Reactions to arguments for or against nuclear power are more or less the same as before. On the whole these indicators - the study includes several follow-up measurements concerning the pros and cons of nuclear power - express a dual image of the current state of development in the public opinion concerning nuclear power. With regard to some aspects, the change since the last study reflects increased reservations, with other aspects indicating increased acceptance.

The distribution of opinions about the ecological acceptability of nuclear power as an electricity generation method is leaning almost as much towards acceptance than in the previous year. Fewer than half (47%) agree with this claim, while one in three (34%) do not agree. The distribution is the second most favourable for nuclear power in the entire follow-up period (no figure). Confidence in the economic advantageousness of nuclear power shows a slight increase. About every other person (52%) considers today nuclear electricity as economical, while about one in five (21%) does not agree with this. The assessment is more favourable to nuclear power than ever before [Figure 9.].

The most important favourable viewpoint continues to be the positive experiences of nuclear power in Finland. More than every other person (58%) considers that Finland has had good experiences with (Finnish) nuclear power. Only one in ten people disagree (10%). The opinions show a return towards the average level in recent years. However, as is the case with the record-setting figures in the previous measurement, 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 10.].

More than half (55%) 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 (23%). This distribution is almost similar to last year (57% 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 (46% are concerned about unknown hazards, 31% are not), the long-term development of opinions indicates that unspecified concerns of this kind are gradually dispelling. This is the case even though the most recent result does not reach the record-low figures of the previous measurement [Figure 11.]. 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 less than one in three (now 29%, no figure).

Answers to questions concerning accidents at nuclear power plants continue to be harsh, irrespective of whether the question is asked from the viewpoint of accident probability or the potential consequences of an accident. More than one in three (36%) consider that a nuclear power plant accident resulting in major damage is so unlikely that there is no reason to be concerned. Approximately half of the people disagree (49%). There are now slightly more people who think that the risk of accident is more realistic than in the previous year, but the number is smaller than in the preceding years [Figure 12.].

The consequences of a possible accident are deemed to be serious. A great majority of respondents (85%) assumes that if there were an accident, it would inevitably cause irreversible 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. Since autumn 1986 these threats have not abated in practice at all (no figure).

Opinions on the safety of nuclear power are also examined later in connection with decision-making and official control relating to energy policy (Chapter 6.).