different. More generally, the comparison of the studies presented in Table 1 is
impossible because they do not stand on common definitions.
Similarly, the boundaries of a cost assessment also need to be clearly defined. In
2006, two reports on the consequences of the Chernobyl accidents were published.
Their assessments of the number of radio-induced cancers differed by a factor ten.
The IAEA/WHO report [32] focused on the consequences of the accident in
Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, while the TORCH report accounted for all consequences across Western Europe [33]. Nuclear accidents can have cross borders
consequences, so it is paramount to define clearly the boundaries of cost assessment
studies to fully understand their implications for public policies. As an example,
Hayashi and Hughes have shown that the Fukushima-Daiichi accident had an
impact on the electricity bill of households in gas-intensive countries such as the
United-Kingdom or South-Korea [34]. How and by whom should these impacts be
accounted for?
Finally, the statistical choices in the presentation of the cost are also crucial for
their comparison or their use in policy making. There is for example no consensus
as to whether the cost of a nuclear accident should be presented as a distribution
function or as a single number. The IRSN decided to produce a median cost so that
decision makers know that there is a 50% chance for the cost of an accident to be
above or below the result. Conversely, the 2011 study from the German Renewable
Energy Federation provided an average maximum value in order to calculate an
“adequate” insurance premium.
4.2 The Aftermath of a Nuclear Disaster: PSA or Past
Events?
The consequences of a nuclear accident are numerous and intricate. An accident has
on-site consequences, such as casualties, highly-irradiated workers or material
losses in adjacent reactors. It also causes off-site consequences, such as the release
of radioactive materials in the atmosphere, the collective absorbed dose, the area of
contaminated lands or the quantity of crops and cattle contaminated. The negative
consequences of the countermeasures, such as psychological distress, also have to
be estimated. Yet, these numerous consequences have to be assessed in order to
derive their monetary value.
The source of divergence in the assessment of the consequences is twofold. First,
all studies do not assess the same range of consequences. Some studies argue that
health effects dominate all other effects [15, 19, 20]. They thus focus on the collective absorbed dose and neglect other consequences. Other studies focus on a
wider panel of effects, such as land exclusion, or image effects (tourism, regulatory
90
R. Bizet and F. Lévêque
impossible because they do not stand on common definitions.
Similarly, the boundaries of a cost assessment also need to be clearly defined. In
2006, two reports on the consequences of the Chernobyl accidents were published.
Their assessments of the number of radio-induced cancers differed by a factor ten.
The IAEA/WHO report [32] focused on the consequences of the accident in
Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, while the TORCH report accounted for all consequences across Western Europe [33]. Nuclear accidents can have cross borders
consequences, so it is paramount to define clearly the boundaries of cost assessment
studies to fully understand their implications for public policies. As an example,
Hayashi and Hughes have shown that the Fukushima-Daiichi accident had an
impact on the electricity bill of households in gas-intensive countries such as the
United-Kingdom or South-Korea [34]. How and by whom should these impacts be
accounted for?
Finally, the statistical choices in the presentation of the cost are also crucial for
their comparison or their use in policy making. There is for example no consensus
as to whether the cost of a nuclear accident should be presented as a distribution
function or as a single number. The IRSN decided to produce a median cost so that
decision makers know that there is a 50% chance for the cost of an accident to be
above or below the result. Conversely, the 2011 study from the German Renewable
Energy Federation provided an average maximum value in order to calculate an
“adequate” insurance premium.
4.2 The Aftermath of a Nuclear Disaster: PSA or Past
Events?
The consequences of a nuclear accident are numerous and intricate. An accident has
on-site consequences, such as casualties, highly-irradiated workers or material
losses in adjacent reactors. It also causes off-site consequences, such as the release
of radioactive materials in the atmosphere, the collective absorbed dose, the area of
contaminated lands or the quantity of crops and cattle contaminated. The negative
consequences of the countermeasures, such as psychological distress, also have to
be estimated. Yet, these numerous consequences have to be assessed in order to
derive their monetary value.
The source of divergence in the assessment of the consequences is twofold. First,
all studies do not assess the same range of consequences. Some studies argue that
health effects dominate all other effects [15, 19, 20]. They thus focus on the collective absorbed dose and neglect other consequences. Other studies focus on a
wider panel of effects, such as land exclusion, or image effects (tourism, regulatory
90
R. Bizet and F. Lévêque