Question: THE MANAGER'S PERSPECTIVE

Ed Freeman just couldn't understand it. Why were the activists so blind? For years the information had been available showing just how safe nuclear power plants were. Study after study had concluded that the risk of fatalities from a nuclear power plant accident was far less than driving a car, flying in a commercial airliner, and many other commonplace activities in which people freely chose to engage. Sure, there had been some close calls, such as Three Mile Island, and there had been the terrible accidents at Chernobyl in the Soviet Union and Fukushima Daiichi in Japan. Still, the overall record of the nuclear power industry in the United States was excellent. No one could deny it if they would only compare the industry to others.

His risk assessors had gone through their own paces, documenting the safety features of his plant for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; it was up to date and, in fact, one of the safest plants in the country. The experts had estimated the probability of an accident at the plant as nearly zero. Furthermore, even if an accident were to occur, the safety systems that had been built in would minimize the public's exposure. Given all this, he just could not understand the public opposition to the plant. He knew that these were bright people. They were articulate, well read, and able to marshal their supporters with great skill. But they seemed to ignore all of the data as well as the experts' reports and conclusions. "I guess it takes all kinds," he sighed as he prepared to go back to work. Questions

1. This case and "Nuclear Power Paranoia" go together. People often are willing to engage voluntarily in activities that are far more risky (in the sense of the probability of a serious injury or death) than living near a nuclear power plant. Why do you think this is the case?

2. What makes new technologies seem risky to you?