Issues related toPublic Perceptionof Radioactive Waste
Management options
Derek M. Taylor
Energy Advisor
European Commission1
1 The opinions expressed here are those of the author and may not necessarilyreflect the views of the European Commission

The problem• Measuring things often influences what you aremeasuring.
• Measuring the Public’s perception of an issue isvery difficult.
• Asking people their views about issues canclearly influences the results you obtain.
• Should we allow the results obtained from somesurveys to influence major policy decisions?

“The health warning”“Inappropriate use of Public
opinion survey’s aboutnuclear energy or nuclear
energy-related issues could
lead to more rapid globalwarming!”

Question: Are you worried
about radioactive waste?
(1998 and 2001)
100
9080
7060
50403020
100Greece
EUSwedenYes - 1998

No - 1998

Yes - 2001

No - 2001

Level of knowledge• People do not believe that they are wellinformed about radioactive waste• Certainly, only a very small percentage of thePublic are knowledgeable about radioactivewaste.
• One person in eight realise that the large
majority of low-level waste is already disposed ofby shallow burial (16% in FR)• Half the people believe we have not disposed ofhigh-level waste “because there is no safe way
to do it”

But in spite of this ….
• Statement:“If all waste weresafely managed,
nuclear power should
remain and option forelectricity generation”

70
60
5040
*EU*

30
20
100AgreeDisagree

DKOnly one Member Stateagainst …
(no prizes for guessing!)
9080
70
60
50AgreeDisagree
DK403020100B DKDEL ESF IRLILNLAPSFSUKAn important evolution from:2001
to2005“Nuclear contributes to global warming”
8090708060706050
Yes
NoDKs

403040302020101000
Greece Sweden

EUYesNoDKs

50

Greece Sweden

EUAre you concerned about….?
• In our 1997survey the greatest concernsof people were (in descending order):– “Factories”– “Global pollution”– Oil– Industrial waste– “Agriculture”– Cars– Nuclear waste

Out of 12 items

But in 1999 …..
• It came 4th in the list:– “Pollution” (47%)– Destruction of ozone layer (44%)– Disappearance of tropical forests (39%)– Nuclear power stations and radioactive waste
processing (39%)
Out of 9 items• And in 2002 it was 1st out of 25 items …
– With “climate change” in 11th place• But it was not included in the list of 15 items inthe 2005 questionnaire

“Nuclear” equates to “risk”• Question:“Do you think thetransport of low-level
radioactive waste issomething that
represents (level ofrisk)…..?”• Question:“Do you think the storageof low-level radioactive
waste is something that
represents (level ofrisk)….?”

100GreeceEUSweden500High Low

DK100806040200GreeceEU
SwedenHighLow

DKs

An aside: Who worries most?
•In the 2002 survey, there was a “league table” of “very worried States”.

Greece – 58%*
Luxembourg and Italy – 44%
Portugal and France – 41%
UK – 32%
Austria – 31%
Germany and Denmark – 30%
Spain, Ireland and Belgium – 26%
Sweden – 25%
Finland – 24%
The Netherlands – 21%*

The Greeks worried more about every single item on the list of 25 thanany other State

Are you concerned ….?
• How many people do you think might beconcerned by “nuclear magneticresonance”?
• Or concerned by “all forms ofelectromagnetic radiation”?

Is nuclear seen as the mostpolluting energy source?
• In a series of surveys
from 1984 to 1991 thequestion was asked“which is the least
polluting source ofenergy”.
• Renewables were clear
favourites – but on
average nuclear came 3rd
behind natural gas.
• Note: This period
includes the Chernobyl
accident (1986)

25
20
1984
1986
1987
1989
1991

15
10
50

Solidfuels

Oil

Naturalgas

Nuclearand Price and Security ofSupply?
In the period 1996 to 2006
Which fuel would give....

Most stable price?

Most secure supply?

Gas

32%

29%

Renewables

21%

25%

Nuclear

12%

15%

Oil

9%

9%

Solid fuels

10%

8%

“We want renewables …..”
but…….
• The large majority of people in the EU think weshould reduce our dependency on imported oil
by turning to greater development of renewables• BUT asked if they were willing to pay more forrenewable energy …….
– 54%
– 27%
– 11%
– 2%

- “NO”- up to 5% more
- up to 10% more
- more than 10% moreWho thinks about energy?
• We are not sure how concerned people
are about energy – relative to other issues– as we have not asked them since
1989….
• In 1989 we included energy in a list of sixissues – it came in fourth place in the
Public’s concern about “very seriousissues”

Public’s opinion in 1989
on six issues
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
100v
Enn
ir omten-Pluol% Very serious
nt ioenUmoplymen

Potver tyinReECogi

EnnagerelDPov

yoeliropmn3r

endtu
Cone
tr is

Ec

neon m po m l oyic m esinttuation
Ris C riming
pr eiHea ceslIm th camig reraT e t ionrr
orP e i smnsio
Ta nsxE d at iouc nat
H i onE n ouvi sinrog
nm
ent

U

Public concerns in 2005

4540
35302520
151050ImportanceElementary logic…..?
• Environment is not one of the Public’s mainconcerns• Environment is more of a concern to the publicthan energy• Nuclear energy is perceived as less polluting,cheaper and more secure than coal and oil• So, how important an issue is radioactive
waste to the man (or woman) in the street?
– Especially when they know so little about it.

Some simple conclusions• Energy is not a major preoccupation with the Public• Nuclear energy is not seen as the most polluting form ofenergy• People like the idea of renewable energy as the least
polluting form of energy• But people are not willing to pay more for energy whichis less polluting• People express concerns about radioactive waste – butknow little about it• But if they thought that the waste could be safely
managed they would more easily accept nuclear energy.

Can we change the Public’s
perception? Possibly!
• The public is not well informed about radioactive waste• Those poorest informed about nuclear issues are most
likely to react most negatively to questions concerningquestions on nuclear or radioactive wastes.
• The public say they want to know more about waste.
• Those countries where nuclear has been very welldiscussed and debated have the least concern overradioactive waste.
Therefore:• Changing the Public’s perception is possible – but it
will require a lot of information, time and effort.

But should we try?
• NO– Almost certainly not. It is likely that the generalpublic’s feelings about nuclear are not that strong or
focused on nuclear issues. If they want information
there is more than enough out there.

• YES– Definitely in site specific cases – such as when there
are plans to construct a new facility. Then it will be aquestion of addressing, often very specific, local
concerns – many of which may have little to do with“radioactivity” as such.

Finally ……
• Be aware….
Be very aware– Of the:» Severe limitations» Potential errors, and» Possible misinterpretationsof opinion surveys ……..

…….especially when taking important
policy decisions!