학술논문

Why not in your backyard. Scientific data and nonrational decisions about risk
Document Type
Journal Article
Author
Source
Environ. Manage.; (United States); 8:2
Subject
29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY AND ECONOMY DAMS
SITE SELECTION
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
WASTE DISPOSAL
LAND USE
PUBLIC OPINION
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
PETROLEUM REFINERIES
SURFACE MINING
RISK ASSESSMENT
CHEMICAL SPILLS
CHEMICAL WASTES
CHLORINATED AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
DECISION MAKING
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
POWER TRANSMISSION LINES
AROMATICS
HALOGENATED AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
INDUSTRIAL PLANTS
MANAGEMENT
MATERIALS
MINING
NUCLEAR FACILITIES
ORGANIC CHLORINE COMPOUNDS
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
ORGANIC HALOGEN COMPOUNDS
POWER PLANTS
THERMAL POWER PLANTS
WASTE MANAGEMENT
WASTES 530200* -- Environmental-Social Aspects of Energy Technologies-- Assessment of Energy Technologies-- (-1989)
290300 -- Energy Planning & Policy-- Environment, Health, & Safety
Language
English
Abstract
The siting of hazardous waste facilities constitutes a special case of many no win environmental decisions. These no win decisions share common features: something must be decided; the decision affects some people more than others; scientists are not 100 percent confident of their research results; elements of the decision remain unquantifiable; and decisions combine both scientific and political elements. Several examples are illustrated and analyzed that combine all of these elements. In 1974, Pacific Power and Light Company was forced to reroute a transmission line planned for the Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge because of objections from hunters, conservationists, and environmental groups. It was thought that the ducks, geese, swans, pelicans and migratory birds would collide with the wires. In the early 1970s, a waste transporter spilled PCBs along 210 miles of North Carolina roads. Before the transport company could clean up the spill, it had to build a hazardous waste site. The waste site opened in the fall of 1982, accompanied by local civil disobedience and national concern. Methods are suggested which would lead toward a scientifically valid and politically useful resolution of land use problems. Finally, the conclusions deal with the role of policy making, public perception, and sceince in resolving environmental controversies.