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 what the attitudes are based on.

Opinions about the environmental friendliness of nuclear power as a method of electricity generation lean considerably towards its acceptance. Almost half (48%) agree with this statement, about one in three (31%) disagree. The figures are practically equal to those of the previous year, which was the most favourable to nuclear power in the entire follow-up period [Figure 10.]. Discussion of the climate and negative attitudes toward fossil fuels have probably pushed the opinion into this direction. The shift is also reflected in the assessment of the mutual relationship of the energy forms in question. A majority (60%) of the respondents see the use of nuclear power as justifiable since it diminishes dependency on oil and other fossil fuels. However, this reason is not acceptable to one in five (19%, no figure).

There are slightly more reservations in the belief in the economical benefits of nuclear power than the year before. In the latest results, fewer than half (47%) of the respondents regard nuclear-generated electricity as inexpensive; one in five (20%) do not. However, the result is close to the average of recent years (no figure). The general increase in the price of electricity may be partially responsible for rising scepticism (on the attitudes toward the electrical market and the price of electricity, see Chapter 8.).

The most important favourable viewpoint continues to be the positive experiences of nuclear power in Finland. A clear majority of the respondents (63%) consider that Finland has gained good experiences from (Finnish) nuclear power. Only a small minority (8%) disagree. The responses approach the top figures of three years ago. As a whole, the time series shows that recognition of Finnish nuclear power production has been strong in all the stages [Figure 11.].

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 still clearly emphasises concern (44% are concerned about unknown hazards, 35% are not), the long-term development of opinions indicates that unspecified concerns of this kind are gradually fading. The overall change from the results for the 1980s is considerable [Figure 12.]. 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 27%, 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. More than one in three (37%) 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 (47%). 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. The four latest surveys form a considerable step away from the previous results [Figure 13.].

However, the consequences of a possible accident are always deemed to be serious. A great majority of respondents (82%) assume 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 so very stable 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).