Facing a Crisis with Calmness? The Global Response to the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster

Abstract

Literature expects that an attitude toward nuclear power is in direct proportion to the perceived risk of accidents at an operational nuclear power plant; that is, the oppositional attitude is based on the view that nuclear technology is risky and support for nuclear power is related to a perceived low risk and/or potential benefit. However, it is misleading to assume that individuals’ risk perception alone can linearly explain their position after such an accident. The association between risk perception and attitude toward nuclear power varies significantly according to country but, until now, has been largely unexamined. This article takes into consideration the effects of structural factors on that relationship by examining public attitudes toward nuclear energy after the Fukushima nuclear accident in March 2011 and reveals that the need for the efficient production of electricity (i.e., nuclear energy) outweighs concern for the potential danger of a nuclear incident. Although a country's dependence on nuclear power for the production of electricity engenders anti-nuclear attitudes, it is evident that a level of economic development largely alleviates any negativity relative to that energy source.

Two Sides of Emotion: Exploring Positivity and Negativity in Six Basic Emotions across Cultures

“…Previous findings showed cross-cultural differences in the meaning of happiness and the interpretation of happy images; Westerners typically report happiness to feel uplifting and exciting, but Easterners tend to report happiness as a serene, calm state ( Uchida et al, 2004 ; Tsai, 2007 ). Not only is happiness considered to evoke less arousal in Easterners compared to Westerners, but happiness also contains possibly more negativity for Easterners ( Kubota, 2012 ). This suggests that happiness may be experienced differently across cultures.…”

Risk Perception of Nuclear Energy After Fukushima: Stability and Change in Public Opinion in Switzerland

“…In the case of nuclear energy, the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979 (Cunningham, 1986;Nimmo & Combs, 1982) and the catastrophes at Chernobyl in 1986 (Friedman, Gorney, & Egolf, 1987;Rubin, 1987) and Fukushima in 2011 dramatically increased media coverage of the risks of nuclear energy production (Desai, 2012;Friedman, 2011;Hoetzlein, 2012;Ionescu, 2012;Katchanovski, 2012;Kristiansen & Bonfadelli, 2014;Kubota, 2012;Perko, Turcanu, Geenen, Mamane, & van Rooy, 2011). Those major events have also triggered heated follow-up discussions in media and on social media platforms at the interpersonal level (Utz, Schultz, & Glocka, 2012), particularly regarding the safety and risks of nuclear energy.…”

“…perceptions and public attitudes toward nuclear power not only in the country of the accident, the effects might be weaker in countries that depend more heavily on nuclear energy (Kubota, 2012).…”

Türkiye için yeni bir sosyo-bilimsel tartışma: Nükleer ile yaşam

“…Bunlar 1979'da ABD'nde Three Mile Island, 1986'da Eski Sovyetler Birliği'nde Çernobil ve yakın zamanda 2011'de Fukushima Japonya'da meydana gelen kazalardır. Ancak tüm bu olumsuzluk ve tehlikelerine rağmen nükleer enerji artan enerji ihtiyacını karşılamak için kaçınılmaz olarak durmaktadır (Jho, Yoon ve Kim, 2013;Kubota, 2012). Son yüzyılın ikinci yarısında hız kazanan teknolojik gelişmelere, sanayileşmeye ve hızlı nüfus artışına bağlı olarak artan enerji talebinde, alternatif bir kaynak olarak nükleer enerji dünya gündeminde yerini almaya başlamıştır (Jho, Yoon ve Kim, 2013).…”