-
Public Perceptions of Risk andNuclear Power, Nuclear Weapons,and Nuclear Waste
- Vanderbilt University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
210 | Public Perceptions of Risk and Nuclear Power, NuclearWeapons, and NuclearWaste Written by Bernadette M. West, based in part on information provided by Michael R. Greenberg, with comments by Sandra Quinn Background Research shows that the public fears the risks of nuclear war, nuclear power, and nuclear waste more than other risks. Images of the mushroom cloud and the deaths of thousands of people following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been indelibly printed in the minds of the public. These fears have been compounded by events at Three Mile Island (TMI) and Chernobyl, which raised the specter of disaster at a nuclear power facility close to home. (See “Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.”) Perceptions of risk are affected by individual and group values, political process, political power, and public trust. They play an important role in the decisions people make. Negative public perceptions regarding nuclear materials have been linked to its military legacy, history of secrecy, issues of government and industry distrust, the apparent vested interests of some nuclear advocates , fear of its catastrophic potential, issues of personal controllability, fear of the unknown, concerns regarding equity, and potential impact on future generations. (See the discussion of risk in Part I, “Crosscutting Themes.”) The media plays an important role in shaping public perceptions of risks. How the public perceives risks in relation to nuclear concerns is important because public perceptions could affect critical decisions about whether to increase U.S. reliance on nuclear power and where and how to clean up and manage high- and low-level nuclear waste. This brief addresses the following questions: How does the public perceive nuclear materials? Do some nuclear concerns cause more fear than others? Have public perceptions changed in the past decade or more? Will concern over global climate change and the search for alternatives to fossil fuels cause the public to reassess the role of nuclear Public Perceptions of Risk | 211 power in the future? And, finally, how can the media effectively convey risks— to address concerns regarding both hazard and outrage? Identifying the Issues Studies suggest that worries about the use of nuclear technology, such as for the construction of nuclear weapons, rank at the top of most people’s lists when they are asked to rank risks. Use of nuclear power to generate electricity and storage of nuclear waste also are ranked high on people’s lists. Slovic (1987) found that nuclear power was the highest ranked risk out of 30 different risks ranked by college students and members of the League of Women Voters. Studies in other countries have produced similar findings. Cha (2000) found that South Koreans ranked nuclear weapons/war, nuclear weapon tests, and nuclear reactor accidents 1, 2, and 4, respectively, among 70 risks. Disposal of radioactive wastes, transportation of nuclear materials, and nuclear power plants were ranked somewhat lower—11, 12, and 19, respectively—still in the top 20. Chileans ranked nuclear weapons number 1 among 54 risks, and nuclear power was ranked 4th (Bronfman and Cifuentes, 2003). In China, respondents ranked nuclear war number 1, but nuclear power ranked much lower—27 out of 28 risks ranked (Xie et al., 2003). Public perceptions of risk can be different from how experts view risks. Slovic and Weber (2002) found that experts base their ratings of risks on technical metrics, such as annual fatalities, while lay people tend to focus on broader concepts, such as potential threat to future generations. Hazards, such as smoking, that produce hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries annually are ranked much lower than hazards produced by nuclear power plants. While nuclear accidents may be low probability, they are viewed as high magnitude and therefore more frightening to people than high-probability/lowmagnitude events, such as the risks associated with smoking and with drinking and driving. Understanding the public’s perception of risks and how they may differ from expert perception of risk makes it important to understand the components of risk. Covello and Sandman (2001) argue that perceived risk is a composite of hazard plus outrage. They assert that hazard—defined as magnitude times probability times the number of people exposed—is what technical experts focus on in assessing risks. Outrage, in contrast, refers to the nontechnical aspects of risk—those aspects of certain situations that people find upsetting or frightening. Research has shown that the public tends to become upset and to fear risks that potentially could affect many people, risks [34.201.16.34] Project MUSE (2024...