Quantitative guidance on how best to respond to a big nuclear accident
Open Access
- 1 November 2017
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Elsevier BV in Process Safety and Environmental Protection
- Vol. 112, 4-15
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.07.026
Abstract
No abstract availableKeywords
Funding Information
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/K007580/1)
This publication has 27 references indexed in Scilit:
- Testing the validity of the “value of a prevented fatality” (VPF) used to assess UK safety measuresProcess Safety and Environmental Protection, 2015
- ‘Testing the validity of the “value of a prevented fatality” (VPF) used to assess UK safety measures’: Reply to the comments of Chilton, Covey, Jones-Lee, Loomes, Pidgeon and SpencerProcess Safety and Environmental Protection, 2015
- Response to ‘Testing the validity of the “value of a prevented fatality” (VPF) used to assess UK safety measures’Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2015
- The limits to risk aversion: Part 1. The point of indiscriminate decisionProcess Safety and Environmental Protection, 2010
- The limits to risk aversionProcess Safety and Environmental Protection, 2010
- Extending the J-value framework for safety analysis to include the environmental costs of a large accidentProcess Safety and Environmental Protection, 2010
- The trade-offs embodied in J-value safety analysisProcess Safety and Environmental Protection, 2010
- The Changing Relation between Mortality and level of Economic DevelopmentPopulation Studies, 1975
- DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING AND A NEW FORMALISM IN THE CALCULUS OF VARIATIONSProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 1954
- On the Theory of Dynamic ProgrammingProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 1952