Origin of the Safety Myth: Native Ethnography of Japanese Nuclear Professionals
SSRN, ISSN: 1556-5068
2023
- 344Usage
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Before the Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011, most Japanese professionals in the field believed that Japan’s nuclear power plants were the safest worldwide and that a serious accident would never happen. Although criticism arose about the safety myth after the accident, the mechanism by which many professionals in the nuclear field, including this author, adopted such a mindset has not been fully explained. The analysis included 39 publicly available testimonies by professionals involved in the Fukushima accident and interview data of 20 anonymous professionals in the field. The results revealed that the strong desire for certainty (infallibility) in nuclear safety by both the public and nuclear industry professionals had created the safety myth. When the current system came close to being threatened, the system justification was activated, and this myth was reinforced.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know