Reactions to arguments for and 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 – indicate that the ‘boom’ of public opinion on nuclear power has continued. The level of the general attitude is also seen – logically – in the case of the basis of attitudes.

Opinions about the environmental friendliness of nuclear power as a method of electricity generation are now considerably leaning towards its acceptance. Almost half (48%) agree with this claim, fewer than one in three ( 30%) do not agree. Even though the difference compared with the past few years is minor, the distribution shows the greatest support for nuclear power throughout the follow-up period [Figure 9.]. A push in this direction may have been caused by the increased non-acceptance felt towards fossil fuels (see Chapter 1 above). The shift is also reflected in the assessment of the mutual relationship of the energy forms in question. Clearly more of the respondents (62%, earlier 55%) 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 one in five (19%). The distribution is more accepting than ever before (no figure).

Confidence in the economic advantageousness of nuclear power shows no significant change. One in two (50%) today consider nuclear electricity as economical, while about one in five (19%) do not agree with this. Also in this respect the result is close to the highest values measured so far (no figure). The economy argument also receives indirect support in the reactions to the new claim ‘The current price level of fuels shows that Finland was far-sighted when the construction of the fifth nuclear power plant was decided on’. Almost one in two (47%) agree, while one in five (21%) disagree (no figure).

The most important favourable viewpoint continues to be the positive experiences of nuclear power in Finland. The clear majority of the respondents (60%) consider that Finland has gained good experiences from (Finnish) nuclear power. Only one in ten people disagree (10%). The opinions are comparatively close to the peak figures in the year before last (63% agreed). As a whole the time series shows that recognition of Finnish nuclear power production has been strong in all the stages [Figure 10.].

In the spectrum of arguments against nuclear power, the view that the use of nuclear power involves too many unknown hazards continues to be the key basis for attitudes. Although the distribution of answers noticeably emphasises concern (41% are concerned about unknown hazards, 35% are not), it is record-breaking in its confidence. The long-term trend in opinions indicates that these types of holistic concerns are gradually disappearing. The overall change from the results for the 1980s is considerable [Figure 11.]. A similar 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 more than one in four (now 28%, 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 (39%) consider that a nuclear power plant accident resulting in major damage is so unlikely that there is no reason to be concerned. Almost half of the people disagree (46%). There are now considerably fewer respondents who consider the accident risk real than on average in the follow-up period, even if their number is as such large. This measurement (together with the result for 2003) indicates the greatest confidence throughout the study period [Figure 12.].

However, the consequences of a possible accident are always 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 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).

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