Reactions to arguments for and against nuclear power are more or less the same as earlier. On the whole, these indicators - the survey 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 general attitudes can also be seen, quite logically, in the ideas on which the attitudes are based. As a whole, the change indicated by these indicators more or less end in a draw when compared to the last survey. Some indicate a significant increase in trust, some in scepticism.

Opinions about the environmental friendliness of nuclear power as a method of electricity generation are more approving than disapproving. Almost half (47%) of the respondents agree with this statement; one in three (33%) disagree. The figures are almost equal to those of the three previous years, which were with a narrow margin the most favourable towards nuclear power during the entire follow-up period [Figure 10.]. Discussion about the climate and negative attitudes toward fossil fuels have likely pushed the opinion in this direction. The shift is also reflected in the assessments pertaining to the mutual relationship of the energy forms in question. A majority (61%) of the respondents deem the use of nuclear power justifiable because it diminishes dependency on oil and other fossil fuels. This justification is not acceptable to a fifth of the respondents, however (20%, no figure).

There is no change when it comes to the belief in the economic benefits of nuclear power compared to the previous research. However, the figures are slightly more reserved than they were at their peak year four years ago. Less than half (46%) of the respondents regard nuclear-generated electricity as affordable; one in five (25%) do not (no figure). The scepticism may be partly due to the general increase in the electricity price, a situation from which nuclear power indirectly suffers. Currently, the consumers likely do not deem electricity generated with any production method affordable (for more information on the attitudes towards the electricity market and the price of electricity, please see Chapter 10.).

The most important favourable viewpoint continues to be the positive experiences of nuclear power in Finland. A clear majority of the respondents (59%) consider that Finland has had good experiences with (Finnish) nuclear power. Only a small minority (12%) disagree. Although these opinions are close to the average level of the past years, they show a slightly more reservations than increases. 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 range of arguments against nuclear power, the view that the use of nuclear power involves too many unknown hazards continues to be the key basis of the negative attitudes. Although the distribution of answers still clearly emphasises concern (45% of the respondents are concerned about unknown hazards, 32% 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 but even clearer declining trend is evident in the assessments concerning cancer risks. 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 three in ten (now 29%). However, the current distribution is slightly (3 percentage points) higher than in the previous survey (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 the probability of accidents or the potential consequences of an accident. Nearly two fifths (38%) consider a nuclear power plant accident resulting in major damage so unlikely that there is no reason to be concerned. Almost half of the people disagree (46%). There are now slightly less respondents who deem the accident risk real than the year before but their share is almost the same as the average in the previous surveys [Figure 13.].

The consequences of a potential accident have always been deemed serious. A great majority of respondents (87%) assume that if there were an accident, it would inevitably cause irreversible damage to extensive areas and a great number of people. Thus, there is a tendency to deem all nuclear accidents devastating. This notion seems to be so stable that it does not reflect an increase in the general acceptability of nuclear power. In practice, these fears have not abated at all since the autumn of 1986 (no figure). Opinions on the safety of nuclear power are also examined later in connection with opinions concerning decision-making and official supervision relating to energy policy (Chapter 7.).

The theme was also plumbed with two new statements. The distribution of the responses is maybe even surprisingly approving, at least when compared to the public discussion on the themes. The often repeated critical argument against nuclear power, i.e., nuclear power is a solution for (at the most) a short intermediate phase, a kind of the 'lesser evil' to which we have to resort before moving on to more sustainable alternatives, does not seem to have a widespread truth-value in the public opinion. The thesis 'Nuclear power is the long-term energy solution that will be used in a technically further developed form for a long time into the future' was supported by six out of ten (60%) and rejected only by about one in five (19%) [Figure 14.]. When interpreting the results, the broad interpretation of the concept 'future' must be taken into consideration, i.e., how do the different assessors understand the idea of 'future'. Some people might already think about nuclear power production based on fusion reactions instead of nuclear fission.