this domain to these psychological aspects. (author)

[en] This Workshop was organised jointly by the Paul Scherrer Institute and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich) in the framework of the SINTER Network, an EU funded Concerted Action within the 4th EU Framework Programme. It was attended by 29 participants from 7 different countries. A prerequisite for ensuring, in the long term, the option of a safe, reliable and competitive nuclear energy supply with the existing competence in Europe, is the merging or networking of ongoing and planned research and development activities, to share tasks and efficiently use the still existing resources. In this context, it is necessary to assess the European and world wide innovation trends in nuclear technology and to bring the opinions regarding their prioritisation down to a common denominator. A key element of this process is the assessment of the social relevance of such innovation trends, i.e. how emerging developments can satisfy real needs of the public and vice versa. This encompasses also questions on the compatibility of nuclear energy with a sustainable development and its corresponding advantages and perspectives. The analysis of earlier developments (technical innovations that emerged as an answer to 'public pressure' both in the domain of nuclear energy and within other technical domains (chemistry, transports, gene technology)) should provide the basis, which would allow such an assessment. Lectures delivered at the workshop on these subjects and accompanying discussions are collected in this volume. (author)

[en] A study was conducted to evaluate how workers predict manufacturing production potentials given positively and negatively framed information. Findings indicate the existence of a bias toward positive information and suggest that this bias may be reduced with experience but is never the less maintained. Experts err in the same way non experts do in differentially processing negative and positive information. Additionally, both experts and non experts tend to overestimate production potentials in a positive direction. The authors propose that these biases should be addressed with further research including cross domain analyses and consideration in training, workplace design, and human performance modeling

[en] This report contains four summaries of national case reports from France, Norway, Spain and Sweden, published elsewhere, and a general discussion. The case reports deal with various aspects of radioactive waste and radioactive fallout, and the situation and information needs of affected populations. The four case studies have not examined the same problems. Nevertheless, they are focusing segments of the population experiencing or perceiving an actual or future radiation or nuclear risk larger than the average citizen. The studies show problems in addressing those groups, and with different solution in the four countries. No definite answer can be given as to which approach is the most rewarding. A multitude of factors may contribute to any success. It seems, however, that an increased emphasis on communication and public involvement versus information alone is considered important. The situations reported cannot be said to have achieved effective public involvement. Indeed, in the siting cases, it may be hypothesized that the contradiction between stated intention to involve the public, and the actual opportunities for (unorganized) residents to make themselves heard, may contribute to tension and detract from credibility. Still, the trends observed in these case studies toward more consideration by authorities of communication needs, should be welcomed

No abstract available