Behr, P. (2009) “Three Mile Island Still Haunts U.S. Nuclear Industry.” New York Times. www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/03/27/27greenwire-three-mile-island-still-haunts-us-reactor-indu-10327.html?pagewanted=all.Google Scholar

Epstein, W. (2011). “A Probabilistic Risk Assessment Practitioner Looks at the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami” A Ninokata Laboratory white paper, Tokyo Institute of Technology, April 2011.Google Scholar

Epstein, W. (2014). Personal communication.Google Scholar

Jaynes, E. T. (2003) Probability Theory: The Logic of Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (2011). Special Report on the Nuclear Accident at the Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, Atlanta, GA: INPO,Google Scholar

International Energy Agency (2012). Key World Energy Statistics. Paris, France: OECD.Google Scholar

International Energy Agency (2013). Annual Report. Paris, France: OECD.Google Scholar

Kaplan, S. and Garrick, B. J. (1981). “On the Quantitative Definition of Risk.” Risk Analysis, 1(1): 11–27.Google Scholar

Kemeny, J. G. (1979). Report of the President’s Commission on the Three Mile Island Accident: the Need for Change, Washington, DC: The Commission.Google Scholar

LaPorte, T. R. (1996). “High Reliability Organizations: Unlikely, Demanding and At Risk.” Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management. 4(2): 60–71.Google Scholar

Office of Chancellor Merkel (2011). “Germany’s Energy Transition” Report of the Ethics Commission for a Safe Energy Supply, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar

Paté-Cornell, M. E. (2009). “Probabilistic Risk Assessment” in The Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science, Cochran, J. J. (Editor-in-Chief), New York, NY: Wiley Pub.Google Scholar

Perrow, C. (1984). Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Rees, J. V. (1996). Hostages of each other: the transformation of nuclear safety since Three Mile Island, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Reilly, W. (2013). “Valuing Safety Even When the Markets Do Not Notice” in Energy and Security, 2nd edition, Goldwyn, D. L. and Kalicki, J. (eds.), Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press: 107–20.Google Scholar

New York Times (December 26, 2011). “Japan Panel Cites Failures in Tsunami,” Op-ed by Tabushi, Hiroko. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/world/asia/report-condemns-japans-response-to-nuclear-accident.html.Google Scholar

New York Times (March 9, 2012). “Fukushima Could Have Been Prevented,” Op-ed by Acton, James M.. www.nytimes.com/2012/03/10/opinion/fukushima-could-have-been-prevented.html.Google Scholar

Nimmo, D. D. and Combs, J. E. (1989). Nightly Horrors: Crisis Coverage by Television Nightly News. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar

Smith, J. P. (March 30, 1979). “Pa. Reactor Mishap Called Worst in U.S. History; Accident Clouds Future Of Nuclear Power in U.S.; Future of Nuclear Power Is Clouded” Washington Post.: A1.Google Scholar

Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D.. (1974). “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases” Science 185 (4175): 1124–31.Google Scholar

UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) (2008). Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiations. United Nations, Geneva Switzerland.Google Scholar

UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) (2012). Interim Findings of Fukushima-Daiichi Assessment Presented at the Annual Meeting of UNSCEAR. United Nations Information Service, Geneva Switzerland.Google Scholar

USNRC, Rasmussen, Norman C. et al. (1975). Reactor Safety Study: An assessment of accidental risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-75/014 (Wash-1400). Washington DC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Google Scholar

USNRC (1979). Annual Report (NUREG-0690).Google Scholar

USNRC (2011). “Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century: The Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Daiichi Accident,” Washington DC. www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1118/ML111861807.pdf.Google Scholar

USNRC (2013a). “Backgrounder on the Chernobyl Accident,” www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/chernobyl-bg.html.Google Scholar

USNRC (2013b). “Backgrounder on the Three Mile Island Accident” (NUREG-0558). www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html.Google Scholar

USNRC (2013c). “What Are the Lessons Learned from Fukushima.” www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/japan-dashboard/priorities.html.Google Scholar

World Health Organization (2006). Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programmes, Report of the UN Chernobyl Forum, Bennett, B., Repacholi, M. and Carr, Z. (eds.), Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations.Google Scholar

World Nuclear Association (2017). Plans for New Reactors Worldwide. www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx.Google Scholar

Ahearn, J. F. and Birlhofer, A. (2011): Nuclear Power. In Wiener, J. B., Rogers, M. D., Hammit, J. K. and Sand, P. H. (eds.): The Reality of Precaution. Comparing Risk Regulation in the United States and Europe. Earthscan: London, pp. 121–41.Google Scholar

ASN (2011): Complementary Safety Assessments of the French Nuclear Power Plants (European “Stress Tests”). French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN), December.Google Scholar

Barke, R. P. and Jenking-Smith, H. C. (1993): Politics and Scientific Expertise: Scientists, Risk Perception, and Nuclear Waste Policy. Risk Communication, 13 (4): 425–39.Google Scholar

Bastide, S., Moatti, J.-P., Pages, J. -P. and Fagnani, F. (1989): Risk Perception and the Social Acceptability of Technologies: The French Case. Risk Analysis 9: 215–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baumgartner, F. R. (1989): Independent and Politicized Policy Communities: Education and Nuclear Energy in France and in the United States. Governance, 2 (1): 42–66.Google Scholar

Beck, U. (1992): Risk Society – Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Bella, D. A., Mosher, C. D. and Calvo, S. N. (1988): Technocracy and Trust: Nuclear Waste Controversy. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering, 114: 27–39.Google Scholar

Bosch, S. and Peyke, G. (2011): Gegenwind für die Erneuerbaren – Räumliche Neuorientierung der Wind-, Solar- und Bioenergie vor dem Hintergrund einer verringerten Akzeptanz sowie zunehmender Flächennutzungskonflikte im ländlichen Raum. Raumforschung und Raumordnung, 69 (2): 105–18.Google Scholar

Bruhns, H. and Keilhacker, M. (2011) “Energiewende” Wohin führt der Weg? Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 46–47: 22–29.Google Scholar

Buchholz, W. (2011): Energiepolitische Implikationen einer Energiewende. Ifo-TUM Symposium zur Energiewende in Deutschland. Manuskript.Google Scholar

Corey, G. R. (1979): A Brief Review of the Accident at Three Mile Island, IAEA Bulletin, 21(5): 54–59.Google Scholar

Delmas, M. and Heiman, B. (2001): Government Credible Commitment to the French and American Nuclear Power Industries. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20 (3): 433–456.Google Scholar

Deubner, C. (1979): The Expansion of West-German Capital and the Founding of Euratom. International Organisation, 33: 203–28.Google Scholar

DGEMP (1993): Reforme de l’organisation electrique et gaziere francaise (the Mandil report). Paris: DGEMP.Google Scholar

EC (2011): Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Interim Report on the Comprehensive Risk and Safety Assessments (”Stress Tests”) of Nuclear Power Plants in the European Union. COM(2011) 784. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/safety/doc/com_2011_0784.pdf.Google Scholar

Economist (2014): Sunny, windy, costly and dirty. The Economist, 18 January 2014. www.economist.com/news/europe/21594336-germanys-new-super-minister-energy-and-economy-has-his-work-cut-out-sunny-windy-costly.Google Scholar

Ewald, F. (2002): The Return of Descartes’s Malicious Demon: An Outline of a Philosophy of Precaution. In Baker, T. and Simon, J. (eds.): Embracing Risk: The Changing Culture of Insurance and Responsibility. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 273–302.Google Scholar

Ethik-Kommission (2011): Deutschlands Energiewende – Ein Gemeinschaftswerk für die Zukunft. Bericht der Ethik-Kommission “Sichere Energieversorgung” an die Bundesregierung Deutschland. Berlin: Kanzleramt.Google Scholar

French Government (1994): Debat national Energie & Environnement- Rapport de Synthese (the Souviron report). Paris: French Government.Google Scholar

Giddens, A. (1999): Risk and Responsibility. Modern Law Review, 62: 1–10.Google Scholar

Hall, P. A. (2001): The Evolution of Varieties of Capitalism In Hancké, B., Rhodes, M., and Thatcher, M. (eds.): Beyond Varieties of Capitalism: Conflict, Contradictions, and Complementarities in the European Economy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press: 39–85.Google Scholar

Hatch, M. T. (1986): Politics and Nuclear Power – Energy Policy in Western Europe. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar

Hecht, G. (1998): The Radiance of France: Nuclear Power and National Identity after World War II. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jones, C., and Ladurie, E. L. R. (1999): The Cambridge Illustrated History of France. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Joskow, P. L. and Parsons, J. E. (2012): The Future of Nuclear Power After Fukushima. MIT CEEPR, Working Paper 2012–001. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kern, K., Koenen, S., and Löffelsend, T. (2003): Die Umweltpolitik der rot-grünen Koalition: Strategien zwischen nationaler Pfadabhängigkeit und globaler Politikkonvergenz. Discussion Paper. Abteilung Zivilgesellschaft und transnationale Netzwerke des Forschungsschwerpunkts Zivilgesellschaft, Konflikte und Demokratie des Wissenschaftszentrums Berlin für Sozialforschung, No. SP IV 2003–103. Berlin: WZB.Google Scholar

Kingdon, J. (1984): Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Le JDD (2013): L’État va prolonger le nucléaire de dix ans. www.lejdd.fr/Economie/L-Etat-va-prolonger-le-nucleaire-de-dix-ans-633771Google Scholar

Löfstedt, R. (2005): Risk Management in Post-Trust Societies. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar

Milward, A. (1992): The European Rescue of the Nation-State. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Nachhaltigkeitsbeirat Baden-Württemberg (Sustainability Council of Baden-Württemberg) (2012): Energiewende. Implikationen für Baden-Württemberg. Stuttgart: NBBW.Google Scholar

Patel, T. (2014): French Regulator Orders EDF to Make Additional Atomic Safeguards. http://sortirdunucleaire.org/French-Regulator-Orders-EDF-to-Make-Additional.Google Scholar

Pecebois, J. and Mandil, C. (2012): Energies 2050. Policy Brief 263. http://archives.strategie.gouv.fr/cas/en/content/energy-2050-policy-brief-263-february-2012.html.Google Scholar

Peters, E. and Slovic, P. (1996): The Role of Affect and Worldviews as Orienting Dispositions in the Perception and Acceptance of Nuclear Power. Applied Social Psychology, 26 (16): 1427–53Google Scholar

Pierson, P. (2000): Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review. 94: 251–67.Google Scholar

Renn, O. (1995): Perzeption, Akzeptanz und Akzeptabilität der Kernenergie. In Michaelis, H. and Salander, H. (eds.): Handbuch Kernenergie. Kompendium der Energiewirtschaft und Energiepolitik. Frankfurt am Main: VVEW-Publisher, pp. 752–76.Google Scholar

Renn, O. (2008): Risk Governance. Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar

Renn, O. (2011): Energiesicherung. Zwischen Systemanforderungen und Akzeptanz. Transfer, 12: 20–22Google Scholar

Renn, O. und Dreyer, M. (2013): Risiken der Energiewende: Möglichkeiten der Risikosteuerung mithilfe eines Risk-Governance-Ansatzes. DIW Vierteljahreshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, 82 (3): 29–44.Google Scholar

Rucht, D (1990): Campaigns, skirmishes and battles: anti-nuclear movements in the USA, France and West Germany. Organization & Environment, 4: 193–222Google Scholar

Rucht, D. (1994): The Anti-nuclear Power Movement and the State in France. In Flam, H. (ed.): States and Anti-Nuclear Movements. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 129–62.Google Scholar

Rüdig, W. (2000): Phasing Out Nuclear Energy in Germany. German Politics, 9: 43–80.Google Scholar

Slovic, P. (1987): Perception of Risk. Science, 236: 280–85.Google Scholar

Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. (1981): Perceived Risk: Psychological Factors and Social Implications. Proceedings of the Royal Society. London A376: 17–34.Google Scholar

Wasserman, S. and Renn, O. (2013): Offene Fragen der Energiewende: Aufbau und Design von Kapazitätsmärkten. GAIA, Ökologische Perspektiven für Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft, 22 (4): 237–41.Google Scholar

WEC (2012): World Energy Perspective: Nuclear Energy One Year After Fukushima. World Energy Council, London. www.worldenergy.org/documents/world_energy_perspective__nuclear_energy_one_year_after_fukushima_world_energy_council_march_2012_1.pdf.Google Scholar

Cabinet Decision. (2011). The Guideline on Policy Promotion For the Revitalization of Japan. http://japan.kantei.go.jp/topics/2011/20110517_guideline_1.pdf.Google Scholar

Cabinet Office, Government of Japan (2012). Final Report. Investigation Committee on the Accident at Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of Tokyo Electric Power Company. www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/icanps/eng/final-report.html.Google Scholar

Energy and Environment Council Government of Japan (2012a). Options for Energy and the Environment. www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/npu/policy09/sentakushi/pdf/Report_English.pdf.Google Scholar

Energy and Environment Council Government of Japan (2012b). Innovative Strategy for Energy and the Environment. www.un.org/esa/socdev/egms/docs/2012/greenjobs/enablingenvironment.pdf.Google Scholar

JAERO (2013). Public Opinion Survey on the unitization of Nuclear Energy in 2012 Fiscal Year. Japan Atomic Energy Relations Organization.Google Scholar

JSCE (2002). Tsunami Assessment Techniques for Nuclear Power Stations. http://committees.jsce.or.jp/ceofnp/system/files/JSCE_Tsunami_060519.pdf.Google Scholar

Kitada, A. (2003). Impact of TEPCO Scandals on Public Opinion toward Nuclear Power Generation; The Third Periodic Survey. INSS Journal 10, 44–62 (in Japanese).Google Scholar

Kitada, A. (2006). Longitudinal Survey of Public Opinion on Nuclear Power Generation; The Result of a Survey Conducted One Year after the Mihama Unit 3 Accident. INSS Journal, 303–01 (in Japanese).Google Scholar

Kitayama, T. (2008). Innovation of Nuclear Oversight System, in Mabuchi, M. and Kitayama, T., eds. Policy Process during the Political Realignment. Jigakusha (in Japanese).Google Scholar

METI (2001). Securing the Safety Basis of Nuclear Power Generations. A Report of the Task Group on Nuclear Safety (in Japanese).Google Scholar

NAIIC (2012). National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission’s Final Report. http://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/3856371/naiic.go.jp/en/.Google Scholar

NHK Broadcasting Culture Research Institute (2013). Opinion Survey on Nuclear Power and Energy Issues (March 2013) (in Japanese).Google Scholar

Nippon Research Center (2012). National Opinion Survey about Time-Series Change of Attitude toward Nuclear Power after the Great East Japan Earthquake and Attitude toward Saving Electricity and Life (in Japanese).Google Scholar

Nishiwaki, Y. (2011). Transition of Countermeasures against Severe Accidents in Japan-When Did Nuclear Regulation Go Wrong? Nuclear Eye 57 (9): 37–40 and 57(10): 40–45 (in Japanese).Google Scholar

Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters (2011). Report of Japanese Government to the IAEA Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety – The Accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations. http://flexrisk.boku.ac.at/zitate/full_report.pdf .Google Scholar

Nuclear Safety Commission (1992). Accident Management as a Preparation for Severe Accidents at Commercial Light-Water Nuclear Reactor Facilities (in Japanese).Google Scholar

Nuclear Safety Commission (1999). A Summary of the Report of The Criticality Accident Investigation Committee. www-bcf.usc.edu/~meshkati/tefall99/NSC.pdf (Provisional Translation from the Japanese).Google Scholar

Nuclear Safety Commission (NRC) (2006). Regulatory Guide for Reviewing Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Reactor Facilities. www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0803/ML080310851.pdf.Google Scholar

Pew Research Center (2012). Japanese Wary of Nuclear Energy, Disaster “Weakened” Nation, Survey Report. www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/05/japanese-wary-of-nuclear-energy/.Google Scholar

Prime Minister’s Office (1968). National Opinion Survey on the Utilization of Nuclear Power for Peaceful Purposes (in Japanese).Google Scholar

Prime Minister’s Office (1969). National Opinion Survey on the Utilization of Nuclear Power for Peaceful Purposes (in Japanese).Google Scholar

Prime Minister’s Office (1976). National Opinion Survey on Science and Technology, and Nuclear Power (in Japanese).Google Scholar

Prime Minister’s Office (1980). National Opinion Survey on Energy Conservation (in Japanese).Google Scholar

Prime Minister’s Office (1981). National Opinion Survey on Energy Conservation (in Japanese).Google Scholar

Prime Minister’s Office (1984). National Opinion Survey on Nuclear Energy (in Japanese).Google Scholar

Prime Minister’s Office (1987). National Opinion Survey on Nuclear Energy (in Japanese).Google Scholar

Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation (2012). Investigation and Verification Report. Independent Investigation Commission on the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident (in Japanese).Google Scholar

Shibata, T. and Tomokiyo, H. (1999). Public Opinion on Nuclear Energy – Transition of Nuclear Perception Observed from Public Opinion Surveys. Energy Review Center Publications (in Japanese).Google Scholar

Shiroyama, H. (2010). Current situation and challenges of the Nuclear Safety Commission. The Jurist. 1399: 44–52 (in Japanese).Google Scholar

Socioeconomic Productivity Headquarters (2002). Annual Report in 2001 (in Japanese).Google Scholar

Tajima, E. (1974 ). Who Does Control the Nuclear Administration? Economist 52(38): 42–45 (in Japanese).Google Scholar

Togo, Y. (1987). Summary of Report on Chernobyl Accident Prepared by Special Committee in Japan Nuclear Safety Commission. Journal of the Atomic Energy Society of Japan. 29(11): 976–81 (in Japanese).Google Scholar

Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc. (2012). Fukushima Nuclear Accident Analysis Report. Fukushima Nuclear Accidents Investigation Committee. www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/2012/1205638_1870.html.Google Scholar

WiN Gallup International (2012). Japan Earthquakes Jolts Global Views on Nuclear Energy. www.nrc.co.jp/report/pdf/110420_2.pdf.Google Scholar