一位科学史家评核安全和辐射防护

Maria Rentetzi
{"title":"一位科学史家评核安全和辐射防护","authors":"Maria Rentetzi","doi":"10.31038/cst.2021614","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cancer Stud Ther J, Volume 6(1): 1–2, 2021 In 1985 Hans Blix, the then IAEA Director General, called for the creation of an advisory committee in the area of nuclear safety. As a result, IAEA’s International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (INSAG) was formed with the main objective to offer advice on matters of nuclear safety, produce safety standards, and identify nuclear safety issues of international significance [1]. Only a year later the newly created Advisory Group was faced with one of the most terrifying nuclear accidents in history: Chernobyl. The concept of ‘safety culture’ was first introduced in the report that the Advisory Group issued a few months after the accident. Product of a crisis in the nuclear industry, the concept of safety culture was defined and analyzed as “assembly of characteristics and attitudes in organizations and individuals, which establishes that, as an overriding priority, nuclear plant safety issues receive the attention warranted by their significance.” Obviously, the emphasis was on organizational policies and managerial actions while individuals were seen as having “personal attitudes and habits of thought” linked to safety [2]. The aim was to strengthen the safety of nuclear power plants and avoid Chernobyl-type accidents in the future. Nevertheless, in a IAEA 2007 updated definition of culture, “nuclear power plant safety issues” (1986 definition) has been simply replaced by “protection and safety issues” [3] to mark a wider concern about safety culture in other “safety conscious industries” [4]. Evidently, since 1986 nuclear safety culture has been closely and primarily connected to organizational and technical issues within nuclear industrial settings leaving the medical sector largely unaffected. In this sense, culture is identified with learned behavior, a whole body of attitudes, habits, and practices passed on from one generation of nuclear operators to the next and related to the style of organizations and their culture. This understanding of safety culture is linked to earlier conceptualizations of culture—as static, shared, and uniform—that have prevailed in anthropology in the early part of the 20th century. The culture concept in use comes actually to mean the cultivation of people—in this case nuclear operators—through special technical education. Based on this perspective, individuals have been seen as complacent or in a position that is opposed to and thus outside culture [5-7].","PeriodicalId":72517,"journal":{"name":"Cancer studies and therapeutics","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comment on Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection from a Historian of Science\",\"authors\":\"Maria Rentetzi\",\"doi\":\"10.31038/cst.2021614\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Cancer Stud Ther J, Volume 6(1): 1–2, 2021 In 1985 Hans Blix, the then IAEA Director General, called for the creation of an advisory committee in the area of nuclear safety. As a result, IAEA’s International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (INSAG) was formed with the main objective to offer advice on matters of nuclear safety, produce safety standards, and identify nuclear safety issues of international significance [1]. Only a year later the newly created Advisory Group was faced with one of the most terrifying nuclear accidents in history: Chernobyl. The concept of ‘safety culture’ was first introduced in the report that the Advisory Group issued a few months after the accident. Product of a crisis in the nuclear industry, the concept of safety culture was defined and analyzed as “assembly of characteristics and attitudes in organizations and individuals, which establishes that, as an overriding priority, nuclear plant safety issues receive the attention warranted by their significance.” Obviously, the emphasis was on organizational policies and managerial actions while individuals were seen as having “personal attitudes and habits of thought” linked to safety [2]. The aim was to strengthen the safety of nuclear power plants and avoid Chernobyl-type accidents in the future. Nevertheless, in a IAEA 2007 updated definition of culture, “nuclear power plant safety issues” (1986 definition) has been simply replaced by “protection and safety issues” [3] to mark a wider concern about safety culture in other “safety conscious industries” [4]. Evidently, since 1986 nuclear safety culture has been closely and primarily connected to organizational and technical issues within nuclear industrial settings leaving the medical sector largely unaffected. In this sense, culture is identified with learned behavior, a whole body of attitudes, habits, and practices passed on from one generation of nuclear operators to the next and related to the style of organizations and their culture. This understanding of safety culture is linked to earlier conceptualizations of culture—as static, shared, and uniform—that have prevailed in anthropology in the early part of the 20th century. The culture concept in use comes actually to mean the cultivation of people—in this case nuclear operators—through special technical education. Based on this perspective, individuals have been seen as complacent or in a position that is opposed to and thus outside culture [5-7].\",\"PeriodicalId\":72517,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancer studies and therapeutics\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancer studies and therapeutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31038/cst.2021614\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer studies and therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31038/cst.2021614","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

1985年,时任国际原子能机构总干事汉斯·布利克斯(Hans Blix)呼吁在核安全领域成立一个咨询委员会。为此,国际原子能机构成立了国际核安全咨询小组(INSAG),其主要目的是就核安全问题提供咨询意见,制定安全标准,识别具有国际意义的核安全问题[1]。仅仅一年后,新成立的咨询小组就面临着历史上最可怕的核事故之一:切尔诺贝利。“安全文化”的概念是在事故发生几个月后谘询小组发表的报告中首次提出的。作为核工业危机的产物,安全文化的概念被定义和分析为“组织和个人的特征和态度的集合,它确立了作为压倒一切的优先事项,核电站安全问题受到其重要性所保证的关注。”显然,重点是组织政策和管理行动,而个人则被视为与安全有关的“个人态度和思维习惯”[2]。其目的是加强核电站的安全,避免今后发生切尔诺贝利式的事故。然而,在国际原子能机构2007年更新的文化定义中,“核电站安全问题”(1986年定义)被简单地替换为“保护和安全问题”[3],以标志着其他“安全意识行业”对安全文化的更广泛关注[4]。显然,自1986年以来,核安全文化主要与核工业环境中的组织和技术问题密切相关,而医疗部门基本上不受影响。从这个意义上说,文化等同于后天习得的行为,是一代又一代核操作员传承下来的一整套态度、习惯和实践,与组织风格及其文化有关。这种对安全文化的理解与20世纪早期人类学中流行的静态、共享和统一的文化概念有关。这里使用的文化概念实际上是指通过特殊的技术教育来培养人——在这个例子中是指核操作员。基于这一观点,个人被视为自满或处于反对文化的位置,因此处于文化之外[5-7]。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Comment on Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection from a Historian of Science
Cancer Stud Ther J, Volume 6(1): 1–2, 2021 In 1985 Hans Blix, the then IAEA Director General, called for the creation of an advisory committee in the area of nuclear safety. As a result, IAEA’s International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (INSAG) was formed with the main objective to offer advice on matters of nuclear safety, produce safety standards, and identify nuclear safety issues of international significance [1]. Only a year later the newly created Advisory Group was faced with one of the most terrifying nuclear accidents in history: Chernobyl. The concept of ‘safety culture’ was first introduced in the report that the Advisory Group issued a few months after the accident. Product of a crisis in the nuclear industry, the concept of safety culture was defined and analyzed as “assembly of characteristics and attitudes in organizations and individuals, which establishes that, as an overriding priority, nuclear plant safety issues receive the attention warranted by their significance.” Obviously, the emphasis was on organizational policies and managerial actions while individuals were seen as having “personal attitudes and habits of thought” linked to safety [2]. The aim was to strengthen the safety of nuclear power plants and avoid Chernobyl-type accidents in the future. Nevertheless, in a IAEA 2007 updated definition of culture, “nuclear power plant safety issues” (1986 definition) has been simply replaced by “protection and safety issues” [3] to mark a wider concern about safety culture in other “safety conscious industries” [4]. Evidently, since 1986 nuclear safety culture has been closely and primarily connected to organizational and technical issues within nuclear industrial settings leaving the medical sector largely unaffected. In this sense, culture is identified with learned behavior, a whole body of attitudes, habits, and practices passed on from one generation of nuclear operators to the next and related to the style of organizations and their culture. This understanding of safety culture is linked to earlier conceptualizations of culture—as static, shared, and uniform—that have prevailed in anthropology in the early part of the 20th century. The culture concept in use comes actually to mean the cultivation of people—in this case nuclear operators—through special technical education. Based on this perspective, individuals have been seen as complacent or in a position that is opposed to and thus outside culture [5-7].
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信