Nuclear Power and the Public
- 703 Downloads
This study is an attempt to understand attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors with respect to nuclear power and several other technological risk sources. A unique feature of the study is a comparison between public views in the United States, where nuclear energy is resisted, and France, where nuclear energy appears to be embraced (France obtains about 80% of its electricity from nuclear power).
Although the experiences of France and the U.S. with regard to nuclear energy overlap during the post World War II decades, there are a number of significant differences in timing, motivation toward adopting nuclear power, the economic context, the cultural and political milieu, regulation, and financing of the industry. We would expect these conditions to be associated with significant differences between French and American attitudes and opinions about nuclear power and related issues.
saw greater need for nuclear power and greater economic benefit from it;
had greater trust in scientists, industry, and government officials who design, build, operate, and regulate nuclear power plants;
were more likely to believe that decision-making authority should reside with the experts and government authorities, rather than with the people.
These findings point to some important differences between the workings of democracy in the U.S. and France and the effects of different “democratic models” on acceptance of risks from technology.
KeywordsNuclear Power Plant Risk Perception Nuclear Waste Motor Vehicle Accident Ozone Depletion
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Barthe, Y. & Mays, C. (1998). High profile and deep strategy: Communication and information practices in France’s underground laboratory siting process. Riskpercom national case study on communication and radioactive waste management. Note technique SEGR 98–18. Fontenay-aux-Roses: IPSN.Google Scholar
- Batt, T. (1992, July 23). Nevada claims victory in Yucca deal. Las Vegas Review-Journal, pp. 1A - 3A.Google Scholar
- Bord, R. J. (1988). The low-level radioactive waste crisis: Is more citizen participation the answer? In M. A. Burns (Ed.), Low-level radioactive waste regulation: Science, politics, and fear (pp. 193–213 ). Chelsea, MI: Lewis.Google Scholar
- Campbell, J. L. (1988). Collapse of an industry: Nuclear power and the contradictions of U.S. policy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
- Drottz-Sjöberg, B. M. (1993). Risk perceptions related to varied frames of reference. In P. Hubert & M. Poumadere (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third Conference of Society for Risk Analysis Europe. Paris: European Section of the Society for Risk Analysis, 1991.Google Scholar
- Flynn, J., Kasperson, R., Kunreuther, H., & Slovic, R ( 1992, Summer) Time to rethink nuclear waste storage. Issues in Science and Technology, 8(4), 42–48.Google Scholar
- Flynn, J., Slovic, R, & Mertz, C. K. (1994). Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1101–1108.Google Scholar
- Freud, S. (1924). Collected papers. London: Hogarth.Google Scholar
- Jasper, J. M. (1990). Nuclear politics: Energy and the state in the United States, Sweden, and France. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Nuclear imagery and regional stigma: Testing hypotheses of image acquisition and valuation regarding Nevada [Technical report]. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico, Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
- Kasperson, R., Golding, D., & Tuler, S. ( 1992, Winter). Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks (Individual and collective responses to risk). Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), 161–188.Google Scholar
- Mays, C. & Egouy, R. (1998). Mission Communication: Press office and related activities at France ‘s Institute for Nuclear Safety and Protection (IPSN). Riskpercom crossnational case study on institutional risk communication. Note technique SEGR 98–19. Fontenay-aux-Roses: IPSN.Google Scholar
- Mays, C. & Poumadère, M. (1996). Uncertain communication: Institutional discourse in nuclear waste repository siting. In V. Sublet, V. Covello and T. Tinker (eds.), Scientific uncertainty and its influence on the public communication process. Amsterdam: NATO Advanced Scientific Workshop Series, Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Mays, C., Marris, C., Bonnefous, S. & Brenot, J. (1997). Perceptions of risk in France in 1996: Before, during and after Chernobyl ‘s tenth anniversary. Report to the European Commission DG 12. Note technique SEGR 97–93. Fontenay-aux-Roses: IPSN.Google Scholar
- Mays, C., Richard, V., Bonnefous, S. & Marris, C. (1998). Risk reporting in the French print media at Chernobyl ‘s tenth anniversary. Note technique SEGR 98–50. Fontenay-aux-Roses: IPSN.Google Scholar
- Morone, J. F., & Woodhouse, E. J. (1989). The demise of nuclear energy? Lessons for a democratic control of technology. New Haven, CT: Yale University.Google Scholar
- National Research Council. (1996). Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- Nelkin, D., & Pollak, M. ( 1979, August/September). Public participation in technological decisions: Reality or grand illusion? Technology Review, pp. 55–64.Google Scholar
- Poumadère, M. (1991). “The credibility crisis”, in B. Segerstahl (ed.) Chernobyl: A Policy Response Study, Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
- Poumadère, M. (1995). Cultural factors in public acceptance of nuclear power, in Uranium and nuclear energy: 1995, Proceedings of the 20th international symposium of the Uranium Institute, London, 20–21 Sept.Google Scholar
- Poumadère, M. and Mays, C. (1997). Energy Risk Regulation in France. Working Paper Nr. 89 of the Center of Technology Assessment in Baden-Würrtemberg. Stuttgart: Akademie für Technikfolgenabschätzung.Google Scholar
- Poumadère, M., C. Mays, P. Slovic, J. Flynn & S. Johnson (1994). What lies behind public acceptance? Comparison of US and French perceptions of the nuclear power option, Proceedings of the International Atomic Energy Agency meeting on The Nuclear Power Option, 5–8 Sept., Vienna.Google Scholar
- Poumadère, M., Mays, C., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C.K. (1996). Diversity in meaning: risks compared in France and the USA. In O. Renn (ed.), Risk Analysis and Management in a Global Economy; Vol. 2 Risk Perception and Communication in Europe. Stuttgart: Center of Technology Assessment in Baden-Württemberg.Google Scholar
- Slovic, P. (1990). Perception of risk from radiation. In W. K. Sinclair (Ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Annual Meeting of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Vol. 11: Radiation protection today: The NCRP at sixty years (pp. 73–97 ). Bethesda, MD: NCRP.Google Scholar
- Slovic, P., Flynn, J., Mertz, C. K., & Mullican, L. (1993). Health risk perception in Canada [Report No. 93-EHD-170]. Ottawa: Department of National Health and. Welfare.Google Scholar
- Slovic, P., Kraus, N. N., Lappe, H., Letzel, H., & Malmfors, T. (1989). Risk perception of prescription drugs: Report on a survey in Sweden. Pharmaceutical Medicine, 4, 43–65.Google Scholar
- Slovic, R, Layman, M., & Flynn, J. (1991). Risk perception, trust, and nuclear waste: Lessons from Yucca Mountain. Environment, 33, 6–11, 28–30.Google Scholar
- Smith, K. (1988). Perception of risks associated with nuclear power. Energy Environment Monitor, 4 (1), 61–70.Google Scholar
- Wundt, W. (1883). Über Psychologische Methoden. Philosophische Studien, 1, 1–38.Google Scholar