2.4. Other assessments of nuclear power

Reactions to arguments for and against nuclear power are more or less the same as before. However, on the whole these indicators - the study includes several follow-up measurements concerning the pros and cons of nuclear power - express an increase in sympathetic attitudes towards nuclear power. The change in general attitudes is thus verified - as logical - at the level of the basis of attitudes.

Opinions about the ecological acceptability of nuclear power as an electricity generation method are leaning more towards its acceptance than before. Fewer than half (46%) agree with this claim, fewer than one in three ( 31%) do not agree. Although this distribution is by no means drastic, it shows the most sympathetic attitudes towards nuclear power throughout the follow-up period [Figure 10.]. Confidence in the economic advantageousness of nuclear power shows a somewhat smaller change. About every other person (48%) considers today nuclear electricity as economical, about one in five (21%) does not agree with this. Although this result exceeds the long-term average, it shows more reservations than the results received in the first stages of this follow-up (no figure).

The most important favourable viewpoint continues to be the positive experiences of nuclear power in Finland. Almost two thirds of the respondents (63%) consider that Finland has had good experiences with (Finnish) nuclear power. Only less than one in ten disagree (8%). These are record figures in this respect as well. However, this does not mean that the way of thinking would have changed. Recognition of Finnish nuclear power production has been strong in all the stages [Figure 11.].

More than half (57%) of respondents see the use of nuclear power as justifiable, so long as it diminishes dependency on coal and other fossil fuels. However, this reason is not acceptable to more than one in five (22%). This distribution has shifted somewhat towards acceptance from last year (50% agreed; no figure).

In the spectrum of arguments against nuclear power, the view that the use of nuclear power involves far too many unknown hazards continues to be the key basis for attitudes. Although the distribution of answers still emphasises concern (43% are concerned about unknown hazards, 32% are not), the change compared to the previous measurement is visible. The long-term trend in opinions indicates that these types of holistic concerns are gradually disappearing  [Figure 12.]. A similar, even more clear declining trend is evident in the assessments concerning cancer risk. The proportion of those who estimate that the risk of contracting cancer is great in the surroundings of nuclear power plants has gradually decreased from the majority (54% in 1986) to one in four (now 24%, no figure).

Answers to questions concerning accidents at nuclear power plants continue to be relatively harsh, irrespective of whether the question is asked from the viewpoint of accident probability or the potential consequences of an accident. Two in five (40%) consider that a nuclear power plant accident resulting in major damage is so unlikely that there is no reason to be concerned. More than every second person disagrees (47%). However, the number of people who consider an accident risk as realistic is now considerably smaller than a year ago (56%). This measurement also indicates the greatest confidence throughout the study period [Figure 13.].

However, the consequences of a possible accident are always deemed to be serious. A great majority of respondents (86%) assumes that if there were an accident, it would inevitably cause irreplaceable damage to extensive areas and great numbers of people. Therefore, there is a tendency to see all kinds of nuclear accidents as devastating. This notion seems to be very stable so that an increase in the acceptability of nuclear power is not reflected in it. Since autumn 1986 these threats have not abated in practice at all (no figure).