Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA)
NEA/WKP(2023)2
February 2024
www.oecd-nea.org

NEA WORKING PAPER
The Perception of Science, Risk
and Nuclear Energy:
An International Survey

Ludivine GILLI
Adrian BULL
Edward OBBARD
Emanuela COLOMBO
Diana SHENDRIKOVA
Olivia KERR

NEA/WKP(2023)2  1
Nuclear Energy Agency

NEA/WKP(2023)2
Unclassified

English text only
6 February 2024

OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
STEERING COMMITTEE FOR NUCLEAR ENERGYThe Perception of Science, Risk and Nuclear Energy: An International Survey

OECD NEA Working Papers should not be reported as representing the official views of themember countries of the OECD or its Nuclear Energy Agency. The opinions expressed andarguments employed are those of the author(s).
Authorised for publication by William D. Magwood, IV, Director-General, OECD Nuclear
Energy Agency.

Authors: Ludivine Gilli (Nuclear Energy Agency), Adrian Bull (University of Manchester),
Edward Obbard (University of New South Wales), Emanuela Colombo (Politecnico di
Milano), Diana Shendrikova (Politecnico di Milano), Olivia Kerr (University of New South
Wales)

JT03536768
OFDE

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY
Unclassified
This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory,
to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

2  NEA/WKP(2023)2

OECD NEA Working Papers should not be reported as representing the official views of the member countries of
the OECD or its Nuclear Energy Agency. The opinions expressed and arguments employed are those of theauthor(s).
Working Papers describe preliminary results or research in progress by the author(s) and are published to stimulate
discussion on a broad range of issues on which the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency works.
Comments on Working Papers are welcomed, and may be sent to the Nuclear Energy Agency.
All Nuclear Energy Agency Working Papers are available at www.oecd-nea.org/pub.

This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any
territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or
area.

© OECD (2024)
You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from
OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs,
websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of OECD as source andcopyright owner is given. All requests for commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to
PubRights@oecd.org.

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEYNEA/WKP(2023)2  3

Table of contents
1. Scope of the survey ............................................................................................................................ 5
2. Background ........................................................................................................................................ 5
3. Methodology....................................................................................................................................... 6
3.1. Goal and limits of the study .......................................................................................................... 6
4. General findings ................................................................................................................................ 6
4.1. Main Findings ............................................................................................................................... 7
4.2. The survey sample: who replied? ................................................................................................. 7
4.3. Gender and age ............................................................................................................................. 84.4. Home country ............................................................................................................................... 94.5. Country of residence ................................................................................................................... 10
4.6. Occupation .................................................................................................................................. 10
4.7. Education .................................................................................................................................... 11
4.8. Experience in the nuclear sector ................................................................................................. 124.9. Political leanings ......................................................................................................................... 12
5. Main results: an overview ............................................................................................................... 14
5.1. The main concern: cost of living ................................................................................................ 14
5.2. Climate change as main environmental concern......................................................................... 14
5.3. A robust trust in science and technology, tempered by a will to protect the environment ......... 15
5.4. All risks perceived as relatively low by the NEA sample, nuclear risks in particular ................ 16
5.5. Risks and precautions ................................................................................................................. 25
5.6. To live or not to live… next to a nuclear power plant ................................................................ 26
5.7. Strongest argument against nuclear power ................................................................................. 30
5.8. Strongest argument for nuclear power ........................................................................................ 31
5.9. Opinions regarding nuclear power .............................................................................................. 32
5.10. Public regulatory authorities and scientific experts and favoured to oversee nuclear
activities ............................................................................................................................................. 34
5.11. Scientists are deemed most competent and most trustworthy in the nuclear field .................... 35
5.12. The impact of nuclear facilities is perceived as low ................................................................. 39
5.13. A solution for radioactive waste? ............................................................................................. 40
5.14. A nuclear accident does not seem probable to the participants ................................................ 40
5.15. Industrial or technological activity most likely to cause a serious accident or a disaster ......... 41
5.16. The most frightening catastrophic events ................................................................................. 42
6. References ........................................................................................................................................ 43

FiguresFigure 4.1. What is your gender identity?
Figure 4.2. What is your current age?
Figure 4.3. Top five repliers by home country (by number of replies)
Figure 4.4. Top five repliers by country of residence (by number of replies)
Figure 4.5. What is your current occupation?
Figure 4.6. What is the highest degree you have obtained?
Figure 4.7. Do you currently work or have worked at some point in the nuclear sector?
Figure 4.8. Can you tell us where you stand politically?

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY

8
9
9
10
11
11
12
13

4  NEA/WKP(2023)2
Figure 5.1. Here are a number of environmental issues. Which one do you find most concerning? (only one reply
possible)
Figure 5.2. "I trust scientific institutions": Agreement levels depending on political leanings
Figure 5.3. Perceived level of risk for 11 risk situations. Total of "high" and "very high" replies
Figure 5.4. Perceived risk levels for heat waves, forest fires and air pollution. Comparison between Spanish replies andaverage survey replies (subtotal of “high” and “very high” risk level replies).
Figure 5.5. Compared perception of the risk level associated with nuclear power plants and radioactive waste among fivedifferent samples (subtotal of “low” and “very low” risk level replies)
Figure 5.6. Replies according to political leanings to the question: “In each of the following areas, do you consider thatthe risks for the population in your home country are…”(Subtotals of low and very low replies, and high and very highreplies).
Figure 5.7. Risk level associated with heat waves according to the age of the respondent
Figure 5.8. Would you be willing to live near a...?
Figure 5.9. Would you be willing to live near a wind farm? (replies according to political leanings)
Figure 5.10. Would you be willing to live near a radioactive waste disposal?
Figure 5.11. Would you be willing to live near a...?
Figure 5.12. What do you think is the strongest argument against nuclear power today? (only one reply possible)
Figure 5.13. What do you think is the strongest argument for nuclear power today? (only one reply possible)
Figure 5.14. What do you think is the strongest argument for nuclear power today? (replies according to politicalleanings)
Figure 5.15. New nuclear power plants must be built
Figure 5.16. Here are various statements relating to nuclear energy in your home country. For each one, please indicate
according to the following scale if you agree or disagree (one reply per line expected).
Figure 5.17. Regarding the oversight of the impact of a facility that poses risks to the environment and neighboring
populations, who do you think should control the environmental and health impact outside the facility? (only one reply
possible)
Figure 5.18. In the field of nuclear industry and energy, do you think the following actors are…
Figure 5.19. In the field of nuclear industry and energy do you think the following actors are technically competent inyour home country? (replies according to political learnings)
Figure 5.20. “Around nuclear facilities, people are as healthy as elsewhere"
Figure 5.21. Today, it is possible to safely store nuclear waste
Figure 5.22. Which of the following industrial or technological activities do you think is most likely to cause a serious
accident or a disaster in your home country? (only one reply possible)
Figure 5.23. Which of the following catastrophic events do you find most frightening? (only one reply possible)

14
16
17
18
19

20
25
26
28
29
29
30
31
32
33
34

35
36
37
39
40
41
42

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEYNEA/WKP(2023)2  5

1. Scope of the survey
In November 2022, the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) launched an international
survey in the framework of the Global Forum on Nuclear Education, Science, Technology
and Policy. The survey sought to explore the links between an individual’s core values andtheir perception of science, risk and nuclear matters.
It is important to recognise, as detailed in the methodological note below, that the survey
was not intended to seek out representative views of the public. A much morecomprehensive survey would be needed to assess general views.
The survey respondents are not representative of the population of the participating
countries and the results show an overrepresentation of some types of respondents.
Consequently, the results must be used with care and only for their intended purpose,always keeping in mind the nature of the sample and the size of the sub-samples utilised in
identifying and investigating potential correlations. The findings should be seen as
indications that invite further investigation, not as definite proofs of correlations.
This working paper is a first step in the results’ analysis. It presents the main findings ofthe survey but does not offer analysis of the reasons behind the correlations that are noted.
The findings will hopefully generate further research that will provide a detailed
understanding of these correlations.

2. Background
Within the NEA Global Forum on Nuclear Education, Science, Technology and Policy,
Working Group 3 was created to identify common ground for conversations on the merits,
limitations and challenges around nuclear technology between stakeholder groups. It
pursues research and proposes recommendations targeting and enhancing intra- and interdisciplinary awareness of three areas identified by the group to foster valuable discussion:values, socio-environmental impacts and nuclear futures.
The working group is:-

examining the values of the nuclear community as compared to those of otherstakeholder groups;-

finding ways to articulate and discuss nuclear technology’s benefits and limitations;-

exploring the possible range of futures opened by nuclear technology.

The survey was conducted within the framework of the Values Task Group to compare
people’s values, socio-demographic characteristics and degree of connection with thenuclear sector with their outlook on risk and nuclear energy. It will hopefully help todetermine or confirm what drives certain perceptions of risk and nuclear energy, allowing
a better understanding of the differing conceptualisations of real and perceived drawbacks.
This will make it possible to improve knowledge of various actors in the nuclear
community, but also to better understand those who do not value the alleged benefits ofnuclear energy, and for whom the drawbacks are real and unacceptable. A greater
understanding of stakeholders’ various perspectives will support the working group’s
mission to identify common ground among stakeholders on the benefits and burdens
resulting from the development and use of nuclear technology.

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY6  NEA/WKP(2023)2

3. Methodology
The study was launched on 21 November 2022. The survey is still it open to this day, in aneffort to keep gathering data: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/2MFNYGL.
The first data extraction was performed on 1 July 2023. At this date, 2 008 replies had beencollected. This working paper is based on this data.

3.1. Goal and limits of the study
The survey was conducted on the Surveymonkey platform. The link to the questionnaire
was disseminated through the NEA networks and the networks of NEA working groupmembers. The goal was to disseminate the questionnaire as widely as possible in terms ofnationality, gender, age, education level, occupation and connection to the nuclear field. It
was however understood that given the utilised channels, the survey would mostly circulate
within nuclear networks and the resulting sample would be significantly biased. It wastherefore never intended to determine representative views of the public in different
countries on the issues explored. Its purpose was to allow comparisons and correlation
analyses between the responses of specific sub-samples of respondents, which can be
identified by replies through several socio-demographic questions that were asked. For
instance, the study makes it possible to compare the perception of nuclear energy ofJapanese and French respondents, or of women and men, or of younger and older
respondents. Depending on the size of the sub-samples considered, and given the bias ofthe overall sample, the results must be used with care, always keeping in mind the natureof the sample and the size of the sub-samples. The findings are not a definite proof ofcorrelation but an indication that should invite further investigation.
For comparison purposes, the questions were not crafted specifically for this survey. They
were pulled from previous studies, mostly the French IRSN Barometer1 (IRSN, n.d.), the“Nuclear Power and the Public” study (Slovic et al. 2000), and the World Values Survey(WVS, n.d.).
As of 1 July 2023:
Number of replies: 2 666
Number of fully filled questionnaires: 2 008
Completion rate: 75%
Average time spent: 17 minutes 54 seconds (for a fully completed questionnaire)
Number of questions: 32
Number of questions including sub-questions: 82

4. General findings
The survey has received over 2 000 fully completed responses. This is sufficient to begin
exploring correlations within those replies, with the appropriate care due to the nature of
the sample and sub-samples utilised in identifying potential correlations. The findings

1

The IRSN Barometer on the perception of risk and security by the French, launched in 1990, hasbeen conducted annually by the Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire among a sample
of 1 000 persons representative of the French population (2 000 persons since the 2020 survey).

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEYNEA/WKP(2023)2  7

presented here are not definite proofs of correlations but should be seen as indications that
invite further investigation.

4.1. Main findings-

Risks in general are perceived as lower in this study in comparison with resultsfrom the IRSN Barometer (IRSN, n.d.).

-

Nuclear risks are perceived as particularly low.

-

Correlations can be seen between the gender of the respondents and their perceptionof risk in general as well as the specific risks around nuclear energy. The women
who responded to the survey tend to perceive risks as higher than men. They areless willing to live next to undesirable facilities, with the notable exception of windfarms, and are less supportive of nuclear energy. They also deem environmental
non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and science journalists more competentthan men do.

-

Correlations appear between age and the perception of most risks. Younger
respondents tend to perceive risks as higher. It is particularly the case for heat waves
and traffic accidents.

-

A correlation appears between perceived risk and political leanings. Those
identifying themselves on the political right tend to see risks as lower than those
who identify on the political left. This tendency is noted in all risk areas with thenotable exception of risks from drugs.

-

The survey also shows that on the left of the political spectrum support for nuclear
energy is driven more by its environmental credentials, whereas on the politicalright energy independence is the predominant positive feature.

-

Those on the political left declared a stronger trust level in scientific institutions.

-Levels of trust in several bodies were also found to be significantly impacted bypolitical views – with levels of trust among the left-leaning respondents being
higher by a factor of two or three than those from the political right regarding nongovernmental organisations, science journalists or labour unions.

-Differences are noted in replies between countries, not only regarding main
preoccupations but also the perception of nuclear risk, opinions on nuclear energy
and attitudes towards different types of industrial facilities.

The next step will be to delve more deeply into the survey findings to further explore
correlations, understand these correlations in detail and to identify where additional
research is needed. It is hoped that the insights gained here will allow the nuclear sector
and those connected to it to frame their future engagement and communications activities
more effectively.

4.2.

The survey sample: who replied?
As explained above, the sample of survey respondents is not representative of the
population of the participating countries. Due to the dissemination method, which madeextensive use of social media and the personal networks of colleagues, and to the fact thatthe questionnaire was in English, the results show an overrepresentation of certain types of
respondents. This was particularly relevant for non-English speaking countries, where the

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY8  NEA/WKP(2023)2
language of the survey led to an over-representation of younger groups and/or the mosthighly educated. The most overrepresented categories overall are men, highly educatedindividuals, people working as professionals or managers, and individuals working or
having worked in the nuclear sector. Some countries are also much more represented thanothers due to the better dissemination effectiveness of some networks (Japan, France andBelgium, for instance) and to the fact that the questionnaire was in English (United
Kingdom [UK], Canada, United States [US] in particular).
The structure of the sample of respondents is as follows.

4.3. Gender and age
Regarding gender, 67% of the respondents were male, 32% female and 1% non-binary.
This means men are significantly overrepresented among the respondents as compared totheir percentage in the population of any of the represented countries, where the respective
proportions are generally close to a 50-50 split, with some variations. In France, forinstance, women accounted for 51.6% of the population in January 2019 (INSEE, 2019),
while in the United States, they accounted for 50.4% of the population in July 2022
(CENSUS, 2022).
In terms of age, the demographic structure varies widely between countries. In Japan, forinstance, the population aged 65 and older accounted for 29.5% of the population in
November 2022 (SBJ, 2022), while it represented 18.8% in Canada in July 2022 (Statistics
Canada, 2022). Among the survey respondents, the most numerous are the 35-49 year-olds,
who account for 31.8% of the respondents, followed by the 50-64 year-olds with 30% andby the 25-34 year-olds, who represent 20.4% of the respondents.

Figure 4.1. What is your gender identity?
80%
67%

70%
60%
50%
40%

32%
30%
20%
10%
1%
0%
Woman

Man

Non-binary

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEYNEA/WKP(2023)2  9

Figure 4.2. What is your current age?
35.0%
31.8%
30.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.4%
20.0%
15.0%

12.1%

10.0%
5.6%
5.0%
0.2%
0.0%
15-17

18-24

25-34

35-49

50-64

65+

4.4. Home country
When taking into account the home country, described in the survey as the country “where
you grew up”, replies were collected from 80 countries. While the top six countries accountfor more than half of the replies, 36 countries totalled only one or two replies. Two
countries gathered a particularly high number of respondents: Japan, with 284 replies (14%of the total) and France, with 211 replies (11% of the total). Six countries gathered fewer
than 200 but more than 100 replies: Belgium, Spain, the United Kingdom, the UnitedStates, Canada and Germany, in that order, and a total of 25 countries gathered more than
10 replies.

Figure 4.3. Top five repliers by home country (by number of replies)
Japan

284

France211

Belgium

188

Spain

161

United Kingdom

158
0

50

100

150

200

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY

250

300

10  NEA/WKP(2023)2

4.5. Country of residence
When taking into account the country of residence, described in the survey as the country
where “you currently live”, instead of home country, replies were collected from a smaller
number of countries: 65. This means that a significant number of respondents do not livein the country where they grew up. The biggest movements are seen in four countries: Japan(-23 between country of origin replies and country of residence), France (+34), Canada(+12) and Belgium (+11). Overall, the same countries still account for the biggest numberof replies as when considering the home country, namely Japan, France, Belgium, Spainand the United Kingdom. Japan and France remain above 200 replies, with a lesser
difference: 261 for Japan (13%) and 245 for France (12%). There are still six othercountries above 100 replies: Belgium, Spain, the United Kingdom, Canada, the UnitedStates and Germany, in that order, with 27 countries totalling 10 replies or more.

Figure 4.4. Top five repliers by country of residence (by number of replies)
Japan

261

France245

Belgium

199

Spain

158

United Kingdom

151
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

4.6. Occupation
In terms of occupation, professionals and managers are significantly overrepresented
compared to lower-level workers, as the first account for 46.8% of respondents and thesecond for 19.7%, compared to 11.8% for technicians. While their share of the population
varies between countries, they never represent such a big share. In Belgium, for instance,
managers accounted for 7.7% of the workforce in 2022 and professionals for 26.6%(STATBEL, 2023). On the contrary, service and sales workers, who represented 13.2% of
the Belgian workforce in 2022 only account for 2% of survey respondents.

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEYNEA/WKP(2023)2  11

Figure 4.5. What is your current occupation?
50.0%

46.8%

40.0%
30.0%
19.7%
20.0%
11.8%
10.0%

8.7%

7.0%
2.0%

1.7%

0.7%

0.5%

0.4%

0.3%

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

0.1%

0.0%

4.7. Education
The level of education is one of the most significant biases within the survey’s sample ofrespondents. Individuals whose highest degree is a graduate degree account for 49% ofreplies and people with a PhD represent 27.5%, which brings the total of respondents withtertiary education to 76.6% of the whole sample. As a comparison, the OECD country withthe highest percentage of the population with tertiary education, which is Korea, had 69.3%of the 25-34 year-olds with such an education level (but only 25.9% among the 55-64 yearolds) in 2021, the average in OECD countries being 47.5% (for the 25-34 year-olds)(OECD, 2023, 2022).

Figure 4.6. What is the highest degree you have obtained?
60.00%
49.10%

50.00%
40.00%

27.49%

30.00%

Responses

20.00%

13.70%

10.00%

4.78%
0.40%

3.98%

0.55%

0.00%
Primary
education

High school Some college Undergraduate
graduate
degreeGraduate
degree

PhD and above

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY

Don’tknow/No
answer12  NEA/WKP(2023)2

4.8. Experience in the nuclear sector
A question was included in the survey to assess the proximity of respondents with thenuclear sector in order to determine whether having experience in the nuclear field induced
correlations with replies to some of the questions, such as the perceived level of risk
attributed to nuclear power plants and radioactive waste, the opinion regarding nuclear
energy, or the willingness to live in the vicinity of certain types of industrial facilities. The
question was also designed to help spot possible bias in the replies due to the proximity of
respondents to the nuclear sector. The results show that a large majority of respondents(61%) currently work or previously worked in the nuclear field. These results do not meanthat the remaining 39% have no proximity at all to the nuclear field, as these respondents
may have family members who work in the sector, or may be studying in that field without
having worked in it yet.

Figure 4.7. Do you currently work or have worked at some point in the nuclear
sector?
70%
61%
60%
50%
39%

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Yes

No

4.9. Political leanings
The survey also included a question regarding the political leanings of respondents in orderto analyse correlations between political positions and risk perception, attitudes towards
science and nuclear energy. A little over 10% of respondents refused to indicate theirpolitical views, which was a possibility offered to them. Among respondents who replied,
1% (10 persons) positioned themselves on the far right and 3% (51 participants) on the farleft. They will not be included in the subsample analyses presented in this document as
their numbers are too small to be reliable. Individuals who positioned themselves as“neither left nor right” represent a sizeable part of respondents (25%, 499 persons) but will
also mostly be set aside in this preliminary analysis as they do not constitute a
homogeneous group: some view themselves as centrists, between left and right, while

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEYNEA/WKP(2023)2  13others see themselves as detached from anything political, and the core values of these
persons are very different.

Figure 4.8. Can you tell us where you stand politically?
30%
24%

25%
20%

25%

18%

15%

13%

12%
Responses

10%
6%
5%

3%
1%

0%
Far/Radical
left

Left

Center-left Neither left Center-rightnor right

Right

Far/Radical I don't wantright
to answer /None ofyourbusiness!

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY14  NEA/WKP(2023)2

5. Main results: an overview

5.1. The main concern: cost of living
The four main concerns for the respondents regarding their home country were cost ofliving (23%), climate change (19%), social inequality (15%) and global geopoliticalinstability (14%), followed by a variety of other concerns such as, democracy, job security
and unemployment. Health, poverty, crime and terrorism gathered the smallest number of
replies. This ranking overlooks a wide disparity in replies between countries. In Japan, forinstance, global geopolitical instability (27%) came in first, slightly ahead of cost of living(26%). Meanwhile, the French and German respondents widely placed climate change infront (36% and 35%), social inequality coming in second (21% in both countries). In
Canada, Spain and Belgium, cost of living gathered the most replies with respectively 36%,
31% and 26%. In the United Kingdom, social inequality came out first (28%) ahead ofclimate change (22%), while in the United States, democracy was the primary concern(27%), ahead of cost of living (19%).

5.2. Climate change as main environmental concern
Among environmental issues, climate change drew the most attention, collecting more thanhalf of the responses (54%). Then came the destruction of forests, damage from natural
disasters and air pollution, all three with 9%. All countries with more than 100 replies
showed a strong domination of climate change in the responses, with scores reaching 69%
in Canada, 67% in the United Kingdom, 64% in Germany and 57% in France. In Japan,
however, climate change registered almost the same score (40%) as damage from natural
disasters (38%), most likely due to the frequency and impact of such disasters.

Figure 5.1. Here are a number of environmental issues. Which one do you findmost concerning? (only one reply possible)
60%

54%

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%

9%

9%

9%

8%

Air pollution

Water pollution

6%

0%
Climate change The destruction Damage fromof forests
natural disasters

The
disappearanceof animal
species

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEYNEA/WKP(2023)2  15

5.3. A robust trust in science and technology, tempered by a will to protect theenvironment
The respondents showed high levels of trust in scientific institutions (86%), associated withan overall positive view of technology. Indeed, 82% agreed with the statement “thedevelopment of science and technology generates more benefits than negative effects” andon the contrary only 32% agreed with the sentence “technological development is
destroying nature”. The replies to that last question varied across the age spectrum, withhigher numbers agreeing among the younger generations. The 18-24 year-olds were 49%
to agree against 34% among the 35-49 year-olds and 26% of people age 65 and over.
Science is also viewed as a building block of sound policy, which should be grounded infacts and knowledge and should take precedence over public opinion, as 85% of the
respondents declared they disagreed with the statement “the beliefs of the majority should
prevail over science to set policy”, with slightly higher numbers among women (89%) thanmen (83%) and among younger than older respondents: 89% among the 18-24 year-olds
and 87% among the 35-49 year-olds, against 80% among the people over 65. In the same
spirit, 78% of the respondents agreed that “policy makers don’t take enough account of thepositions of scientific experts”. The respondents also showed a high level of concern for
the environment, stating that economic growth should not come before environmental
protection. A wide majority (79%) agreed that “protecting the environment should be given
priority, even if it causes slower economic growth and some loss of jobs”.
The typology of replies varied across the political spectrum. Respondents who position
themselves on the left declared a stronger trust level in scientific institutions: to thestatement “I trust scientific institutions”, 49% strongly agreed and 43% agreed, compared
to respectively 32% and 43% among those positioning themselves on the right (centre-leftrespondents replied 41% and 52% while centre-right respondents replied 31% and 55%).
Left-wing respondents showed at the same time a more nuanced stance towards fortechnology than right-wing respondents. While strong majorities among all declared that“the development of science and technology generates more benefits than negative effects”,
respondents from the left agreed at 76%, compared to 84% among the centre-left, 88%among the centre-right and 90% within the right. And while 36% among the left “strongly
agreed”, they were 48% on the centre-left, 51% among the centre-right and 63% among theright.

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY16  NEA/WKP(2023)2

Figure 5.2. "I trust scientific institutions": Agreement levels depending on
political leanings
100%

93%

93%

86%

90%

75%

80%
70%
60%
50%

55%

52%

49%
43%

43%

41%

40%

31%

32%

Center-right

Right

30%
20%
10%

0%
Left

Center-left
Subtotal "agree"

Strongly agree

Agree5.4. All risks perceived as relatively low by the NEA sample, nuclear risks inparticular
The respondents were presented with 11 “risk situations” of different types, going from
nuclear power plants to drugs, pesticides and traffic accidents. These risks were selectedamong those proposed in the IRSN Barometer (IRSN, n.d.) to allow comparison. They
were selected to represent a variety of risks: industrial, environmental, allowing or not
individual protection measures, etc. Respondents were asked for each of these situations
separately which level of risk they associated to it, from very low to very high.
Overall, the risk perceived as highest was for air pollution (39% of “high” or “very high”
risk level replies), ahead of heat waves (36%) and traffic accidents (36%). Then came
floods (31%), forest fires (30%), pesticides (28%), drugs (28%), and accidents at home(18%). The three nuclear risks: indoor radon (9%), radioactive waste (9%) and nuclear
power plants (8%) came in with the lowest levels of perceived risk. Nuclear power plants
and radioactive waste also gathered the highest numbers of “very low” and “low” risk level,
both with 80%, while all other risks together averaged 40%.

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEYNEA/WKP(2023)2  17

Figure 5.3. Perceived level of risk for 11 risk situations. Total of "high" and"very high" replies
Nuclear power plants / Nuclear reactors

8%Radioactive waste

9%

Indoor radon

9%

Accidents at home

18%

Drugs

28%

Pesticides

28%

Forest fires

30%

Floods31%

Traffic accidents

36%

Heat waves

36%

Air pollution

39%
0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Compared to the historical results of the IRSN Barometer, the results of the NEA study
show lower levels of perceived risk for most items. It is also the case when comparing theresults of the IRSN study to the replies given by the French respondents to the NEA study.
For instance, the IRSN Barometer historical average for traffic accidents shows a risk level
perceived as high or very high by 63% of the respondents (between 1997 and 2022), while
this survey shows 36% and 31% for the French respondents. For pesticides, the IRSN
Barometer averages 65% over the same period when this survey shows 28% and 57% for
the French respondents – much higher than other countries but still lower than the IRSN
results. Drugs average 65% in the IRSN study, against 28% in this survey and 27% for the
French respondents. Further analysis will be required to determine the cause, which isprobably due, beyond national differences, to the structure of the sample. A more detailed
analysis of the results should allow to point to factors having the biggest impact on thesevariations in perception.
Spain stands apart from countries with more than 100 replies in terms of level of risk
perceived. The Spanish respondents gave several items a significantly higher level ofperceived risk for forest fires (76% of high or very high replies), heat waves (66%) and air
pollution (64%). These results are also significantly higher than the average replies of all
respondents to the studies, which are of 30% for forest fires, 36% for heat waves and 39%
for air pollution.

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY18  NEA/WKP(2023)2

Figure 5.4. Perceived risk levels for heat waves, forest fires and air pollution.
Comparison between Spanish replies and average survey replies (subtotal of“high” and “very high” risk level replies).
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Heat waves

Forest fires
Spain

Air pollution

Survey average

On the contrary, the level of risk perceived in Japan tends to be much lower than in othercountries for several items. Air pollution only gathers 13% of “high” or “very high” risk
level replies (compared to the 39% for all respondents). For pesticides, the total of “high”
or “very high” risk level replies in Japan is only 7% (compared to 28%). For forest fires,the total is 4% (compared to 30%), for drugs, it is 8% (compared to 28%) and for accidents
at home it is of 8% (compared to 18%).
Among all respondents, nuclear risks are perceived as particularly low. It was expected for
respondents who work or have worked in the nuclear sector, but it is also the case here forrespondents who declared they have never worked in the nuclear field. Within a subsample
of such persons (approximately 780 respondents), 74% rated the level of risk associatedwith radioactive waste as very low or low and 75% regarding nuclear power plants. These
numbers are approximately 10 points lower than the replies of persons having worked in
the nuclear field, but were expected to be much lower based on existing literature. In
November 2021, the IRSN survey was conducted simultaneously among the regular 2 000person sample representative of the French population and among the IRSN staff(approximately a third of the 1 800 employees participated). The responses to the questions
on nuclear risks were strikingly different between both samples. Within the French
population, 20% rated the risk associated with radioactive waste as very low or low. Among
IRSN staff, the total was 62%. Regarding nuclear power plants, the results wererespectively 28% and 65%. The results obtained in the NEA study suggest that working or
having worked in the nuclear field is not as much a determinant to the perception of nuclear
risk as being familiar with such issues: the more a person is familiar with nuclear issues,
the lower the level of risk perceived tends to be. As noted earlier, respondents to the NEA
study who have not worked in the nuclear sector still cannot be viewed as a representative
sample of the general public as they may often have relatives who do, or some otherconnection with nuclear.

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEYNEA/WKP(2023)2  19

Figure 5.5. Compared perception of the risk level associated with nuclear power
plants and radioactive waste among five different samples (subtotal of “low” and“very low” risk level replies)
90%
80%

80%

84%

79%

75%

83%
74%

65%

70%

62%

60%
50%
40%

28%

30%

20%

20%
10%
0%
NPPs

Radioactive waste

NEA study
NEA subsample – works or has worked in the nuclear field
NEA subsample – has never worked in the nuclear field
IRSN staff
IRSN Barometer

The NEA study also shows a significant difference in risk perceptions across the political
spectrum. Out of the 11 situations assessed in the study, all but one (drugs) are perceived
as carrying a higher risk level by left-wing people than they are by right-wing respondents.
Radioactive waste and nuclear power plants are both seen as carrying low levels of risk
across the whole spectrum and see the smallest differences between people from opposite
sides of the political arena. Still, while 94% of right-wing respondents declare the risk ofradioactive waste is very low or low, 70% of left-wing respondents declare so. Regarding
nuclear power plants, the totals are respectively of 89% and 77%. Regarding air pollution,
50% on the left perceive the risk level as high or very high, to be compared with 21% on
the right. Regarding pesticides, the results are respectively 42% and 19% and for heatwaves 53% against 24%. The only exception is drugs. In that category, the risk is seen as
high or very high by 28% of people on the left, which is aligned with perceptions on thecentre-left (26%) and on the centre-right (26% as well), but not with the right, for which
the score is 40%.

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY20  NEA/WKP(2023)2

Figure 5.6. Replies according to political leanings to the question: “In each of the following areas, do you consider thatthe risks for the population in your home country are…” (Subtotals of low and very low replies, and high and very highreplies).
A. Radioactive waste

B. Nuclear power plants

100%
90%
80%

100%

94%

80%

75%

70%

70%

60%

60%

50%

50%

40%

40%

30%

30%

20%
10%

20%
9%

7%

89%

90%

85%

83%

8%
0%

0%

10%

84%

83%
77%

10%

7%

7%
1%

0%
Left

Center-left
Subtotal low

Center-right
Subtotal high

Right

Left

Center-left
Subtotal low

Center-right

Right

Subtotal high

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEYNEA/WKP(2023)2  21

C. Indoor Radon

D. Air pollution

80%

60%
67%

70%

50%

50%

47%
44%

58%

60%
50%

65%

40%

35%

43%

43%

32%

40%

30%

23%
30%

20%

20%
10%

15%
9%
4%

12%
6%

0%

21%

16%

10%

0%
Far/Radical left

Left
Subtotal low

Center-leftCenter-right

Subtotal highI don't know

Right

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY

Left

Center-left
Subtotal low

Center-right
Subtotal highRight

22  NEA/WKP(2023)2

E. Pesticides

F. Heat waves

60%

60%
53%

53%
48%

50%

48%

50%
43%

42%
38%

40%
30%

29%

38%

40%
26%

29%

30%

24%
19%

20%

34%

24%

21%
20%
10%

10%

0%

0%

Left

Center-leftCenter-right

Subtotal low

Subtotal high

Right

Left

Center-left
Subtotal low

Center-right

Right

Subtotal high

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEYNEA/WKP(2023)2  23

G. Forest fires

H. Floods

70%

55%

59%

60%

50%

50%

45%

40%
30%

60%

63%

44%

35%
28%

25%

30%

37%

37%

40%
28%

30%

33%
29%

22%

20%

20%

10%

10%

16%

0%
Left

Center-leftCenter-right

Right

0%
Left

Subtotal low

Center-leftCenter-right

Subtotal low

Subtotal highSubtotal high

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY

Right

24  NEA/WKP(2023)2

I. Accidents at home

J. Traffic accidents

70%

50%

60%
50%

52%

40%
36%

40%

44%

41%

30%

40%
30%

43%

58%

25%

20%

19%

34%

27%

29%

Center-leftCenter-right

Subtotal low

Subtotal high

23%

26%

20%
16%

14%
10%

10%
0%

0%
Left

Center-leftCenter-right

Subtotal low

Subtotal high

Right

Left

Right

K. Drugs
45%
40%
35%
30%

39%

40%

39%

34%
28%

26%

26%

Center-leftCenter-right

Subtotal low

Subtotal high

28%

25%
20%
15%

10%
5%
0%
Left

Right

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEYNEA/WKP(2023)2  25

Different perceptions were also found between age categories, with younger respondents
viewing most risks as higher than older generations. For nuclear risks and for drugs, thedifferences are not significant, but for all others, they are. Air pollution was seen as carrying
a high or very high risk level by 48% of the 18-24 year-olds and 25-34 year-olds, but only
32% of the 50-64 year-olds and 28% among those aged 65 and above. The difference isparticularly strong for heat waves and traffic accidents. For heat waves, the risk is seen as
high or very high by 53% of the 18-24 year-olds and 25-34 year-olds, but only 30% of the
50-64 year-olds and 31% among those aged 65 and above.

Figure 5.7. Risk level associated with heat waves according to the age of the
respondent
60%
53%
50%

44%

43%
38%

36% 37%

40%

30%

28%

30%

31%

23%
20%
10%
0%
18-24 year-olds

25-34 year-olds

35-49 year-olds

Subtotal low

50-64 year-olds

65+ year-olds

Subtotal high

5.5. Risks and precautions
Participants were asked several questions regarding risks and precautions that should betaken under different circumstances. To the general question asking whether “When it
comes to risk, it is normal to take every precaution, even when scientists are not absolutely
sure there is a risk”, a slight majority of 54% were in agreement, 25% did not take a stanceand 21% disagreed. This result is significantly different from the IRSN Barometer 2023,
where 79% of respondents agreed and 5% disagreed. In the NEA study, replies varied
across the political spectrum. Left-wing respondents were more numerous to agree, with58% (including 16% strongly), compared to 49% among the centre-left respondents, 54%
among the centre-right and 41% within right-wing respondents (including 8% strongly).
Asked more specifically if “Nuclear site operators must protect their facilities from all risks,even those considered very unlikely”, a much higher number (84%) was in agreement,
which is the same result as in the IRSN Barometer (IRSN, n.d.). The agreement wasstronger on the left of the political spectrum, with 90% agreeing, including 58% strongly,
to be compared with respectively 84% and 41% on the right. The agreement is also stronger
among women (90%, including 56% strongly) than men (82%, including 45% strongly).
Younger respondents also agreed more strongly than older ones.
THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY26  NEA/WKP(2023)2
Questioned about their perception of the level of precaution in their country (“In mycountry, every precaution is being taken to ensure a very high level of safety in nuclear
power plants (if applicable)”), 74% agreed and only 6% disagreed (12% replied theircountry does not have nuclear power plants).

5.6. To live or not to live… next to a nuclear power plant
When it comes to living location, respondents are more likely to be reluctant to live close
to “a major chemical facility” (85% of refusal), “a large airport” (84%) or “a household
waste incinerator” (83%). On the contrary, 65% declared they would be willing to live neara nuclear power plant, 61% near a mobile phone relay antenna, 53% near a CO₂ storagesite and 51% near a radioactive waste disposal. These numbers are aligned with thehistorical tendencies from the IRSN Barometer, with the exception of nuclear facilities. In
the 2023 IRSN Barometer, nuclear power plants and radioactive waste disposals face thesame levels of rejection as airports and chemical facilities, collected respective rejection
scores of 79%, 92%, 86% and 92%. It is not the case in this study, which shows lower
levels of rejection for nuclear power plants (35%) and radioactive waste disposals (49%).

Figure 5.8. Would you be willing to live near a...?
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

78%
65%

85%

84%

61%
53%
47%

35%

83%

53%
47%

51%49%

54%
46%

39%
22%

nuclearmobile CO2 storage wind farm radioactive high-voltage
power plant phone relay
site
waste
power line
antenna
disposalYes

landfill

17%

16%

15%

household large airport major
wastechemicalincinerator
facilityNo

The replies show significant differences between countries. Airports gather the largest
consensus against them, being strongly rejected by all countries with more than 100
respondents, with scores going from 76% in the United States to 96% in France. Major
chemical facilities, household waste incinerators and landfills also show high levels of
rejections from all with a small difference in Germany, where they are slightly less rejected,
with respectively 70%, 68% and 59% of people declaring they would not accept to live
near such facilities.
Mobile phone relay antennas benefit from the acceptance of a majority of respondents inthe countries with more than 100 replies, but while acceptance is wide in Germany (81%),
Canada (79%), the United States (79%) and the United Kingdom (72%), it is more limited
in Belgium (56%), Japan (56%), France (53%) and Spain (50%). Nuclear power plants are

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEYNEA/WKP(2023)2  27

largely accepted, by up to 80% of respondents in the United Kingdom, with the exceptionof Japan, where 50% declare they would accept to live near one.
Positions on radioactive waste disposals, wind farms, power lines and CO₂ storage sites
show stronger differences among countries. In Germany and in the United Kingdom,
respectively 75% and 68% of respondents declared they would accept to live near aradioactive waste disposal. In Japan, on the contrary, 63% of the respondents declared theywould not accept to live next to such a disposal. In Belgium and in the United States,
opposition is respectively of 55% and 51%. Wind farms are mostly accepted, except inJapan, where they are strongly opposed, with 73% of respondents unwilling to live next toone, and in Belgium, where a slight majority (52%) is opposed. On the contrary, they areespecially accepted in Germany (77%) and in the United States (72%). Power lines aremostly rejected in France and Japan (66% of opposition), Spain (65%) Belgium (61%).
They are mostly accepted in Germany (74%), Canada and the United States (61%). CO₂
storage sites are strongly accepted in the United States (67%) and the United Kingdom(66%), accepted by a smaller majority (59%) in Canada, France and Germany, and are
rejected by a majority in Spain (55%) and Japan (58%).
Positions also vary across the political spectrum, with some facilities being more acceptedby left-wing people, others by right-wing persons, while positions of centre-left and centreright people are often close to each other. The left is much more willing to live next to windfarms (77% against 20% for the right), more willing to live next to CO₂ storage sites (67%against 51%) and mobile relay antennas (67% to 58%), and a little more to high-voltage
power lines (56% against 44% right, while centre-left and centre-right levels are at 51%
and 49%). Right-wing people seem more willing to live next to nuclear power plants (71%
to 58%, while centre-left and centre-right record 71% and 75%) and slightly more willingto live next to major chemical facilities (26% to 15%) and household waste incinerators(26% to 16%, with centre-left and centre-right gathering 18% and 17% of acceptance).
Radioactive waste disposals are rejected by a majority on the left, with 52% refusing, while
58% on the right and the centre-left, and 59% on the centre-right declare they would be
willing to live next to one. Airports and landfills are rejected by all.

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY28  NEA/WKP(2023)2

Figure 5.9. Would you be willing to live near a wind farm? (replies according topolitical leanings)
90%
80%

80%

77%
68%

70%

61%
60%
50%
39%

40%
30%

32%
23%

20%

20%
10%
0%
Left

Centre-left
Yes

Centre-right

Right

No

Replies are also different among age categories for some facilities. There is no significant
difference for nuclear power plants, major chemical facilities, large airports, household
waste incinerators and landfills. Wind farms, high-voltage power lines and CO₂ storagesites, however, are more accepted by the youngest. For wind farms, 68% of the 18-34 yearolds declare they would accept living next to one, while only 37% of those aged 65 andabove declare so. For high-voltage power lines 59% among the 18-24 year-olds would
accept against 38% among the 50-64 year-olds and 50% among those aged 65 and above.
Regarding CO₂ storage sites 63% among the 18-24 year-olds declare they would accept,
against 51% among the 50-64 year-olds and 59% among those aged 65 and above.
Radioactive waste disposals, on the contrary, are slightly less accepted by the youngest,with 43% among the 18-24 year-olds against 55% among the 50-64 year-olds and 50%
among those aged 65 and above.

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEYNEA/WKP(2023)2  29

Figure 5.10. Would you be willing to live near a radioactive waste disposal?
60%
50%

57%
49%

55%

52%

51%

50% 50%

48%

45%

43%

40%

30%
20%
10%
0%
18-24 yearolds

25-34 yearolds

35-49 yearolds
Yes

50-64 yearolds

65+ year-olds

No

Overall, female respondents are less willing to live next to the proposed sites. It isparticularly the case for mobile relay antennas (52% against 66% among men), highvoltage power lines (37% against 49% among men), nuclear power plants (55% against
70% among men), CO2 storage (43% against 58% among men) and radioactive waste
disposals (44% against 55% among men). Wind farms are the only exception, being
accepted by 57% of women against 51% of men.

Figure 5.11. Would you be willing to live near a...?
80%
70%

66%

70%
60%
50%

58%

55%

55%

52%

49%

57%
51%

44%

42%

37%

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

nuclear power a CO2 storage mobile phone high-voltage radioactive
plant
site
relay antenna power line waste disposal

Women

Men

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY

wind farm30  NEA/WKP(2023)2

5.7. Strongest argument against nuclear power
Figure 5.12. What do you think is the strongest argument against nuclear power
today? (only one reply possible)
The production of radioactive waste

27%

The risk of an accident

22%

The cost of nuclear power (construction,
decommissioning, waste)

16%

The long time it takes to build a nuclear power plant

13%

Other (please specify)

9%

The competition with investments in renewable energies

7%

The lack of transparency in the nuclear industry

5%

The emission of greenhouse gas

1%
0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

The strongest argument against nuclear power is “the production of radioactive waste”,
which gathers 27% of replies, ahead of “the risk of an accident” (22%) and “the cost of
nuclear power (construction, decommissioning, waste)” (16%). Among the top responding
countries, France, Belgium, Spain and Germany show a strong similarity in results, placing
radioactive waste first and the risk of an accident second, with low variation in percentages.
Results are significantly different in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada andJapan. In the United States, the cost issue comes first with 33%, ahead of radioactive waste(21%). The risk of an accident is 6th with only 6% of the replies. In the United Kingdom,cost also comes first, with 28%, ahead of “the long time it takes to build a nuclear power
plant” (23%). The risk of accident is 6th with 4% of replies. In Canada, the production ofradioactive waste is viewed as the strongest argument against nuclear power (31%), but thesecond is the cost (23%). The risk of an accident collects 11% of replies, in 5th position.
Finally, Japan places the risk of an accident as a very strong first argument against nuclear
power, with 51% of replies. The production of radioactive waste is second with 17%.
Across all age categories, the production of radioactive waste is the argument gathering themost replies, the highest being 29% among the 50-64 year-olds. The risk of an accident issecond among all age brackets except for the 18-24 year-olds, who place second “the longtime it takes to build a nuclear power plant” with 21% (the production of radioactive waste
gathers 24%).
Across the political spectrum, the production of radioactive waste also is the argument
gathering the most replies except for right-wing respondents, who place “the long time ittakes to build a nuclear power plant” (25%) slightly ahead of the production of radioactive
waste (24%) and the risk of an accident (21%). Among left-wing respondents, the cost of
nuclear power comes second with 21%.

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY30%

NEA/WKP(2023)2  31

Women and men rate arguments in the same order, but with different scores. Women place
the production of radioactive waste strongly ahead with 34% (against 23% among men),then comes the risk of an accident (22%, same among men), and the cost of nuclear power(14%, against 18% among men).

5.8. Strongest argument for nuclear power
The two strongest arguments in favour of nuclear energy, far ahead the others, are the “lowemissions of greenhouse gas (GHG)” (39%) and energy independence (33%). Then comewith much lower numbers the “low cost of electricity” (8%) and “the safety of nuclear
facilities” (7%).

Figure 5.13. What do you think is the strongest argument for nuclear power
today? (only one reply possible)
45%
40%

39%
33%

35%

30%
25%
20%
15%
10%

8%

7%

7%

Low cost ofelectricity

The safety of nuclear
facilities

Other

5%
0%
Low emissions ofgreenhouse gas

Energyindependence

Among the countries with more than 100 replies, responses from France, Canada andGermany show a similar pattern: low GHG emissions come in first with 61%, 51% and58%, energy independence is second with 23% in France and 21% in Canada and Germany.
All other replies collect low percentages of replies. In Spain and the United States, thereplies come in the same order but with less difference between the first two items: low
GHG emissions collect respectively 42% and 38% while energy independence gather 30%
and 31%. In Belgium and in the United Kingdom, energy independence is first (49% and41%), ahead of low GHG emissions (34% and 36%). In Japan, energy independence alsocomes first (42%), but the safety of nuclear facilities is second with 21% - when that item
averages 7% among all respondents – ahead of low GHG emissions (20%).
Replies varied depending on political leanings, with left-wing respondents widely
favouring “the low emissions of greenhouse gas” (52%) ahead of energy independence(22%) while right-wing respondents placing energy independence (43%) strongly ahead ofthe low emissions of greenhouse gas (26%).

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY32  NEA/WKP(2023)2

Figure 5.14. What do you think is the strongest argument for nuclear power
today? (replies according to political leanings)
60%

52%

52%

50%

44%

43%

40%
30%

29%

29%

22%

26%

20%
10%
0%
Left

Centre-left

Centre-right

Right

Energy independence

The low cost of electricity

Low emissions of greenhouse gas

The safety of nuclear facilities

The creation or preservation of jobs

The long operating time of nuclear power plants

Other (please specify)

Replies also varied among age categories, but less strongly. All categories placed “the low
emissions of greenhouse gas” ahead, except those aged 65 and older, who slightly favoured
energy independence (36% to 33%). The youngest replied “the low emissions ofgreenhouse gas” slightly more than older respondents. This argument collected 43% amongthe 18-34 year-olds, to be compared with 38% among the 50-64 year-olds.
Replies were similar among women and men. Both rated low GHG emissions and energy
independence first and second, in that order, with similar numbers. Women placed “the low
cost of electricity” (9%) while men place third the safety of nuclear facilities (7%). Men
also volunteer more alternate replies (9%) than women (4%).

5.9. Opinions regarding nuclear energy
Three questions were asked to assess the position of respondents regarding nuclear energy.
One asked if new nuclear power plants should be built, another asked whether building
nuclear power plants in their country was a good thing (if applicable) and the third asked if
the existing nuclear power plants in their country should be shut down (if applicable). The
replies to all three show an opinion which is overall favourable to nuclear energy. A totalof 74% declare that building nuclear power plants was a good thing, 71% are in favour ofbuilding new nuclear power plants and only 10% believe that “existing nuclear power
plants must be closed”.
There were no significant differences of opinions among age brackets except for the factthat older respondents tend to express their opinions more strongly.
There were differences across the political spectrum. Regarding the construction of new
nuclear power plants, the right is overwhelmingly in favour with 90% in agreement,
including 73% strongly agreeing, while the left agreed at 56%, including 31% strongly.
Accordingly, 85% among the right agreed (68% strongly) that “building nuclear power
plants was a good thing” while they were 66% on the left to declare so, still a comfortable

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEYNEA/WKP(2023)2  33

majority, but a less striking one. Regarding the shutdown of existing nuclear power plants,
the right-wing respondents widely disagreed (74%, including 58% strongly), while leftwing respondents disagreed at 56% (including 35% strongly).

Figure 5.15. New nuclear power plants must be built
100%

90%

100%

83%
80%
60%

69%
53%

69%

69%

56%

40%
20%
0%
Far/Radical
left

Left

Centre-left Neither left Centre-rightnor right

Subtotal agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Right

Far/Radical I don't wantright
to answer /None ofyourbusiness!

Subtotal disagree

There were also differences among genders. Women agreed less massively than men that“new nuclear power plants must be built”, with 61% (including 33% strongly) against 75%
among men (including 50% strongly). Differences were smaller in replies to the other twoquestions. Women were 70% to declare that building nuclear power plants was a goodthing, compared with 76% among men. They agreed less strongly than men, with 35%
agreeing strongly against 50% among men. Women disagreed at 64% (including 40%
strongly) with the shutdown of existing nuclear power plants, compared with 70% amongmen (including 49% strongly).
Among countries with more than 100 replies, responses varied as well, with Germany anoutlier. Majorities in all countries agreed that “building nuclear power plants was a goodthing”. The highest approval was found in the United States (89%), closely followed by
Belgium, Canada (both with 88%) and France (87%). The lowest total was for Germany, adistant last with 54%. Majorities also supported the construction of new nuclear power
plants in all countries, except in Germany, were 50% disagreed and 39% agreed (theremainder being neutral). Regarding the shutdown of existing nuclear power plants,
majorities disagreed in all countries except Germany, where 47% disagreed, 39% agreed
and 8% were neutral. In other countries, disagreement was the strongest in Canada and theUnited States with 84% (including respectively 63% and 61% strongly) and Belgium with78% (including 54% strongly).

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY34  NEA/WKP(2023)2

Figure 5.16. Here are various statements relating to nuclear energy in your homecountry. For each one, please indicate according to the following scale if you
agree or disagree (one reply per line expected).

80%

74%

71%

68%

70%

Agree

60%
50%

Neither agree nor disagree

40%
30%
20%
10%

Disagree
14% 12%

10%
4%

7% 9%

10% 10%

12%

0%
New nuclear power Building nuclear power Existing nuclear power
plants must be built plants was a good thing plants must be closed(if applicable)(if applicable)

Not applicable - my homecountry doesn't have NPPs

5.10. Public regulatory authorities and scientific experts and favoured to oversee
nuclear activities
A majority of respondents (55%) declared that “public regulatory authorities” should be incharge of overseeing the environmental and health impact outside a facility that poses risks
to the environment and neighbouring populations. “A committee of scientific experts”
came in second with 24% of replies. The four other proposed options have been far lessselected: “the operator of the facility” collected 8% of replies, “local elected officials(regional council, municipality…)” were selected by 6%, “a local citizens’ committee” andnon-governmental organisations (NGOs) by 3%.

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEYNEA/WKP(2023)2  35

Figure 5.17. Regarding the oversight of the impact of a facility that poses risks tothe environment and neighbouring populations, who do you think should control
the environmental and health impact outside the facility? (only one reply
possible)
60%

55%

50%

40%

30%
24%
20%

10%

6%

8%
3%

3%
0%

Public regulatory
authorities

A committee ofscientific experts

Non-governmental
The operator of the
Local electedorganisations
facility
officials (regional
council,municipality…)

A local citizens'
committee

Public regulatory authorities were placed ahead in all countries with more than 100 replies,
usually by far, except in Belgium, where they collected 44% and “a committee of scientificexperts” came close second with 41%. In all countries with more than 100 replies, “acommittee of scientific experts” came in second, except in Japan, where “the operator of
the facility” placed second with 23%, and scientific experts third with 15%.
Respondents who have never worked in the nuclear sector also placed public regulatory
authorities first (46%), ahead of “a committee of scientific experts” (32%), but with a lesser
margin than persons who currently of formerly worked in the sector, for which the results
were respectively 60% and 19%.
The youngest respondents, while still ranking public regulatory authorities first, placed “acommittee of scientific experts” a close second. Among the 18-34 year-olds, publicauthorities gathered 43% and scientific experts 33%, while among the 35 year-olds andolder, the results were 58% and 21%.
There were no significant differences across the political spectrum or between women andmen.

5.11. Scientists are deemed most competent and most trustworthy in the nuclear
field
Respondents were asked their opinion on the competence and trustworthiness of several
actors of the nuclear field in the home country. Scientists came up on top twice, with thesame very high score (95%) of perceived competence and trustworthiness. “Nuclear plants
operating companies” and the “public regulatory and control authorities” both also received
THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY36  NEA/WKP(2023)2
high competence scores (90% and 82%) and trustworthiness ratings (77% and 84%).
Science journalists were next in terms of competence with 57% of positive opinions. They
also ranked 4th for trustworthiness, collecting 65% of favourable opinions. The last four
positions regarding both questions are occupied by “the government” (46% of competence,
52% of trustworthiness), “environmental NGOs” (41% and 39%), “labour unions” (39%
and 37%), and “local elected officials” (23% and 30%).

Figure 5.18. In the field of nuclear industry and energy, do you think thefollowing actors are…
In the field of nuclear industry and energy, do you think the following actors are…
100%

95%95%

90%

80%

84%

82%77%
57%

60%

65%
46%

40%

52%
41%39%

39%37%
23%

30%

20%
0%

Scientists

Nuclear plants
Publicoperating regulatory andcompanies
controlauthorities

Sciencejournalists

Technically competent

The
Environmental Labor Unions
government
NGOs

Local elected
officials

Trustworthy sources of information

Environmental NGOs and science journalists are perceived as competent by the youngest,garnering 49% and 61% of the responses, respectively, from the 18-34 year-olds. There
were no other strong differences noted, be it regarding perceived competence ortrustworthiness.
Women also deem environmental NGOs and science journalists more competent than men
do. Environmental NGOs collected 54% of positive opinions among women and 36%
among men, while science journalists collected respectively 65% and 53%. No strong
difference was noted for other actors regarding competence. In terms of trustworthiness,
Environmental NGOs and science journalists also gathered higher scores among women,with 53% against 32% among men for NGOs and 72% against 61% for science journalists.
A slighter difference was also observed regarding labour unions, seen as slightly moretrustworthy by women (41% against 35%).
Environmental NGOs were also seen as much more competent by left-wing respondents(61% agreeing) than right-wing respondents (20% agreeing). Science journalists are also
seen in a more favourable light on the left (67%) than on the right (44%). It is also the casefor labour unions, which gather 57% of favourable opinions on the left as opposed to 22%
on the right. It is also the case, on a lesser level, for public regulatory authorities, which
gather strong competence scores, but higher on the left (85%) than on the right (76%).

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEYNEA/WKP(2023)2  37

Figure 5.19. In the field of nuclear industry and energy do you think the following actors are technically competent inyour home country? (replies according to political learnings)
A. Environmental NGOs

B. Science journalists

90%
80%
80%
70%

73%

80%
70%

67%
61%

60%

61%

47%

50%

50%
39%

43%

40%

40%

44%

39%
33%

30%

27%

30%

56%

53%

57%

60%

20%
20%

20%
10%

10%

0%

0%
Left

Center-leftCenter-right

Subtotal agree

Subtotal disagree

Right

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY

Left

Center-leftCenter-right

Subtotal agree

Subtotal disagree

Right38  NEA/WKP(2023)2

C. Labour unions

D. Public regulatory and control authorities

90%

100%
78%

80%

73%

50%

87%

85%

82%
76%

80%

70%
60%

90%

70%

58%

57%

60%
43%

42%

50%

40%

40%

27%

30%

22%

30%

20%

20%

10%

10%

0%

24%
15%

18%
13%

0%
Left

Center-leftCenter-right

Subtotal agree

Subtotal disagree

Right

Left

Center-leftCenter-right

Subtotal agree

Subtotal disagree

Right

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEYNEA/WKP(2023)2  39

Environmental NGOs are seen as particularly less competent on nuclear matters in Spain,
Belgium and Japan, with respective negative opinions of 73%, 71% and 70%. The
government is seen as particularly incompetent in these matters in Belgium, Spain,
Germany and France, with negative opinions totalling respectively 76%, 68% and 61% (forGermany and France alike). Local elected officials are seen as particularly lacking
competence on nuclear issues in Belgium and Spain, with respective totals of negative
opinions of 94% and 87%. Science journalists are seen as more competent in Canada(76%), the United States (70%) and the United Kingdom (69%) than in Belgium (47%) or
Japan (45%).

5.12. The impact of nuclear facilities is perceived as low
Three questions were designed to assess the perceived impact of nuclear facilities. To thestatement “Radioactivity from nuclear power plants will cause cancers”, 62% replied they
disagreed while 15% were in agreement. Disagreement was stronger (69%) within
respondents working or having worked in the nuclear field, compared to 50% in the “nonnuclear” sample. In the 2023 IRSN Barometer, the respective results were close to the nonnuclear sample of the NEA study, with 48% of disagreement and 16% in agreement.
Disagreement was stronger among men (65%) than women (55%). People identifying
politically with the right also disagreed in stronger numbers, totalling 72% against 58%
among left-wing people. There were no significant differences among age brackets.
To the statement “Around nuclear facilities, people are as healthy as elsewhere”, a wide
majority of 81% agreed. Among respondents working or having worked in the nuclear field
88% agreed against 69% in the “non-nuclear” sample, to be compared with only 43% in
the 2023 IRSN Barometer. People from the left of the political spectrum disagreed more
(11%) than people from the right (3%). Women agreed to a lesser extent (74%) than men(84%), as more gave a neutral reply (18% compared to 12% among men). There were no
significant differences between age categories.

Figure 5.20. “Around nuclear facilities, people are as healthy as elsewhere”

Right-wing subtotal agree

88%

Left-wing subtotal agree

73%

Women subtotal agree

74%

Survey subtotal agree

81%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

40  NEA/WKP(2023)2
Finally, regarding the statement “Nuclear sites in my country are causing groundwatercontamination (if applicable)”, only 7% agreed and 64% disagreed (13% replied theircountry does not have nuclear power plants). Among respondents working or having
worked in the nuclear field 8% agreed and 71% disagreed, against 6% who agreed and 53%
who disagreed in the “non-nuclear” sample, in which 23% “neither agreed nor disagreed”.
Men disagreed more (66%) than women (60%), who gave more neutral answers, just likeyounger respondents disagreed less (58% among the 18-24 year-olds compared to 71%
among the 50-64 year-olds) and gave more neutral replies (respectively 25% among the18-24 year-olds and 14%). In the IRSN study, 34% agreed and 25% disagreed.

5.13. A solution for radioactive waste?
Presented with the statement “Today, it is possible to safely store nuclear waste”, 74%
agreed and 11% disagreed. Among countries with more than 100 replies, the agreement ishighest in Canada (85%), Spain (82%) and the United States (81%) and lowest in Germany(64%) and Japan (65%). These totals remain much higher than those recorded in the 2023
IRSN Barometer, in which 33% agreed while 32% disagreed.

Figure 5.21. Today, it is possible to safely store nuclear waste
60%
51%

50%

46%

52%

46%

40%
33%

30%

30%

25%
20%

20%
10%
0%
Japan

Germany

Strongly agree

AgreeFranceBelgium

CanadaUnitedKingdom

Spain

UnitedStatesNeither agree nor disagree

DisagreeStrongly disagree

5.14. A nuclear accident does not seem probable to respondents
A wide majority of respondents (71%) do not believe that an accident of the same
magnitude as the one in Fukushima can occur in their home country. No significant
difference in replies was noted across age brackets or between men (28% yes) and women(32% yes). There were differences across the political spectrum, with 38% of left-wing
respondents declaring they believed such an accident could occur in their country, against
15% of right-wing respondents. This is to be compared with 56% of the French respondents
in the 2023 IRSN study.
Further questioned about the probability of such an accident, 57% replied it seemed not at
all likely to them, while 33% replied it seemed somewhat unlikely and 10% responded it
THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEYNEA/WKP(2023)2  41

seemed very or somewhat likely. Respondents to the 2023 IRSN Barometer replied at 56%
it seemed likely while 44% believed it was unlikely.

5.15. Industrial or technological activity most likely to cause a serious accident or adisasterWith 44% of replies, chemical facilities are those deemed most likely to cause a serious
accident or disaster in the respondents’ countries. The transport of hazardous materials
comes second with 15% and all others (including virus research laboratories, natural gas
distribution and dams) range from 7% to 4%. Nuclear power plants are at 6% andradioactive waste material have the lower score with 4%. Among people who declared
working or having worked in the nuclear sector, chemical facilities come in first with 48%,
while nuclear power plants and radioactive waste disposals record respectively 5% and 1%(compared to 7% and 8% among the “non-nuclear” respondents). Chemical facilities andthe transport of hazardous materials also came out first and second across all age brackets.
These results are different from the 2023 IRSN Barometer results, in which nuclear power
plants come first (28%), ahead of radioactive waste disposals and chemical facilities (bothwith 19%) and virus research laboratories (17%).

Figure 5.22. Which of the following industrial or technological activities do you
think is most likely to cause a serious accident or a disaster in your home country?
(only one reply possible)
45%

44%

40%

35%
30%
25%
20%

15%

15%
10%

7%

7%

7%

6%

5%

5%
0%
Chemicalfacilities

Transport of
Virus
Natural gas
hazardous
research distribution
material laboratories

Other

Nuclear Air transport
power plants

Chemical facilities come in first in all countries with more than 100 respondents except
Canada, where the transport of hazardous material comes ahead with 28%, while chemical
facilities gather 26%. In France and Spain, chemical facilities gather very high numbers,
with respectively 61% and 58% of replies. In Japan, they collect 31% while nuclear power
plants collect 21%, a number of replies significantly higher than in other countries.
There are no notable differences between genders, age brackets or political leanings.
THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY42  NEA/WKP(2023)2

5.16. The most frightening catastrophic events
Figure 5.23. Which of the following catastrophic events do you find mostfrightening? (only one reply possible)
The Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident

29%

The tsunami of 26 December 2004 in the Indian Ocean

17%

The megafires which happened in the past three years inAustralia and in California

17%

The Fukushima nuclear power plant accident

10%

The chemical explosion in the port of Beirut in 2020

10%

Other (please specify)

7%

The 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico

5%

The Haiti earthquake in 2010

4%

The Mexico City earthquake in 1985

2%
0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

The Chernobyl nuclear accident comes ahead as the most frightening catastrophic eventwith 29% of replies, in front of the tsunami of 26 December 2004 in the Indian Ocean(17%) and the megafires which took place in the past few years in Australia, Canada andthe United States (17%). In the 2023 IRSN Barometer, the Chernobyl accident is first as
well, with 39% of replies.
Women and men alike ranked the Chernobyl accident first, with respectively 33% and 28%
of replies. Women then placed the megafires (22%) while men placed the tsunami ofDecember 2004 in the Indian Ocean (19%).
Almost every country with more than 100 replies ranked the Chernobyl accident first
except for Canada and the United States, which both placed the megafires first, largely in
Canada with 32%, and a little less so in the United States with 24% (the survey was
conducted before the dramatic 2023 fires), and Japan, which placed the Fukushima nuclear
accident first with 34% and the Chernobyl accident second with close to 34%.

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY30%

NEA/WKP(2023)2  43

6. References

CENSUS (2022), Population Estimates (V2022) in QuickFacts,(accessed 21 August 2023).
INSEE (2019), Femmes et hommes in France, Portrait Social Édition 2019, collection Insee Références,
INSEE, Montrouge, France,
accessed
21 August 2023).
IRSN (n.d.), Baromètre IRSN – La perception des risques et de la sécurité par les Français, Institut deRadioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, Fontenay-aux-Roses,(accessed
21 August 2023).
OECD (2023), Population with tertiary education in Education at a Glance: Educational attainment andlabour-force status, OECD, Paris,(accessed 21 August 2023).
OECD (2022), Trends in the share of tertiary-educated 25-34 year-olds (2000 and 2021) in Education at
a Glance Database, OECD, Paris,(accessed 21 August 2023).
Slovic, P., Flynn, J., Mertz, C.K., Poumadère, M. and Mays, C. (2000), “Nuclear Power and the Public:
A Comparative Study of Risk Perception in France and the United States” in Cross-Cultural Risk
Perception, Technology, Risk, and Society, Vol 13. Springer, Boston,(accessed 21 August 2023).
STATBEL (2023), Occupational groups in Belgium per gender, region, age and education level, since2013 in Occupations in Belgium,(accessed 21 August 2023).
Statistics Bureau of Japan (SBJ), (2022), Population Estimates in Monthly Report,(accessed 21 August 2023).
Statistics Canada (2022), Population estimates on July 1st, by age and sex,
(accessed 21 August 2023).
WVS (n.d), World Values Survey, Vienna,(accessed 21 August 2023).

THE PERCEPTION OF SCIENCE, RISK AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY