IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cwl/cwldpp/532.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Should We Revise Our Beliefs About Nuclear Power Safety After Three Mile Island?

Author

Abstract

In light of the accident at Three Mile Island, the paper presents a preliminary analysis of the compatibility between the analytical work of the Reactor Safety Study (Rasmussen Report) and actuarial experience. The technique is a "macroanalytic" approach rather than the "microanalytic" method of the Reactor Safety Study. The first question asked is how likely it is that an accident as severe as that at Three Mile Island would occur if the Reactor Safety Study is correct. Using the most likely estimates, it is concluded that the chances are 1 in 80 that such an accident would occur this soon, but given uncertainties about parameters it might range from 1 in 17 to 1 in 625. The second question addressed is how we should revise our estimates of the safety of nuclear power given the Three Mile Island experience. Using the technique of maximum likelihood, our best guess estimate of the risk of accidents causing at least one fatality rises from the Reactor Safety Study's 32 per million reactor years to about 2000 per million reactor years.

Suggested Citation

  • William D. Nordhaus, 1979. "How Should We Revise Our Beliefs About Nuclear Power Safety After Three Mile Island?," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 532, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    • Handle: RePEc:cwl:cwldpp:532
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d05/d0532.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. John Quiggin, 2005. "The precautionary principle in environmental policy and the theory of choice under uncertainty," Murray-Darling Program Working Papers WPM05_3, Risk and Sustainable Management Group, University of Queensland.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cwl:cwldpp:532. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Brittany Ladd (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cowleus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.