Nuclear power and the public: analysis of collected survey research

Abstract

of the University of Washington who provided helpful comments on an earlier draft of this report. The analysis and synthesis of research findings presented here were based on surveys and other attitude assessment studies conducted by earlier investigators. The authors gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of ~~e many individual researchers, research organizations, and survey sponsors who provided the original data and permitted its inclusion herein. i i i EXECUTIVE S~\~RY Introduction This executive SU!Ml\ary highlights the major findings of a comprehensive synthesis and analysis of over 100 existing surveys dealing with public attitudes toward nuclear power issues. Questions of immediate policy relevanceto the nuclear debate are posed and answered on the basis of these major findings. For each issue area, we indicate those sections of the report in which more detailed discussion and presentation of relevant data may be found. Does the Public Support Nuclear Power?The survey data clearly indicate that a majority of the Imblic favors the use of nuclear energy. In national probabili ty studies conducted primarily during 1975 and 1976, approximately 60% of the public supported nuclear energy, with support levels ranging from 45% to 80%: approximately 23% of the public opposed nuclear power, with opposition levels ranging from 6% to 35%: and approximately 17% of the respondents \,.ere undecided, with undecided levels ranging fz:crn 11% to 32%. (See Section 3.1.2.6.)The questions used to assess general nuclear power attitudes have been worded in variot~ ways. Questions that asked whether nuclear power should be used to generate electricity (which is the current situation in the United States) ter.ded to receive higher lelTels of support than did those concerning the building of more nuclear power plants. In addition, questions that referred to developing nuclear energy as a means of dealing with the energy crisis recei'.red greater support than did those in \o1hich nuclear energy was not placed in the context of energy shortages. (See Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2.)A higher percentage of the public favored nuclear power in general than favcz:ed having a nuclear pla::lt located !'),earby. The mean levels of v support and opposition to building a local nuclear plant were 55% and 31%, respectively, for the national surveys. However, respondents who lived near existing nuclear plants favored local nuclear power more than did the general public; the mean level of support from this group was 63%, and the mean level of opposition was 23%. (See Section 3.1.3.) Is Support or Opposition to Nuclear Power Changing?A major question regarding the public assessment of nuclear energy is whether support or opposition has changed in the recent past. The comparison of data collected at different times by five national survey organizations does not indicate any clear trend over time in support or opposition to nuclear power. Although fluctuations in support and opposition were common, consistent long-term changes were not found. Evidently, t...

Nuclear Protective Action Advisories: A Policy Analysis and Evaluation

“…Most of the responses were consistent from one interview to the next despite the fact that over the three-year study period , the residents of Suffolk and Nassau counties were exposed simultaneously to a range of special nuclear education programs and extensive media coverage of the controversy surrounding the licensing of the plant. The results of this panel study lead us to believe that an individual's behavioral predisposition toward nuclear power, once established, is difficult to change, which is consistent with the findings of both experimental risk perception studies (Slovic, Fischhoff, and Lichtenstein 1980), and analyses of longitudinal data from nuclear public opinion polls (Melber et al 1977, Mitchell 1979). The main reason for this, evidenced most recently by a Washington Post/ABC News nuclear opinion poll conducted in the immediate aftermath of the Chernobyl accident, is that the public does not trust either the federal government or the critics to tell them the truth about nuclear risks (Sussman 1986).…”

In Whose Backyard?: Concern About Siting a Nuclear Waste Facility*

“…Whereas the large majority of general studies have found a positive association between education and environmental concern, studies related to nuclear and hazardous waste issues have tended to find the reverse. Less welleducated people tend to be more opposed to using nuclear energy (Melber, Nealey, Hammersla, and Rankin 1977;Mazur 198l), are more concerned about radioactive contamination of soil and water (Kohut and Shriver 1989), and were more likely to leave the Three Mile Island vicinity at the time of the nuclear accident (Dohrenwend, Dohrenwend, Warheit, Bartlett, Goldsteen, Goldsteen, and Martin 1981). While lower levels of formal education do not necessarily reflect less knowledge about nuclear issues, the negative association between education and concern could support either the proposition of the opponent as uninformed or the conflict hypothesis of the opponent as more vulnerable.…”

Effects of knowledge and persuasion on high‐school students' attitudes toward nuclear power plants

“…First, the generation of electricity by nuclear energy is a familiar STS issue, as shown by the Newspaper Abstracts Database (1992) lists 577 articles dealing with nuclear power. Second, students have measurable attitudes toward nuclcar power plants (Calhoun, Shrigley, & Showers, 1988;Crater, 1972;Melber, Nealey, Hammersla, & Rankin, 1977). Third, other factors such as knowledge, prior opinion, and worry are influential in forming nuclear attitudes (Douglas, 1987;MacGregor, 1991).…”