The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Public Attitudes to the Environment in Scotland

CHAPTER SIX RADIOACTIVITY

This chapter focuses on concern for radioactivity and radiation among the general public in Scotland. After examining broad concern for both nuclear waste and the generation of electricity by nuclear power, public perception of radioactivity and radiation sources are explored, often in relation to the distance respondents lived from major sources of radioactivity. Finally, knowledge about and attitudes towards radioactive waste and its treatment are looked at in more depth.

6.1 CONCERN ABOUT NUCLEAR WASTE AND THE GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY BY NUCLEAR POWER

Chapter 2 began by presenting public attitudes towards a wide range of potential environmental concerns. Among the 23 issues considered were 'nuclear waste' and the 'generation of electricity by nuclear power'. Concern over nuclear waste rose by one place between 1991 and 2002 to make it the second highest ranked issue of concern. Nearly half of all respondents asked said that they were very worried about nuclear waste (47%) and a further third (33%) stated that they were quite worried about it. Only five in every hundred people said that they were not worried at all by nuclear waste.

In contrast, the issue of the generation of electricity by nuclear power fell by two places between 1991 and 2002 to 15 ^th= position. Around one in five people (19%) said they were very worried about nuclear power generation, and an additional third (34%) said they were quite worried by the issue. A further 15% said that this issue did not concern them at all (Table 2.1).

The survey also found that the Scottish public was unhappy at the idea of living next to nuclear power stations or nuclear waste storage facilities. Out of a list of ten facilities, 'storage sites for nuclear waste', 'nuclear waste processing sites' and 'nuclear power stations' were the three most unpopular things to live beside (Table 2.21).

Chapter 5 showed that the public would like less electricity generated by nuclear power. Although 45% of Scottish electricity is currently generated in nuclear power stations, public preference was for this to be reduced to 16%, with more electricity generation from renewable energy sources.

6.2 SOURCES OF RADIOACTIVITY

It is clear from section 6.1 that the public had broad concerns about the nuclear industry and the following section looks in some more detail at public understanding of radioactivity. The survey asked people about their knowledge of eight potential sources of radioactivity. Radioactivity is produced naturally and by generating electricity in nuclear power stations. It is also produced by generating electricity in coal-fired power stations which releases natural radioactivity from coal. The other items on the list shown to respondents all produce radiation (in the form of x-rays, light, or noise), but do not produce radioactivity.

Awareness of sources of radioactivity was low among the public. As can be seen from Figure 6.1, only one of the top three selected sources actually does produce radioactivity; generating electricity in a nuclear power station (selected by 74% of respondents). Just under eight in ten people thought that radioactivity was produced by x-rays and scanners in hospitals (78%) and almost two thirds of people thought mobile phones produce radioactivity (63%). Fewer than three in ten people (29%) correctly thought that radioactivity can come from natural sources and 16% of people rightly identified the generation of electricity in a coal-fired power station as a producer of radioactivity.

In total, only 8% of people accurately identified the three correct sources - and each of these people also selected at least one incorrect source.

People were also asked to comment on how worried they were about a range of radioactivity or radiation exposure risks (Table 6.1). The risk which caused the most concern was 'radioactivity as a result of war or terrorism' about which three quarters of respondents (74%) said they were very or somewhat worried. The next most significant threats were 'explosion or accidents at a nuclear plant' and 'radioactivity getting into land and water and affecting food and drinking water supplies'. Seventy one per cent of people said they were concerned about each issue, and 58% said that they were worried about the day-to-day working of nuclear plants. As Table 6.1 shows, the risks of radiation exposure from mobile phones, hospital x-rays and scanners or natural radiation sources were not perceived as being as great as from other forms of exposure. Even so, over a third of people were worried about radioactivity or radiation from mobile phones (36%) and three in ten were concerned over hospital x-rays and scanners (30%).

Levels of concern about different radiation and radioactivity exposure risks varied in relation to some key socio-demographic characteristics. Women were more concerned about the radiation risk from an explosion or accident at a nuclear power station than men and those in the higher two educational attainment groups were more worried about exposure to natural radioactivity than those with O grade or equivalent, or no qualifications. Those in the youngest and oldest age groups were less concerned about each of the issues shown in Table 6.2 than respondents aged between 25 and 64.

Sample size for each row = 1,989

Each respondent was asked how far from a major source of radioactivity they thought they lived. Eight per cent of people believed that they lived within five miles of a radioactive source and a further 14% said that they lived within twenty miles of one. Just under three in ten people (29%) did not know how far from a source of radioactivity they lived. Distance from a radioactive source did not appear to vary with socio-demographic characteristics except in terms of whether people knew where their nearest source was. For example, while two in ten men (20%) and owner occupiers (22%) did not know how far from a source their home was, this proportion rose to four in ten women (38%) and social renters (41%). Knowledge about distance from sources of radioactivity increased with education attained and with age, although it then fell among those aged 65 and over.

[Table 6.3]

Figure 6.2 shows the location the major sources of radioactivity in, and near, Scotland. It is interesting to compare the relationship between people's perception of how far they lived from a major source of radioactivity and their actual distance from a source. As can be seen from Table 6.4, a large proportion of respondents actually lived further from a major source of radioactivity than they thought they did. For example, just under half of those who thought they lived within five miles of a major source of radioactivity actually lived over 20 miles from one (46%). In contrast, four in ten people who said they lived further than 100 miles from a major source of radioactivity lived within 50 miles of one in reality (41%).

* Major source of radioactivity considered: Hunterston, Hunterston B, Chapelcross, Torness, Drigg, Calder Hall, Sellafield, Heysham 1 & 2, Dounreay, Rosyth dockyard, Faslane naval base and Coulport.

Table 6.5 compares the actual and perceived distance a respondent lives from a major source of radioactivity with their views on living next to a nuclear power station. From this table, it can be seen that although the majority of people were unhappy with the idea of living beside a nuclear power station, the numbers of those happy to do so increased among those currently living within 10 miles of one; 15% said they would be happy about this compared with 5% of those living between 10 and 20 miles of a nuclear power station. However, the perceived distance respondents lived from a major source of radioactivity made no difference to their views on living near to a nuclear power station.

It is in fact likely to be respondents' perception of distance from a source of radioactivity, rather than actual distance, which influences beliefs and ideas about radioactive issues and the remaining analyses focus on this. For example, perceived distance was related to concern over different radioactivity and radiation risks (Table 6.6). Over half of those who thought they lived within five miles of a major source of radioactivity said they were very worried about explosions or accidents exposing them to radiation (54%), but 40% of those who thought they lived between 20 and 50 miles of a source thought the same. Also, a greater proportion of those thinking they lived within 5 miles of a major source of radioactivity said they were very worried or somewhat worried about the normal working of a nuclear plant (77%) compared with those who thought they lived further away (62% of those who thought they lived between 5 and 20 miles away).

6.3 RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL

As noted earlier, concern over nuclear waste was high with eight in ten people saying that they were either very worried or quite worried about it (Table 2.1). People were asked to think about the issue of radioactive waste more closely. First they were asked "When you think of radioactive waste, which of the following do you think of?" and shown a list of nine options. All the items presented could comprise radioactive waste. The most common perception of what constitutes radioactive waste was 'sludge or other waste from working nuclear power stations or other installations'; around two thirds of respondents associated radioactive waste with this description (64%). About half the respondents associated nuclear waste with 'old nuclear power stations: buildings and machinery', 'bombs or submarines' and 'water discharged from working nuclear power stations or other installations'. Between three and four people in every ten associated nuclear waste with 'fuel rods', 'air discharged from working nuclear power stations or other installations', 'the contents of old nuclear power stations - furniture, clothing' and 'hospital waste'. One in ten people could not describe what they thought of when asked to define radioactive waste. The fact that radioactive waste was most frequently associated with sludge and other waste from working nuclear power stations is interesting given the earlier finding that people were more concerned about being exposed to radioactivity as a 'result of war or terrorism' than exposure from the daily working of nuclear power stations.

[Table 6.7]

The survey also asked whether respondents felt there were differences in the level of danger presented by different types of radioactive waste. Over two thirds of people recognised that some of this waste would be less dangerous and some more dangerous. Women were more likely than men to say that they did not know whether waste could vary in terms of danger and almost a quarter of people in the oldest age group were unsure about how variable the danger presented by different types of radioactive waste was. Knowledge about this issue increased with education attained; just under eight in ten people who left education with a professional qualification or degree said that some radioactive waste was more dangerous and some less dangerous (79%). In contrast, six in ten people leaving education without qualifications or with O grades and equivalent certificates knew this (58% and 61% respectively).

[Table 6.8]

The potential for waste to leak back slowly into the environment over time was perceived as the principal risk of storing radioactive waste by nearly half of the people asked (47%). A third of people said that they were concerned that an accident could cause a large radioactive release from stored waste (33%). Fewer people thought that the main threat of stored radioactive waste was that it represented a terrorist target (13%). Only 4% of respondents were unable to comment on the main risk associated with storing radioactive waste.

[Table 6.9]

* Respondents could select as many answers as they wished.

« Previous | Contents | Next »