Societal and ethical aspects of the Fukushima accident.

The Fukushima Nuclear Power Station accident in Japan in 2011 was a poignant reminder that radioactive contamination of the environment has consequences that encompass far more than health risks from exposure to radiation. Both the accident and remediation measures have resulted in serious societal impacts and raise questions about the ethical aspects of risk management. This article presents a brief review of some of these issues and compares similarities and differences with the lessons learned from the 1986 Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant accident in Ukraine. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2016;12:651-653. © 2016 SETAC.

Social and ethical issues in environmental remediation projects.

The contamination of environments with radionuclides can give rise to consequences that encompass far more than health risks from exposure to radiation. As experience from Chernobyl demonstrated, both the accident and remediation measures can have serious social and economic consequences. This paper presents a review of some of these issues, including their ethical relevance, and presents a check-list of socio-ethical aspects of remediation measures. The paper concludes with an overview of social remediation measures, encompassing actions that are directed towards benefits other than dose reduction (e.g., local food monitoring stations or medical check-up), or measures that require social rather than technical implementation (e.g. information centres, stakeholder dialogue).

Ethical issues in using children's blood lead levels as a remedial action objective.

The Environmental Protection Agency measures the success or failure of Superfund site remediation efforts against remedial action objectives (RAOs). RAOs are frequently based on environmental contaminant concentrations, but with lead exposure, blood lead levels from the population at risk are often used. Although childhood lead screening is an important public health tool, an RAO based on child blood lead levels raises ethical concerns: public health efforts that are more reactive than preventive, a blood lead standard (10 µg/dL) that may not be fully protective, the use of a measure whose validity and reliability may be easily compromised, and exacerbation of environmental injustice and systematic disadvantages. The example of Bunker Hill mine, Kellogg, Idaho, allowed an examination of these ethical concerns.

Do green products make us better people?

Consumer choices reflect not only price and quality preferences but also social and moral values, as witnessed in the remarkable growth of the global market for organic and environmentally friendly products. Building on recent research on behavioral priming and moral regulation, we found that mere exposure to green products and the purchase of such products lead to markedly different behavioral consequences. In line with the halo associated with green consumerism, results showed that people act more altruistically after mere exposure to green products than after mere exposure to conventional products. However, people act less altruistically and are more likely to cheat and steal after purchasing green products than after purchasing conventional products. Together, our studies show that consumption is connected to social and ethical behaviors more broadly across domains than previously thought.

From stratospheric ozone to climate change: historical perspective on precaution and scientific responsibility.

The issue of the impact of human activities on the stratospheric ozone layer emerged in the early 1970s. But international regulations to mitigate the most serious effects were not adopted until the mid-1980s. This case holds lessons for addressing more complex environmental problems. Concepts that should inform discussion include 'latency,' 'counter-factual scenario based on the Precautionary Principle,' 'inter-generational burden sharing,' and 'estimating global costs under factual and counter-factual regulatory scenarios.' Stringent regulations were adopted when large scientific uncertainty existed, and the environmental problem would have been prevented or more rapidly mitigated, at relatively modest incremental price, but for a time delay before more rigorous Precautionary measures were implemented. Will history repeat itself in the case of climate change?