The Long-Wave Debate

Risk analysis has become as controversial as the new technologies it seeks t o assess. It grew, particularly in the 1970s, to provide scientific expertise required by government officials, companies, and the public, faced with having to make decisions concerning the use bf new techniques, new energy sources, and new types of installations. These promise many benefits while also being potentially devastating. Analysts were called upon to present impartial facts, particularly about the disputed safety factor, so that decisions could be made and be seen to be made rationally and justifiably. Risk analysts have developed techniques, models, and methods (such as event-tree analysis tracing the logical consequences of malfunctioning equipment) t o find the probability of an accident occurring, and the probable loss of life if an accident did happen. But precisely because these are new technologies, there are no historical data from which to quantify risk. Since risk analysis is a new field with few guidelines and no set formulas for how to go about it, analysts often did not agree on their assessments of the many uncertainties. Their work was used by various conflicting parties in a debate to support claims of safety o r refute others' claims. The analyses did not could not deliver a flat answer t o settle the question. The scholars involved in the IIASA study, including the risk analysts, agree that this is as it should be. Conflicts about the distribution of benefits and risk among people cannot be "solved" by objective scientific facts. It is a politLEG facility being built a t Mossmorran