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 the stability of public opinion on nuclear power. General attitudes can also be seen, quite logically, in the ideas on which the attitudes are based. As a whole, the signals concerning change indicated by these indicators end - more or less - in a draw when compared to the last survey. Some indicate a small increase in trust, some in scepticism.

Opinions on the economic benefits of nuclear power are more positive than negative. In the latest results, fewer than half (45%) of respondents regard nuclear-generated electricity as cheap; one in four (25%) do not. The distribution is practically the same as in the previous survey and the survey preceding the previous one [Figure 10.]. However, opinions are slightly more reserved than they were at their peak year, four or five years ago (52% regarded nuclear-generated energy as affordable in 2004). The scepticism may be partly due to the general increase in the price of electricity, a situation from which nuclear power indirectly suffers. Currently, consumers seem not to 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 7).

Opinions about the environmental friendliness of nuclear power as a method of electricity generation are more polarised. More than two out of five (42%) respondents agree with this statement; a little over one in three (37%) disagree. The figures are more doubting than those in the previous survey and the three surveys preceding the previous one. As the above-mentioned survey years represent the most sympathetic attitudes towards nuclear power in the entire follow-up period, it is somewhat problematic to explain the current change. The environmental image of nuclear power has been improved by the discussion about the climate and the increases in the negative attitudes toward fossil fuels. The same is also reflected in the assessments pertaining to the mutual relationship of the energy forms in question. A majority (61%) of respondents deem the use of nuclear power justifiable because it decreases dependency on oil and other fossil fuels. This justification is not acceptable to a little over one fifth (23%) of respondents, however (no figure).

The most important favourable viewpoint continues to be the positive experiences of nuclear power in Finland. A majority of respondents (57%) consider that Finland has 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 slight reservations. As a whole, the time series shows that recognition of Finnish nuclear power production has been strong at all times [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 behind the negative attitudes. Although the distribution of answers still - even considerably more than last year - clearly emphasises concern (48% are concerned about unknown hazards, 33% 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 more than one fourth (now 28%). The newest distribution shows a somewhat decreased concern than the previous one, but it does not deviate substantially from the average level of the past years (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. More than one in three (36%) consider that a nuclear power plant accident resulting in major damage is so unlikely that there is no reason to be concerned. Approximately half of respondents (50%) disagree. There are now slightly more respondents who deem the accident risk real than the year before, but their share is almost the same as the average in the last six surveys [Figure 13.].

The consequences of a potential accident have always been deemed serious. The vast majority of respondents (83%) 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 as devastating. This idea seems to be so stable that it does not reflect the 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 regarding the safety of nuclear power are also discussed below in connection with opinions concerning decision-making and official supervision relating to energy policy (Chapter 6).

The publicly and often repeated critical argument against nuclear power, i.e. nuclear power is a solution for (at the most) a short intermediate phase - a '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 public opinion. The statement '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 (61%) and rejected by less than one in four (23%). The result does not deviate substantially from earlier results, except that sceptics are now a little more numerous than previously (19% rejected it in the autumn 2008). When interpreting opinions, the broad interpretation of the concept 'future' must be taken into consideration, i.e. how do different respondents understand the idea of 'the future'. Some people might already think about nuclear power production based on fusion reactions instead of nuclear fission (no figure).

Exploring opinions on uranium mines has more support than what could be expected based on publicity. The statement 'Because our country uses nuclear power, Finns must also accept the search for and mining of uranium in Finland' receives approving attitudes from a little more than one in two (55%). Slightly more than one in four (28%) disagree. The distribution is practically the same as in the previous year; the main difference is that the share of unsure respondents has decreased. The permissive attitudes might be explained by the moral obligation included in the statement; at least, those in favour of nuclear power cannot say no. Thus, the approving attitudes are more likely to be linked with tolerating uranium mines than an outright desire for them [Figure 14.].