As before, decision making in energy issues is felt to be distant and the opportunities to influence it slight. Two out of three (66%) think that citizens' opinions have not been sufficiently heard in energy decisions. This opinion has been dominant throughout the follow-up period of the study. In the current results, criticism is again a little high, just as in the previous survey. Thus the lowest value of the follow-up reached three years ago did not mean a permanent alleviation of public opinion [Figure 25.].

Extensive confidence in the legislation and official control relating to energy solutions has become apparent in various connections. This is also true with regard to nuclear power, the attitudes towards which largely relate to safety considerations. Two out of three (67%) agree with the view 'The authorities have coped well with the safety control of nuclear power plants in Finland'. Only a marginal minority disagree (6%). The distribution is practically equal to that of the previous year, but slightly more reserved than two years ago (73% agreed). Like-mindedness is still greater than in the results for the 1980s that form the main part of the time series (the question was introduced two years ago after a break of nearly twenty years) [Figure 26.].

In connection with this, the safety of the new nuclear power plant under construction also receives absolution. The claim that 'When the fifth nuclear power plant is completed, it will be even safer than the existing plants that have proved to be safe as such' is accepted by nearly half of the respondents (48%). The estimate is only rejected by one in eight people (13%). Although the result does not substantially deviate from the previous one, the series of three surveys shows an increase in suspicion rather than in confidence [Figure 27.].The results included in the previous materials should also be remembered when examining the current trend. According to them, the public criticism relating to the prototype nature of the fifth plant (the claim that the safety of the plant was not adequately researched before granting the building permit) had practically no effect on public opinion.

When the aspect of control is extended to the level of the European Union, opinions become more complicated. Although the role of the EU as an overseer of the national practices in nuclear power issues is considered recommendable, it is not believed that this would directly benefit our own country. This is an interpretation of the results of the two questions addressing the theme. The claim 'Decisions about regulations concerning the safety of nuclear power and nuclear waste should be made jointly at the EU level, not in each member country separately' is agreed with (61%) much more than disagreed with (22%). Support for common regulations has slightly increased since the previous survey [Figure 28.].

The reaction to the extended claim 'If the EU issues common safety standards on nuclear power, they would enhance safe use of nuclear power also in Finland' is more sceptical and also more uncertain. Three out of ten (30%) are in favour, while an equal number (31%) are against. The result does not deviate substantially from the earlier results. However, the belief that Finland will benefit has weakened rather than strengthened (no figure).