2.3. Nuclear waste

The earlier studies show that there is visible suspicion of nuclear waste. Today, less than one in three (30%) consider that the disposal of nuclear waste in the Finnish bedrock is safe. Sceptics are more numerous, nearly half (47%) of the population. The figures are slightly more sceptical than the year before, but the same as those two years ago and close to the mean value of the last ten years. The stability in these figures shows that the attitude toward the waste is not directly connected to the support of nuclear power in general. During the first ten years of follow-up (1983-1993), confidence was, however, one step lower than currently [Figure 8.].

The reservations are partly explained by the fact that two-thirds (68%) consider nuclear waste to be a continuous threat to the life of future generations. Only about one in six (16%) disagree. In light of this part of the survey, the concern for the waste management is practically at the same level as in the previous year, slightly below its usual level. The trend in the attitudes throughout the study period indicates that the threat experiences are persistent; no great slackening has been seen in attitudes in the 24 study years [Figure 9.].

More than two out of five (45%) now accept the notion that it would be better to keep nuclear waste in its present intermediate storage and wait for new solutions rather than to definitively deposit it in the bedrock. Slightly fewer than one in four (23%) disagree. Even though the support for 'consideration time' has appreciably increased during the past three years, during the previous period it clearly decreased. The overall change in this direction from the beginning of the 1990s (62% supported intermediate storage in 1991) is great. However, the interpretation should be made considering the decision made in 1994 to prohibit the exports of nuclear waste, which restricted the potential decisions to a narrower range (no figure).

Attitudes towards nuclear waste are, on average, less negative in the communities where the existing nuclear power plants are located than they are in the rest of Finland. Confidence in safe disposal is significantly more widespread in these communities. The results of the earlier sections of the research series should also be remembered when examining this trend. They have continuously shown that in principle the residents of both Eurajoki and Loviisa are prepared to accept, i.e. dispose of, nuclear waste in the area of their own municipality. The present study shows that in both municipalities the attitudes towards nuclear waste are mostly the same as a year earlier. Compared to the situation of three to four years ago, both show an increase in reservations rather than in confidence (no figure).