Images of disaster: Perception and acceptance of risks from nuclear power

Public response to risks of nuclear energy is investigated. A quantitative description of the attitudes, perceptions, and expectations of some members of the antinuclear public is given. Sample studies of the public at large were not made; most of the data in the paper comes from survey made at the University of Oregon and another with members of the Eugene, Oregon, League of Women Voters. Perceived risks and benefits, relative to other activities; risk characteristics; the reasons nuclear power is thought to be so dangerous; why death from nuclear power is thought to be so much worse than death from other causes; fatality estimates and disaster multipliers for 30 activities and technologies (alcoholic beverages, bicycles, commercial aviation, contraceptives, electric power, nuclear power, vaccinations, x-rays); fatality estimates associated with maximum credible disasters from commerical aviation and nuclear power are some of the areas covered in the surveys. The authors' view is that educational attempts designed to reduce the perception gap are probably doomed to failure, based on technical and psychological aspects of the problem. After discussing these issues, pathways toward acceptance of nuclear and nonnuclear energy systems are examined.