核安全靠数字。概率风险分析作为德国核能辩论中技术安全的证据实践

IF 1 1区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY
S. Esselborn, K. Zachmann
{"title":"核安全靠数字。概率风险分析作为德国核能辩论中技术安全的证据实践","authors":"S. Esselborn, K. Zachmann","doi":"10.1080/07341512.2020.1766916","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The article explores the introduction of Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) for nuclear energy in the two German states, the FRG and the GDR since the late 1960s. We argue that PRA - which promised to make potential dangers associated with the new technology calculable, comparable and seemingly controllable by reducing them to numerical terms - is best understood as an evidence practice, aiming to (re-)establish intersubjective agreement on nuclear safety through quantification. As such, the introduction of PRA was from the beginning also a political question, tied to the destabilization of alternative evidence practices. While in both the FRG and the GDR, the relativization of the promise of absolute safety inherent in the new method proved problematic, this was an even bigger obstacle in the socialist East. Although PRA ultimately failed to (re-)establish a societal consensus on nuclear energy in Germany, its institutionalization shaped the societal discourse on dangerous technologies.","PeriodicalId":45996,"journal":{"name":"History and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nuclear safety by numbers. Probabilistic risk analysis as an evidence practice for technical safety in the German debate on nuclear energy\",\"authors\":\"S. Esselborn, K. Zachmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/07341512.2020.1766916\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The article explores the introduction of Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) for nuclear energy in the two German states, the FRG and the GDR since the late 1960s. We argue that PRA - which promised to make potential dangers associated with the new technology calculable, comparable and seemingly controllable by reducing them to numerical terms - is best understood as an evidence practice, aiming to (re-)establish intersubjective agreement on nuclear safety through quantification. As such, the introduction of PRA was from the beginning also a political question, tied to the destabilization of alternative evidence practices. While in both the FRG and the GDR, the relativization of the promise of absolute safety inherent in the new method proved problematic, this was an even bigger obstacle in the socialist East. Although PRA ultimately failed to (re-)establish a societal consensus on nuclear energy in Germany, its institutionalization shaped the societal discourse on dangerous technologies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45996,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"History and Technology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"History and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/07341512.2020.1766916\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07341512.2020.1766916","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

摘要:本文探讨了自20世纪60年代末以来,德国两个州(FRG和GDR)引入核能概率风险评估(PRA)的情况。我们认为,PRA——它承诺通过将与新技术相关的潜在危险简化为数字术语,使其可计算、可比较和看似可控——最好被理解为一种证据实践,旨在通过量化(重新)建立关于核安全的主体间协议。因此,PRA的引入从一开始就是一个政治问题,与替代证据实践的不稳定有关。尽管在德意志联邦共和国和德意志民主共和国,新方法中固有的绝对安全承诺的相对化被证明是有问题的,但这在社会主义的东德是一个更大的障碍。尽管PRA最终未能(重新)在德国建立关于核能的社会共识,但它的制度化塑造了关于危险技术的社会话语。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Nuclear safety by numbers. Probabilistic risk analysis as an evidence practice for technical safety in the German debate on nuclear energy
ABSTRACT The article explores the introduction of Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) for nuclear energy in the two German states, the FRG and the GDR since the late 1960s. We argue that PRA - which promised to make potential dangers associated with the new technology calculable, comparable and seemingly controllable by reducing them to numerical terms - is best understood as an evidence practice, aiming to (re-)establish intersubjective agreement on nuclear safety through quantification. As such, the introduction of PRA was from the beginning also a political question, tied to the destabilization of alternative evidence practices. While in both the FRG and the GDR, the relativization of the promise of absolute safety inherent in the new method proved problematic, this was an even bigger obstacle in the socialist East. Although PRA ultimately failed to (re-)establish a societal consensus on nuclear energy in Germany, its institutionalization shaped the societal discourse on dangerous technologies.
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
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
16.70%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: History and Technology serves as an international forum for research on technology in history. A guiding premise is that technology—as knowledge, practice, and material resource—has been a key site for constituting the human experience. In the modern era, it becomes central to our understanding of the making and transformation of societies and cultures, on a local or transnational scale. The journal welcomes historical contributions on any aspect of technology but encourages research that addresses this wider frame through commensurate analytic and critical approaches.
×
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