2005 06 Nucelar Waste En

7/31/2019 2005 06 Nucelar Waste En

1/80

Special Eurobarometer

Radioactive waste

Fieldwork : February- March 2005

Publication : June 2005

SpecialEuroba

rometer227/Wave63.2TN

SOpinion&Social

This survey was requested by Directorate General Energy and Transport and coordinatedby Directorate General Press and Communication

This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission.

The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors.

EuropeanCommission


2/80

Special EUROBAROMETER 227 Report Radioacti ve w aste

- 1 -

Conten ts

I NTRODUCTI ON .... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .3 AN ALYSI S .... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .5

1. The p ercept ion o f r ad ioac t ive w as te and nuc lear energy . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 5 1.1. The level of information about radioactive waste........................................51.2. Actual knowledge about radioactive waste ................................................9

1.2.1. The extent of danger from radioactive waste....................................101.2.2. The production of radioactive waste by research centres....................121.2.3. The production of radioactive waste in hospitals ...............................141.2.4. The existence of different types of radioactive waste .........................161.2.5. The production of radioactive waste by non-nuclear industries............181.2.6. The production of radioactive waste by nuclear reactors.....................201.2.7. The quantity of radioactive waste ...................................................221.2.8. Average actual knowledge.............................................................24

1.3. The level of support for nuclear energy................................................... 261.4. Perception of the problem of radioactive waste ........................................301.5. Opinions of nuclear energy ...................................................................32

1.5.1. The diversification of energy sources...............................................321.5.2. Dependence on oil........................................................................331.5.3. The emission of greenhouse gases..................................................34

2. The per cept i on o f th e r isk of r adioa ct iv e w aste . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .3 8 2.1. Transport ...........................................................................................382.2. Storage..............................................................................................412.3. Fears regarding the construction of a disposal site....................................422.4. Involvement of citizens in the construction of such a site ..........................46

3. The m anag em ent of rad ioact ive w aste . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .49 3.1. The general opinion of recycling uncontaminated materials........................493.2. Use of recycled material .......................................................................533.3. Actual knowledge regarding management ...............................................57

3.3.1. Temporary storage.......................................................................583.3.2. Underground disposal of radioactive waste.......................................593.3.3. Storage in steel drums..................................................................603.3.4. Despatch to other countries...........................................................613.3.5. Dumping at sea ...........................................................................623.3.6. Average actual knowledge.............................................................63

3.4. Sources of information .........................................................................65


3/80


- 2 -

4. Publ ic opi n io n of un der gr oun d d ispo sal . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .7 0 4.1. The need for an urgent solution ........................................................714.2. What is the safe way to get rid of this waste?......................................724.3. Political unpopularity .......................................................................734.4. The underground disposal solution ....................................................74

5. The European d im ension of the m anagement of radioact ive w aste. . . .. . .. . .. . ..7 6

CONCLUSI ON .... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .7 8


4/80


- 3 -

I NTRODUCTI ON

The European Union's ene r gy po l i c y is of primary importance in the Community

strategy for sustainable development, supply and security.

At the end of 2000, the European Commission published a Green Paper on thesecurity of supply which emphasised the need for a common strategy and the

extension of the scope of Community powers in relation to energy, to give the

European Union more control over its destiny in this area1. It sketches out a long-termenergy strategy, and also undertakes an analysis of the medium-term contribution of

nuclear energy. It is expected that, in the absence of any action, the contribution ofnuclear energy will decline in the future. In examining the future contribution of

nuclear energy, the debate should consider questions such as climate change, thesecurity of the gas supply and sustainable development. Furthermore, research on the

safe management of nuclear waste should be actively pursued.

In 2004, a p r oposa l f o r a d i r ec t i ve stressed the importance of establishing a high

level of nuclear safety in the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive wastein the Member States in order to protect public health and the environment2.

In view of this, t he pu r pose o f t h i s s t udy is to analyse the opinion of EuropeanUnion citizens on the subject of nuclear energy, and radioactive waste in particular.

This survey was carried out by TNS Opinion & Social interviewing 24 708 citizens in the

25 Member States of the European Union between 9 February and 20 March 2005. Themethodology used is that of Eurobarometer surveys as carried out by the Directorate-

General for Press and Communication (Unit for Opinion Polls, Press Reviews, EuropeDirect). A technical note on the way in which interviews were conducted by the

Institutes within the TNS Opinion & Social network can be found annexed to thisreport. This note indicates the interview methods and the confidence intervals.

It should be noted that two studies have previously been carried out on this subject in

the Europe of 15, in late 1998 and late 20013. However, the questionnaires used forthese surveys have been adapted to reflect cyclical needs, with the aim of identifying

the main trends.

1 Green paper, " Towards a European Strategy for the Security of Energy Supply" [Com(2000) 769]2 Proposal of directive (Euratom) of Council on the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste[COM(2004) 526 final]

3 EB 50.0 EB Special 122 carried out in October-November 1998EB 56.2 EB Special 165 carried out in October-November 2001http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/eb_special_en.htm


5/80


- 4 -

This reports tackles the f o l lo w i n g t h e m e s in turn:

The perception of citizens of the European Union on the subjects of radioactivewaste and nuclear energy The risks involved in radioactive waste The management of radioactive waste

The final disposal of highly radioactive waste The European dimension of the management of radioactive waste

For each of these points, we shall analyse the results in terms of the European average

and the changes by comparison with the preceding surveys when this is possible. Wethen consider the current position by country and make some brief comments on the

socio-demographic variables of citizens of the European Union4.

4 All the tables can be found in the annexes. New rounding methods having been adopted during this survey,the figures shown may differ by a point with the sum of individual cells. It is should also be noted that totalpercentages given in the tables to this report may exceed 100% where respondents were able to giveseveral responses to a single question.


6/80


- 5 -

ANALYSI S

1 . The percep t ion o f rad ioac t i ve w aste and nu c lea r energy

The first part of this report will focus on what citizens of the European Union knowabout radioactive waste and their opinion of nuclear energy:

How well informed do they think they are about radioactive waste? What do they actually know about waste of this type? What is their opinion of nuclear energy?

1 . 1 . The l eve l o f i n f o r m a t ion abou t r ad ioact i ve w as t e

Questionnaire source: Q1

Let us first look at the changes in the perception of citizens of the Union regarding

their level of knowledge about radioactive waste. This question has already been posedin 1998 and in 2001.

- A l o w l e vel o f i n f o rma t i o n ,

b u t r i s in g s l i g h t l y -

At the beginning of 2005, three-quarters of citizens of the European Union felt that

they were 'not well informed' about radioactive waste (74%). In parallel, a quarter ofrespondents stated that they were well informed on this subject (25%). This

represents a slight rise in the number of well informed citizens by comparison with fouryears ago (+4 points).

Q1. Ho w well in fo rmed d o yo u th in k yo u are ab o u t rad io act ive waste? % EU

2 2 %

7 6 %

2 1%

7 7 %

2 5 %

7 4 %

Well inform ed

No t well informed

EB 50.0: 10-11/1999 EB 56.2: 10-11/2001 EB 63.2: 02/2005


7/80


- 6 -

Within the European Union, citizens in Sw eden seem best informed about radioactive

waste: one respondent in two in this country felt well-informed (51%). However,everywhere else, the level of information is decidedly lower and only a minority of the

people interviewed felt well-informed.

In Sloven ia and Fin land , however, more than four respondents in ten felt well-informed about this subject (46% and 43% respectively).

Fewer that one citizen in five felt well-informed about radioactive waste in Poland

(19%), Cyprus (18%), Aus t r i a (17%), Greece (16%), I t a l y (16%), Spain (15%)and Por t uga l (15%). The southern countries in the Union thus seem to suffer

particularly from a lack of information in this area.

Q1. Ho w well info rme d d o yo u th in k yo u are ab o u t rad io act ive waste?

2 5 %

5 1%

4 6 %

4 3 %

3 7 %

3 6 %

3 2 %

3 1%

3 1%

2 6 %

2 5 %

2 5 %

2 5 %

2 3 %

2 3 %

2 3 %

2 2 %

2 2 %

2 0 %

19%

18%

17%

16%

16%

15%

15%

7 4 %

4 9 %

5 4 %

5 6 %

6 3 %

6 3 %

6 8 %

6 8 %

6 8 %

7 1%

7 3 %

7 5 %

7 3 %

7 7 %

7 6 %

7 6 %

7 7 %

6 6 %

7 7 %

8 0 %

7 9 %

8 2 %

8 4 %

8 3 %

8 3 %

8 0 %

12%

0% 100%

EU25

SE

SI

FI

NL

DE

HU

DK

LU

IE

UK

CZ

SK

B E

EE

LV

FR

M T

LT

P L

CY

A T

EL

IT

ES

P T

Well informed Not well informed DK


8/80


- 7 -

Q1 How wel l in forme d do you th ink you are about rad ioac t ive was te?

Answers: Well inf ormed

41%- 50%

31%- 40%

21%- 30%

0% - 20%

Legend51%- 100%

Member St at es Result s

EU25 25%

Belgium 23%

Denm ark 31%

Germany 36%

Greece 16%

Spain 15%

France 22%

Ireland 26%

I ta l y 16%

Luxembourg 31%

The Nether lands 37%

Austr ia 17%

Portugal 15%

Finland 43%

Sweden 51%

United Kingdom 25%

Cyprus 18%

Cze ch Re pu bl i c 2 5%

Estonia 23%

Hungary 32%

Latv ia 23%

Li thuania 20%

Mal ta 22%

Poland 19%

Slovakia 25%

Slovenia 46%

The map below gives a graphic representation of the overall level of information in theMember States.


9/80


- 8 -

Socio-demographic analysis of the level of information of citizens of the European

Union concerning radioactive waste provides some important information. It appearsthat the profile of citizens of the Union stating that they are well-informed on this

subject is that of:

A man, A person over 40 years old, A respondent having studied until at least the age of 20, A citizen politically speaking rather to the left or right than in the centre, An executive or business manager, A person living in a large town.

An additional comparison of this question with the level of support for nuclear energyin general indicates that citizens favourable to this type of energy tend to feel better

informed than its opponents (35% vs. 20%).

Q1. We l l i n fo r m ed N o t w e l l i n fo r m ed

EU25 25% 74%

Sex

Male 29% 70%

Female 21% 78%

Ag e

15-24 19% 80%

25-39 22% 77%

40-54 27% 72%

55 + 28% 70%

Educat ion ( End o f )

15 18% 81%

16-19 25% 74%

20+ 34% 65%

Still Studying 23% 76%Lef t -R igh t sca le

(1-4) Left 29% 70%

(5-6) Centre 25% 75%

(7-10) Right 28% 71%

Respondent occupat ion sca le

Self-employed 27% 72%

Managers 36% 63%

Other white collars 24% 75%

Manual workers 20% 79%

House persons 16% 82%

Unemployed 22% 76%

Retired 28% 70%

Students 23% 76%

Sub jec t i v e u r ban i s a t i on

Rural village 23% 75%

Small/ mid size town 24% 76%

Large town 29% 70%

Suppo r t fo r nu c lea r ene r gy

In favour 35% 65%

Opposed 20% 79%


10/80


- 9 -

1 . 2 . Ac t ua l know ledge abou t r ad ioact i ve w as t e


During the course of the survey, the interviewees were given seven statements which

they had to state as being true or false. Analysis of responses to this quiz enables usto see the actual level of knowledge about radioactive waste.

- Eigh t r esponden ts ou t o f t en cons idered th a t a l l rad ioact i ve w aste i s very d angerous -

Among the seven statements tested on interviewees, we observed a very low level of

knowledge about how dangerous radioactive waste is. 79% of citizens of the EuropeanUnion think that all radioactive waste is very dangerous, although this statement is

false. Only 14% gave the right answer.

Next, more than seven out of ten citizens correctly identified the fact that certain

research centres produce radioactive waste (77%) and hospitals produce low-levelradioactive waste (73%). Also 71% of respondents recognised that there are several

categories of radioactive waste. Furthermore, two-thirds of interviewees think, rightly,that some non-nuclear industries also produce low-level radioactive waste (66%).

In contrast, only a minority of respondents know that highly radioactive waste is notsolely produced by nuclear reactors (35%). Finally, 37% of citizens of the European

Union believe that radioactive waste is produced in a similar quantity to otherdangerous waste, while 37% think the opposite. It should be noted that 26% were

unable to answer this question.

Q5. F o r eac h o f th e fo l lo wing s ta tem en ts , p lease te l l me wh eth er yo u th in k i t i s t ru e o r f a lse .

% E U

7 9 %

7 7 %

7 3 %

7 1%

3 5 %

8 %

16%

19%

3 7 %

4 5 %

6 6 %

14%

7 %

10%

10%

12%

3 7 % 2 6 %

19%

17%

2 2 %

0% 100%

All radioac tive waste is very dangerous

Co rrect answer : FALSE

Som e Research centers produce radioactive waste

Co rrect answer : TRUE

There are Ho spitals which pro duce

low level radioactive waste

Co rrect answer : TR UE

There are several categories of radioactive waste


Som e No n-nuclear industries produce

low level radioac tive waste


High level radioactive waste is

produced o nly in nuclear reacto rs

Correct answer : FALSE

Radioactive waste is produced in similar

quantities to other dangerous waste

Correct answer : FALSE

TRUE FA LSE DK


11/80


- 10 -

1 .2 .1 . The ex ten t o f danger f r om r ad ioact i ve w aste

The greatest lack of knowledge among citizens of the European Union relates to how

dangerous radioactive waste is: nearly eight out of ten interviewees gave the wronganswer, stating that all radioactive waste is very dangerous (79%). Only 14% of

respondents seemed to know that there are varying degrees of danger, and 8% gaveno answer.

By comparison with four years ago, we observe a growth in the percentage of citizensgiving the wrong answer to this question (+4 points).

From a socio-demographic point of view, more men, young people, citizens with higher

educational levels and people living in large towns tend to provide the right answer,stating that it is false to regard all radioactive waste as very dangerous. Furthermore,

citizens who feel they are well-informed on this subject and those in favour of nuclearenergy also tend to take this view.

Q5.7. False True DK

EU25 14% 79% 8%

SexMale 17% 77% 6%

Female 11% 80% 9%

Age

15-24 18% 75% 8%

25-39 17% 76% 7%

40-54 14% 80% 6%

55 + 9% 81% 10%


15 8% 80% 12%

16-19 13% 81% 7%

20+ 19% 75% 5%

Still Studying 19% 75% 5%Sub jec t i v e u r ban i s a t i on

Rural village 12% 79% 8%

Small/ mid size town 14% 79% 7%

Large town 16% 76% 8%

Lev el o f i n fo r m a t i on

Well informed 20% 76% 4%

Not well informed 12% 80% 8%


In favour 20% 75% 5%

Opposed 10% 83% 7%

Q5.7 . A l l rad io act ive waste is very d an gero u s - % EU

Co rrect an swer : "F a lse"

14%

14%

7 9 %

7 5 %

8 %

11%

0% 100%

EB 63.2: 02/2005

EB 56.2: 10-11/2001

False True DK


12/80


- 11 -

In the 25 Member States, a vast majority of respondents consider all radioactive waste

as very dangerous.

The Ne t he r lands is the country recording the highest rate of correct answers: a thirdof respondents claim that it is false to consider all radioactive waste as very dangerous

(34%). They are followed by the Sw edes (30%) and the Danish (27%).

In contrast, there is a very high level of ignorance of the existence of different degreesof danger from radioactive waste in Latv ia , Greece , Slovak ia and Poland . In thesecountries, 91% of respondents wrongly believe all radioactive waste to be very

dangerous.

Q5.7 . A l l radio act ive waste is very d an gero u s

Co rrect an swer : "F a lse"

14%

3 4 %

3 0 %

2 7 %

2 5 %

2 2 %

2 2 %

16%

13%

13%

12%

11%

11%

10%

9 %

9 %

9 %

9 %

8 %

6 %

5 %

5 %

5 %

4 %

4 %

4 %

7 9 %

5 9 %

6 5 %

7 4 %

6 2 %

7 9 %

8 0 %

8 5 %

8 3 %

8 8 %

7 6 %

7 4 %

8 7 %

7 7 %

8 1%

8 3 %

8 9 %

9 1%

9 0 %

8 9 %

9 1%

9 1%

8 9 %

9 1%

8 %

5 %

3 %

5 %

7 %

7 3 %

6 6 % 7 %

3 %

16%

12%

6 %

5 %

8 %

4 %

16%

14%

10%

8 %

7 %

5 %

5 %

4 %

3 %

5 %

0% 100%

EU25

NL

SE

DK

B E

FI

UK

FR

IT

SI

LU

CZ

M T

P T

DE

ES

IE

A T

HU

P L

CY

LT

SK

EL

EE

LV

False True DK


13/80


- 12 -

1 .2 .2 . The p roduct ion o f rad ioact i ve w aste by research cen t res

Across the European Union, more than three-quarters of citizens rightly consider that

some research centres produce radioactive waste (77%).

In Belg ium , Sw eden and Sloven ia, the rate of correct answers reached 87%. Therate is also very high in D e n m a r k (86%), Ger m any , the Czech Republ ic and

H u n g a r y (84%).

In contrast, citizens in I r e l an d , Por t uga l and Mal ta seem less aware of the

production of radioactive waste in some research centres. Although a majority ofcitizens are aware of the production of radioactive waste by certain research centres, it

was observed that a third of respondents in these countries were unable to answer thisquestion.

Q5.4 . So me Research cen ters p ro d u ce rad io act ive waste

Co rrec t an swer : "T ru e"

7 7 %

8 7 %

8 7 %

8 7 %

8 6 %

8 4 %

8 4 %

8 4 %

8 3 %

8 1%

8 0 %

8 0 %

7 9 %

7 9 %

7 6 %

7 5 %

7 2 %

7 2 %

7 0 %

6 9 %

6 9 %

6 8 %

6 3 %

5 9 %

5 7 %

5 4 %

7 %

8 %

5 %

3 %

7 %

6 %

5 %

5 %

10%

9 %

5 %

9 %

7 %

7 %

9 %

12%

5 %

7 %

10%

7 %

9 %

8 %

10%

13%

16%

8 %

2 4 %

3 2 %

3 3 %

7 %

7 %

3 3 %

2 6 %

17%

11%

10%

15%

10%

12%

16%

19%

18%

9 %

9 %

12%

5 %

2 0 %

2 5 %

16%

12%

2 8 %

6 %

0% 100%

EU25

B E

SE

SI

DK

DE

CZ

HU

NL

FR

FI

SK

LU

P L

LV

A T

EL

IT

UK

ES

EE

CY

LT

IE

P T

M T

True False DK


14/80


- 13 -

The fact that some research centres produce radioactive waste seems to be better

known among men, respondents of average age (25-54 years), citizens working asmanagers, self employed or white collar workers and people living in large towns.

There was also a higher non-response rate to this question among respondents aged

55 and over, respondents whose education had ended earlier, persons at home andthe retired.

Finally, citizens who consider themselves generally well-informed about radioactivewaste and those in favour of nuclear energy are more likely to know that some

research centres produce radioactive waste.

Q5.4. True False DK

EU25 77% 7% 16%

Sex

Male 80% 7% 12%

Female 73% 7% 19%

Ag e15-24 75% 11% 14%

25-39 80% 7% 13%

40-54 82% 6% 12%

55 + 71% 7% 22%

Educat ion (End o f )

15 66% 9% 25%

16-19 79% 7% 15%

20+ 85% 5% 10%

Still Studying 78% 11% 11%


Self-employed 82% 7% 11%

Managers 86% 5% 9%Other white collars 82% 8% 11%

Manual workers 78% 7% 15%

House persons 67% 8% 25%

Unemployed 77% 6% 17%

Retired 71% 7% 22%

Students 78% 11% 11%





Lev e l o f i n fo r m a t i on

Well informed 86% 6% 9%Not well informed 74% 8% 18%



Opposed 77% 8% 15%


15/80


- 14 -

1 .2 .3 . The p roduct ion o f rad ioact i ve w aste in hosp i ta l s

73% of citizens of the European Union state that hospitals can produce low-level

radioactive waste, 10% say that they do not, and 17% are unable to answer.

More than eight out of ten respondents gave the right answer - true - in t h e

Ne t he r lands (85%), Sloven ia (85%), Belg ium (84%) and Sweden (81%).

In some countries, although a small majority of citizens know that some hospitalsproduce low-level radioactive waste, the number of respondents either giving the

wrong answer or no answer at all is very high. This is the case in Cyprus, Estonia,

L i t huan ia and Latv ia . In Por t uga l, 50% of citizens recognise that hospitals can

produce low-level radioactive waste and 50% either give the wrong answer or fail toreply. Finally, in M al t a, fewer than one respondent in two gives the right answer

(49%) while 39% express no opinion.

Q5.2 . T h ere are Ho sp i ta ls wh ich p ro d u ce lo w leve l rad io act ive waste


7 3 %

8 5 %

8 5 %

8 4 %

8 1%

7 9 %

7 9 %

7 9 %

7 7 %

7 7 %

7 7 %

7 3 %

7 1%

7 1%

7 1%

7 1%

7 0 %

6 9 %

6 8 %

6 6 %

5 4 %

5 3 %

5 2 %

5 1%

5 0 %

4 9 %

10%

6 %

8 %

7 %

7 %

11%

11%

14%

11%

9 %

10%

8 %

5 %

14%

12%

11%

11%

14%

13%

16%

15%

16%

19%

12%

17%

7 %

2 0 %

3 3 %

3 1%

10%

7 %

3 9 %

2 1%

2 4 %

18%

12%

9 %

11%

12%

2 0 %

18%

15%

14%

14%

12%

9 %

3 4 %

3 1%

2 0 %

2 1%

3 3 %

6 %

0% 100%

EU25

NL

SI

B E

SE

FR

LU

FI

DE

CZ

HU

DK

ES

IE

UK

SK

P L

EL

A T

IT

CY

EE

LV

LT

P T

M T

True False DK


16/80


- 15 -

Men, people aged between 40 and 54 years, respondents who have studied up to at

least the age of 20 and professionals or business managers are more likely to be awareof the production of low-level radioactive waste in certain hospitals.

However, there is a higher rate of don't knows among citizens aged 55 and over,

respondents with a low level of education and women or men staying at home.

As was stated for the preceding statements, citizens stating that they are well-informed about radioactive waste and, to a lesser degree, those in favour of nuclearenergy are more likely to know that hospitals can produce low-level radioactive waste.

Q5.2. True False DK

EU25 73% 10% 17%

Sex

Male 77% 10% 14%

Female 69% 11% 20%

Ag e15-24 67% 15% 18%

25-39 75% 9% 15%

40-54 78% 9% 12%

55 + 69% 9% 22%


15 63% 12% 25%

16-19 74% 10% 16%

20+ 82% 7% 10%


Responden t occupat ion sca le


Managers 83% 7% 10%Other white collars 77% 11% 12%




Retired 69% 9% 21%







Opposed 72% 12% 17%


17/80


- 16 -

1 .2 .4 . The ex is tence o f d i f fe ren t t ypes o f rad ioact i ve w aste

In early 2005, 71% of interviewees in the European Union believed that there were

several categories of radioactive waste. This percentage of right answers was slightlydown on that recorded at the end of 2001 (-5 points). The number of respondents

believing that, on the contrary, there are not several categories of radioactive wasterose by 6 points, while those failing to answer fell by one point.

From a socio-demographic point of view, the existence of different types of radioactive

waste appears to be more generally recognised by men, respondents aged less than 55

years, citizens with a high educational level, students, town-dwellers, respondents whofeel well-informed about radioactive waste and those stating that they are in favour of

nuclear energy.

Q5.1. True False DK

EU25 71% 10% 19%

Sex

Male 75% 10% 15%

Female 68% 9% 23%Age

15-24 75% 10% 15%

25-39 75% 9% 16%

40-54 74% 10% 17%

55 + 64% 10% 25%


15 62% 11% 27%

16-19 72% 10% 18%

20+ 78% 8% 14%











Opposed 70% 11% 19%

Q5.1. T h ere are seve ra l ca teg o r ies o f rad io act ive waste - % EU

Co rrect an swer : "T ru e"

71%

76 %

10%

4 %

19%

2 0 %

0% 100%

EB 63.2: 02/2005

EB 56.2: 10-11/20 01

True False DK


18/80


- 17 -

In Sloven ia, more than nine out of ten citizens are aware that there are various

categories of radioactive waste (92%).

The next best-informed citizens regarding the existence of different types ofradioactive waste are to be found in Slovak ia (80%), Belg ium (79%), Sw eden

(79%) and Hungar y (79%).

However, there are higher levels of non-response for this factor in L i t huan ia (35%),as well as in Eston ia (31%) and Aus t r i a (30%).

Finally, the highest recorded level (16%) of citizens mistakenly claiming that there arenot several types of radioactive waste was found in the Czech Repub l ic .

Q5.1. T h ere are seve ra l ca teg o r ies o f rad io ac t ive waste


7 1%

9 2 %

8 0 %

7 9 %

7 9 %

7 9 %

7 5 %

7 5 %

7 4 %

7 4 %

7 4 %

7 3 %

7 3 %

7 2 %

7 2 %

7 1%

7 0 %

6 9 %

6 9 %

6 7 %

6 6 %

6 6 %

6 5 %

6 0 %

5 9 %

5 5 %

10%

3 %

9 %

11%

13%

6 %

9 %

6 %

13%

4 %

11%

4 %

6 %

10%

13%

6 %

4 %

7 %

7 %

12%

16%

9 %

11%

10%

19%

11%

2 7 %

3 1%

3 0 %

7 %

14% 8 %

19%

2 3 %

16%

2 2 %

2 7 %

4 %

10%

13%

12%

19%

18%

2 5 %

17%

18%

2 0 %

14%

2 3 %

2 2 %

2 6 %

3 5 %

0% 100%

EU25

SI

SK

B E

SE

HU

DE

LU

EL

FR

FI

IE

NL

CY

M T

DK

IT

ES

UK

P T

LV

P L

CZ

EE

A T

LT

True False DK


19/80


- 18 -

1 .2 .5 . The p roduct ion o f r ad ioact i ve w aste by non-nu c lear indust r ies

Two-thirds of the people interviewed in the European Union responded correctly to the

statement that some non-nuclear industries produce low-level radioactive waste(66%). 12% stated the opposite, and 22% were unable to give an opinion on this

question.

A very high percentage of citizens correctly answering that some non-nuclearindustries produce low-level radioactive waste was recorded in the Czech Republ ic(85%), Belg ium (81%), Sloven ia (80%) and Fin land (78%).

In Por t uga l, 20% of respondents do not believe that non-nuclear industries can

engender low-level radioactive waste and a further 35% are unable to express a view.A high percentage of 'don't knows' was also recorded for this question in L i t huan ia

(36%), Mal ta (36%), the Un i t ed K ingdom (33%), Cyprus (33%) and Aus t r i a

(33%).

Q5.3 . So m e No n -n uc lear ind u st r ies p ro d u ce lo w leve l rad io act ive waste


6 6 %

8 5 %

8 1%

8 0 %

7 8 %

7 3 %

7 2 %

7 2 %

7 0 %

6 7 %

6 7 %

6 7 %

6 7 %

6 6 %

6 5%

6 3%

6 2 %

6 1%

6 0 %

5 9 %

5 6 %

5 5 %

5 4 %

5 3 %

5 0 %

4 5 %

12%

8 %

12%

10%

8 %

10%

12%

15%

8 %

16%

17%

11%

12%

11%

15%

13%

16%

11%

11%

12%

13%

10%

14%

2 0 %

2 2 %

7 %

3 1%

3 6 %

3 6 %

10%

10% 10%

3 3 %

2 3 %

16%

3 3 %

3 3 %

7 %

12%

17%

2 0 %

2 6 %

2 3 %

2 7 %

17%

18%

18%

2 5 %

17%

2 3 %

2 4 %

3 5 %

0% 100%

EU25

CZ

B E

SI

FI

SE

DK

FR

P L

DE

ES

HU

SK

LU

NL

LV

IT

EE

EL

IE

UK

CY

A T

LT

M T

P T

True False DK


20/80


- 19 -

The socio-demographic characteristics of citizens of the European Union influence the

distribution of responses to this question.

Men, respondents aged between 25 and 54, people with a higher educational level,managers and the self employed are more likely to be aware that some non-nuclear

industries can produce low-level radioactive waste.

Furthermore, a high percentage of citizens unable to respond is found amongrespondents aged 55 and over, those with lower educational levels, people who stay athome and the retired.

Q5.3. True False DK

EU25 66% 12% 22%

Sex

Male 70% 12% 18%

Female 62% 13% 26%

Ag e

15-24 64% 18% 18%

25-39 69% 12% 19%

40-54 71% 11% 18%

55 + 59% 11% 30%


15 53% 13% 33%

16-19 68% 12% 20%

20+ 76% 9% 15%




Managers 78% 9% 14%

Other white collars 69% 12% 18%




Retired 59% 11% 30%






In favour 72% 12% 16%

Opposed 65% 13% 22%


21/80


- 20 -

1 .2 .6 . The p roduct ion o f r ad ioact i ve w aste by nuc lear reacto rs

A majority of respondents are mistaken as regards the production of high-level

radioactive waste. 45% think that this type of waste is only produced by nuclearreactors. The correct answer was only given by 35% of respondents. Furthermore,

19% were unable to express an opinion.

H u n g a r y is the only country where more than half the citizens correctly believe thathigh-level radioactive waste is not solely produced by nuclear reactors (56%).

Fewer than one interviewee in five in L i t huan ia (19%) and Aus t r i a (16%) gave thecorrect answer.

Q5.5 . H ig h leve l rad io act ive waste is p ro d u ced o n ly in n u c lear reacto rs

Co rrec t an swer : "F a lse"

3 5 %

5 6 %

4 8 %

4 1%

4 1%

4 0 %

4 0 %

3 8 %

3 6 %

3 5 %

3 5 %

3 4 %

3 4 %

3 3 %

3 3 %

3 2 %

3 2 %

3 0 %

2 9 %

2 9 %

2 9 %

2 9 %

2 6 %

2 4 %

19%

16%

4 5 %

3 7 %

3 3 %

5 2 %

5 1%

4 6 %

5 0 %

4 8 %

5 5 %

3 2 %

2 5 %

4 0 %

5 6 %

4 5 %

4 9 %

5 1%

6 2 %

4 1%

3 5 %

4 4 %

5 0 %

5 4 %

5 7 %

6 2 %

19%

19%

3 0 %

2 2 %

2 4 %

3 8 %

5 0 % 9 %

2 4 %

2 7 %

4 1%

2 7 %

3 6 %

6 %

7 %

2 2 %

8 %

2 3 %

19%

19%

14%

16%

17%

10%

3 4 %

11%

9 %

2 2 %

0% 100%

EU25

HU

FR

B E

CZ

IT

FI

SE

P L

EL

SI

UK

M T

CY

SK

ES

LU

EE

DE

IE

P T

LV

DK

NL

LT

A T

False True DK


22/80


- 21 -

An analysis of this aspect by interviewees' socio-demographic variables provides the

following information:

Men are less likely to be unable to answer this question than women, althoughthey more often give the wrong response.

Young people aged between 15 and 24 years, and students seem most awareof the fact that high-level radioactive waste is not only produced by nuclear

reactors. The more likely respondents are to live in an urban environment, the more

they tend to know the right answer. In contrast to what had been noted previously, the level of knowledge of

radioactive waste in general claimed by respondents had no influence on the

percentage of correct answers. On the contrary, more citizens who think theyare well-informed gave the wrong answer, whereas those who believe

themselves to be ill-informed registered a higher rate of 'don't knows'. The level of support for nuclear energy in general does not seem to influence

the distribution of responses in any significant fashion for this aspect.

Q5.5. False True DK

EU25 35% 45% 19%

Sex

Male 37% 48% 15%

Female 34% 42% 23%

Age

15-24 44% 39% 17%

25-39 41% 42% 18%

40-54 37% 47% 16%

55 + 26% 50% 24%

Educat ion ( End o f )15 27% 46% 27%

16-19 37% 46% 17%

20+ 38% 47% 15%









Suppo r t fo r nu c lea r ene r gyIn favour 37% 48% 15%

Opposed 36% 46% 18%


23/80


- 22 -

1 .2 .7 . The quan t i t y o f rad ioact i ve waste

Across the European Union, as many respondents gave the right answer (false) as the

wrong answer (true) in response to the statement that radioactive waste is producedin similar quantities to other dangerous waste, i.e. 37%. However, 26% of

interviewees were unable to give an opinion on this subject.

More than six out of ten citizens know that radioactive waste is not produced in similarquantities to other dangerous waste in Sw eden (64%), Fin land (63%) and t h eNe t he r lands (62%).

In contrast, more than six interviewees in ten (63%) answered this question

incorrectly in Greece , and only 13% gave the right answer.

Finally, the lowest level of right answers was recorded in Cyprus (7%), where 53% of

interviewees gave the wrong answer and 41% gave none.

Q5.6 . R ad io act ive waste is p ro d u ced in s imi la r q u an t it ies to o th er d an g ero u s

waste

Co rrec t an swer : "F a lse"

3 7 %

6 4 %

6 3 %

6 2 %

5 5 %

5 5 %

5 3 %

5 3 %4 6 %

4 3 %

4 2 %

3 9 %

3 7 %

3 6 %

3 5 %

3 4 %

2 9 %

2 9 %

2 7 %

2 6 %2 5 %

2 5 %

2 1%

17%

13%

7 %

3 7 %

14%

2 0 %

3 6 %

2 3 %

3 5 %3 8 %

3 0 %

2 5 %

3 9 %

3 1%

3 2 %

4 7 %

4 2 %

3 7 %

3 5 %

3 1%

4 9 %4 2 %

4 1%

3 7 %

4 8 %

6 3 %

5 3 %

2 6 %

17%

2 5 %

3 5 %

2 4 %

13%

2 9 %

4 1%

4 2 %

18%

2 3 %

3 3 %

2 7 %

11%17%

3 6 %

3 4 %

2 4 %

2 3 %

16%

8 %

2 3 %

3 3 %

3 5 %

3 2 %

3 2 %

4 2 %

2 5 %

0% 100%

EU25

SE

FI

NL

B E

CZ

DK

SIDE

HU

EE

IT

A T

LV

SK

P L

LU

LT

UK

FRES

IE

P T

M T

EL

CY

False True DK


24/80


25/80


- 24 -

1 .2 .8 . Average actua l kn ow ledge

By way of conclusion to this section detailing the actual knowledge of European Union

citizens regarding radioactive waste, a supplementary analysis of the average of theanswers given for the seven statements in this quiz provides some additional

information.

Across the European Union, the average of right answers reached 53%, the average ofwrong answers 29% and the average percentage of don't knows' is 18%.

Citizens achieving the highest average of right answers are found in Sw eden (65%),Belg ium (64%), Sloven ia (64%), Fin land (62%), t he Ne t he r lands (61%) and theCzech Republ i c (60%).

Conversely, respondents seemed on average to be less familiar with this subject inCyprus (42% right answers), M al t a (41%), Por t uga l (40%) and L i t huan ia (39%).

Q 5 . A V E R A G E O F A N S W E R S M E N T I ON E D A T T H E 7 I T E M S

5 3 %

6 5 %

6 4 %

6 4 %

6 2 %

6 1%

6 0 %

5 9 %

5 8 %

5 7 %

5 5 %

5 3 %

5 3 %

5 2 %

5 2 %

5 0 %

4 9 %

4 7 %

4 6 %

4 6 %

4 6 %

4 5 %

4 2 %

4 1%

4 0 %

3 9 %

2 9 %

2 2 %

2 9 %

2 9 %

2 7 %

2 3 %

3 1%

2 8 %

2 4 %

2 7 %

3 3 %

2 8 %

3 5 %

3 0 %

3 3 %

2 1%

2 8 %

3 5 %

2 8 %

3 0 %

3 0 %

3 1%

3 1%

2 8 %

2 9 %

3 2 %

18%

13%

6 %

7 %

11%

16%

10%

13%

18%

17%

11%

19%

12%

18%

16%

2 9 %

2 3 %

2 6 %

2 4 %

2 4 %

2 3 %

2 7 %

3 1%

3 1%

2 8 %

18%

0% 100%

EU25

SE

B E

SI

FI

NL

CZ

HU

DK

FR

DE

LU

SK

IT

P L

UK

ES

EL

IE

EE

LV

A T

CY

M T

P T

LT

Average of correct answers Average of wrong answers DK


26/80


- 25 -

Analysed by socio-demographic variables: On average, men are more likely to give the right answers, while a higher

proportion of women gave no response; Citizens aged 55 and over record a lower average of right answers, but a

higher average of 'don't knows';

The higher the level of their education, the more citizens' average of rightanswers rises;

The occupational category of managers seem the best informed on the subjectof radioactive waste; while the average non-response rate is highest amongpersons staying at home full-time retired;

Respondents living in an urban environment are generally more likely to givethe right answer;

Citizens who regard themselves as well-informed about radioactive wastedemonstrated, on average, better actual knowledge of this subject. However,

the rates of wrong responses appeared similar for citizens who say they are

well-informed and those who believe themselves to be not well informed. Thelatter registered a higher average percentage of non-responses;

Finally, citizens in favour of nuclear energy record a higher average of correctresponses by comparison with opponents of this type of energy.

Q5 .Average o f cor rec t

ans w er s

A v e r age o f w r ong

ans w er sDK

EU25 53% 29% 18%

Sex

Male 57% 29% 15%

Female 50% 29% 21%

Age

15-24 55% 29% 16%

25-39 56% 27% 16%

40-54 57% 28% 15%

55 + 47% 30% 23%


15 44% 30% 26%

16-19 54% 29% 17%

20+ 61% 26% 13%




Managers 62% 25% 13%





Retired 47% 30% 23%










In favour 59% 28% 13%

Opposed 52% 30% 17%


27/80


- 26 -

1 . 3 . The l eve l o f suppo r t f o r n uc lear ene r gy

The next three points in this report focus more particularly on the perception of nuclear

energy by citizens of the European Union. We shall first see to what extent theysupport this type of energy, before analysing whether the problem of radioactive waste

represents an argument for its opponents. Finally, we shall examine various opinionson the use of nuclear energy.


- A m i n o r i t y o f i n t e r v i e w e es i n f a vou r o f nuc lea r energy -

Across the European Union, 37% of interviewees say that they are in favour of energyproduced by nuclear power stations, while 55% are against it and 8% express no

opinion.

A detailed analysis of the percentage of supporters of this type of energy shows thatonly 7% of respondents are totally in favour, with 30% being 'fairly in favour'.

Among opponents, 31% of the people interviewed say they are 'fairly opposed' toenergy produced by nuclear power stations while 24% state that they are 'totally

opposed'. There is thus stronger opposition from the citizens of the Union who here

demonstrate a certain animosity towards nuclear energy.

Q2. A re yo u . . . t o en erg y p ro d u ced b y n u c lear p o wer s ta t io n s? % EU

7 % 3 0 % 3 1% 2 4 % 8 %

0% 100%

To tally in favo ur Fairly in favo ur Fairly o ppo sed To tally o ppo sed DK


28/80


- 27 -

Considerable differences of opinion emerged in different Member States regarding the

energy produced by nuclear power stations.

More than six out of ten citizens support this type of energy in Hungar y (65%),Sweden (64%), the Czech Republ ic (61%) and L i t huan ia (60%). It should be noted

that these countries follow a different nuclear policy. While Sweden proposes toabandon the nuclear route over the next forty years, the Czech Republic is undertaking

the construction of two new reactors.Furthermore, a majority of respondents also said they were in favour of nuclear energyin Fin land (58%), Slovakia (56%), France (52%), t he Nether lands (52%) andBelg ium (50%).

However, opponents of nuclear energy represent a very large majority of the population,primarily in Aust r ia where 88% of interviewees state that they are opposed to this type

of energy, but also in Greece (86%), Cyprus (81%), Spain (71%), I r e l a n d (70%),Poland (66%), Denm ar k (66%), I t a l y (66%) and Luxem bour g (65%). It should benoted that Austria has adopted a law prohibiting the operation of nuclear power stations

for the production of electricity, thus renouncing the use of nuclear energy. This countryhas also set itself the task of creating a nuclear energy free zone in central Europe. It is

against this background that Austria is in favour of closing down the Russian-designedCzech power station at Temelin, situated only 60 km from its border, and where the

opening of two new reactors is planned for 2015.

Finally, in Por t uga l around a quarter of interviewees were unable to give their opinion

on this question (26% of 'don't know' responses).

Q2. A re you to ta l ly in favo ur , fa i rly in favour , fa i r ly oppo sed or to ta l ly oppo sed to energy

produced by nuclear power s tat io ns?

37%

65 %

64 %

61%

60%

58%

56 %

52%

52 %

50%

44%

44 %

40 %

39 %

38%

31%

30%

29%

26 %

21%

17%

16%

13%

10%

9%

8%

55 %

31%

33 %

27%

40 %

41%

44%

48%

41%

54 %

50 %

49 %

59%

65 %

66%

66%

66%

53 %

62 %

71%

70 %

81%

86 %

88 %

8 %

3 %

2 6 %

10%

5 %

38%

3 7 %

17%

12%

10%

13%

2 1%

5 %

13%

4 %

4 %

4 %

5 %

5 %

5 %

7 %

15%

3 %

4 %

8 %

4 %

0% 100%

EU25

HU

SE

CZ

LT

FI

SK

FR

NL

B E

UK

SI

EE

LV

DE

LU

IT

DK

P L

P T

M T

ES

IE

CY

EL

A T

In favour Opposed DK


29/80


- 28 -

Q2 Are you t o ta l ly in favour, fa i r ly in favour, f a i r ly opposed or t o ta l ly opposedto energy produced by nuc lear power s ta t ions?

Answers: In favour

61%- 100%

41%- 60%

21%- 40%

0% - 20%

Legend

Member St at es Result s

EU25 37%

Belgium 50%

Denmark 29%

Germany 38%

Greece 9%

Spain 16%

France 52%

Ireland 13%

I ta l y 30%

Luxembourg 31%

The Nether lands 52%

Austr ia 8%

Portugal 21%

Finland 58%

Sweden 64%

United Kingdom 44%

Cyprus 10%

Cze ch Re pu bl i c 6 1%

Estonia 40%

Hungary 65%

Latv ia 39%

Li thuania 60%

Mal ta 17%

Poland 26%

Slovakia 56%

Slovenia 44%

The map below illustrates the percentage of supporters of energy produced by nuclearpower stations in the Member States.


30/80


- 29 -

The socio-demographic characteristics of respondents play a certain role in their

opinion regarding nuclear energy:

Although 46% of men expressed a favourable opinion towards this type ofenergy, this was true of only 29% of women (a differential of 17 points);

More citizens who have had a shorter education tend to opposenuclear energy;

Citizens positioning themselves politically speaking on the right seem morelikely to support nuclear energy, while supporters of the left tend to oppose it;

More professionals or business managers support this type of energy, incontrast to people staying at home full-time;

Citizens who are well-informed about radioactive waste appear more likely tosupport nuclear energy;

Finally, respondents' age and place of residence do not play a determining rolein their responses.

Q2. I n fav ou r Opposed D K

EU25 37% 55% 8%

Sex

Male 46% 49% 5%

Female 29% 60% 11%


15 28% 60% 12%

16-19 40% 53% 8%

20+ 43% 53% 4%


Lef t -R igh t sca le

(1-4) Left 34% 61% 5%

(5-6) Centre 40% 53% 7%

(7-10) Right 49% 46% 5%



Managers 49% 48% 3%





Retired 37% 53% 10%

Students 37% 56% 7%





31/80


- 30 -

1 . 4 . Pe r cep t i on o f t he p r ob lem o f r ad ioac t i ve w as t e


Opponents of nuclear energy were then asked to what extent they would be in favour

of it i f the problem of radioactive waste were resolved.

- A m a j o r i t y o f o p p o n e n ts o f n u c l ea r e n e rg y w o u l d n o t ch a n g e the i r op in ion i f t he i ssue o f nuc lear w aste w ere reso lved -

Fewer than four in ten of those opposed to energy produced by nuclear power stations

would change their minds if the question of radioactive waste were to be resolved(38%). In parallel, 57% of citizens opposed to this type of energy would continue to

hold this view even if the issue of waste were resolved.

Nevertheless, the survey found a majority of opponents prepared to change theirminds about this type of energy if a solution were found for radioactive waste inBelg ium (58%), t he Ne t he r lands (58%), Sw eden (51%), L i t huan ia (51%), M al t a

(51%), France (50%) and the Un i t ed K ingdom (48%).

Conversely, the resolution of the waste issue did not seem to have any influence onopponents of energy nuclear, most strikingly in Aus t r i a where 84% of opponents

remain opposed, but also in Por t uga l (72%) and Cyprus (72%).

Q 3 . IF " O P P O S E D T O T H E E N E R G Y P R O D U C E D B Y N U C L E A R P O W E R S T A T I O N S " :

And i f the issue of radioact ive waste was solved, would you then be to energy produced by

nuclear power stat ions?

38 %

58 %58 %

51%

51%

51%

50 %

48 %

41%

41%

40 %

38 %

36 %

36 %

34 %

34 %

33 %

33 %

32 %

30 %

30 %

30 %

25 %

23 %

21%

12%

57 %

41%38 %

43 %

47 %

46 %

56 %

57 %

57 %

58 %

61%

57 %

62 %

63 %

61%

64 %

66 %

58 %

67 %

67 %

72 %

64 %

72 %

84 %

5 %

3 %

12%

13%

7 %

4 4 %

34 %

3 %

4 %

4 %

3 %

6%

3 %

3 %

6%

3 %

3 %

16%

6%

4%

3 %

3 %

7 %

3 %

5 %

0% 100%

EU25

B E

NL

SE

LT

M T

FR

UK

DE

LU

DK

EE

CZ

P L

EL

SI

LV

SK

FI

ES

IT

HU

CY

IE

P T

A T

In favour Opposed DK


32/80


- 31 -

From a socio-demographic point of view:

Men and women opposed to nuclear energy would react in a similar fashion ifthe problems of radioactive waste were resolved;

More young people opposed to this type energy would adopt a favourableattitude to it if the waste issue were resolved.

Opponents with a lower educational level would remain opposed even if theobstacle of waste were removed;

Slightly more residents of large cities would adopt a more positive attitude tothis type of energy if the issue of radioactive waste were resolved;

More opponents who are well-informed about the waste issue in generalresponded similarly;

Finally, the political leanings of opponents of energy produced by nuclearpower stations do not appear to influence the distribution of responses.

Q3 . I n fav ou r Opposed D K

EU25 38% 57% 5%

Sex

Male 37% 58% 5%

Female 38% 56% 6%

Ag e

15-24 46% 49% 5%

25-39 39% 57% 4%

40-54 36% 59% 5%

55 + 34% 60% 7%


15 30% 63% 7%

16-19 40% 55% 5%

20+ 40% 56% 4%



(1-4) Left 38% 58% 4%

(5-6) Centre 40% 55% 5%

(7-10) Right 39% 58% 3%









33/80


- 32 -

1.5 . Op in ion s o f nuc lear energy


Let us now turn to the opinion of European Union citizens regarding three statementsabout nuclear energy.

1 .5 .1 . The d ive rs i f i ca t ion o f energy sources

Across the European Union, more than six out of ten respondents agree with the

statement that the use of nuclear energy enables European countries to diversify theirenergy sources (62%).

In Hungar y , the level of agreement with this principle reached 80%. Furthermore,

more than three-quarters of citizens also expressed agreement with this statement

in the Czech Republ ic (79%), t he Ne t he r lands (77%), Sw eden (77%) andSlovak ia (76%).

Conversely, more than half of all respondents in Aus t r i a did not agree that nuclear

energy brought the possibility of diversifying energy sources (56%).

Q4.1. T h e u se o f n u c lear en erg y en ab les Eu ro p ean c o u n t r ies to d ivers i f y the i r en erg y

s o u r c e s

6 2 %

8 0 %

7 9 %

7 7 %

7 7 %

7 6 %

7 4 %

7 2 %

6 9 %

6 9 %

6 8 %

6 8 %

6 6 %

6 5 %

6 3 %

6 2 %

5 7 %

5 7 %

5 6 %

5 3 %

5 1%

5 1%

4 1%

4 0 %

3 9 %

3 6 %

2 3 %

14%

16%

16%

18%

19%

2 2 %

2 0 %

13%

19%

19%

2 8 %

2 9 %

2 0 %

2 9 %

2 0 %

18%

16%

3 2 %

2 0 %

3 5 %

2 7 %

2 4 %

2 7 %

2 9 %

5 6 %

14%

6 %

5 %

7 %

5 %

5 %

4 %

8 %

18%

12%

13%

4 %

5 %

14%

8 %

18%

2 5 %

11%

2 6 %

14%

2 2 %

3 5 %

3 3 %

3 2 %

8 %

2 7 %

0% 100%

EU25

HU

CZ

NL

SE

SK

B E

DK

LT

FR

EE

SI

FI

P L

DE

LV

P T

UK

IT

ES

LU

EL

IE

M T

CY

A T

Agree Disagree DK


34/80


- 33 -

1.5.2 . Dependence on o i l

61% of citizens of the European Union believe that we could reduce our dependence on

oil if we were to use more nuclear energy, and 27% disagree.

In Sw eden, 85% of the population agree with this statement. Elsewhere, 75% ofrespondents agreed with the statement in Hungar y , 74% in D e n m a r k , 72% in t h e

Ne t he r lands and 71% in Fin land .

As was observed in the case of the diversification of energy sources through the use of

nuclear energy, a majority of people interviewed in Aus t r i a did not agree that theincreased use of nuclear energy would enable us to reduce dependency on oil (58%). A

majority took the same view in L u x e m b o u r g (45%) and Greece (44%.

Q4.2 . We co u ld red u ce o u r d ep en d en ce o n o i l if we u se m o re n u c lear en erg y

6 1%

8 5 %

7 5 %

7 4 %

7 2 %

7 1%

6 9 %

6 6 %

6 4 %

6 4 %

6 4 %

6 1%

6 0 %

6 0 %

6 0 %

5 9 %

5 6 %

5 4 %

4 9 %

4 8 %

4 7 %

4 6 %

4 4 %

4 2 %

3 9 %

3 4 %

2 7 %

12%

18%

19%

2 1%

2 4 %

2 8 %

16%

3 0 %

2 8 %

2 5 %

2 6 %

3 2 %

3 4 %

2 5 %

2 2 %

3 4 %

19%

2 5 %

2 9 %

2 9 %

3 5 %

4 5 %

3 3 %

4 4 %

5 8 %

12%

3 %

6 %

7 %

6 %

5 %

3 %

18%

6 %

8 %

11%

13%

8 %

6 %

15%

19%

10%

2 7 %

2 3 %

2 4 %

2 0 %

12%

2 5 %

17%

8 %

2 6 %

0% 100%

EU25

SE

HU

DK

NL

FI

B E

UK

DE

SK

FR

EE

CZ

SI

P L

LT

IT

P T

IE

ES

M T

LV

LU

CY

EL

A T

Agree Disagree DK


35/80


- 34 -

1.5.3 . The em ission o f greenhou se gases

The third statement submitted to respondents was as follows: 'An advantage of nuclearpower is that it produces less greenhouse gas emissions than other energy sources

such as oil or coal' This question had been asked towards the end of 2001, but theexample of oil or coal was not included in the wording.

In early 2005, 62% of citizens of the European Union agreed with the statement thatnuclear power is advantageous in terms of producing less greenhouse gas emissions.

This represents a 21 point rise on the rate of agreement measured in late 2001.Furthermore, the percentage of respondents who did not agree with this principle

registered a slight fall (-2 points).

The considerable rise in the agreement rate thus mainly represents the fall in the

percentage of interviewees who were unable to give an answer about this aspect fouryears ago, and who were now expressing an opinion (non-response rate down by 19

points).

It may be presumed that this increased willingness to take up a position is in part dueto the precision provided in 2005 by the wording of the question, which then gave two

examples of energy producing significant greenhouse gas emissions, i.e. oil and coal.

On the other hand, the media coverage of the Kyoto Agreement, the internationalagreement aimed at reducing countries' greenhouse gas emissions, and its

implementation since the start of 2005, may also have played a part.

Q4.3 . An ad van tag e o f n u c lear p o wer is th a t i t p ro d u ces less g reen h o u se g as

emiss io n s th an o th er en erg y so u rces s u ch as o i l o r co a l - % EU

3 8 %

2 1%

4 1%

19%

19%

6 2 %

DK

Disagree

Agree

EB 56.2: 10-11/2001 EB 63.2: 02/2005


36/80


- 35 -

In 2005, the advantage of nuclear energy by comparison with others types of energy

discharging more greenhouses gases seemed to be most recognised in Sw eden.Almost nine out of ten respondents in that country are aware of this advantage (87%).

Furthermore, more than three-quarters of respondents answered in the same way inFin land (79%), the Czech Republ ic (77%) and Belg ium (76%).

Turning to those less convinced of this advantage of nuclear energy, Aus t r i ans once

again expressed their reluctance, with a majority of respondents in this country (44%)disagreeing with this statement.

Finally, more than a third of people interviewed were unable to give an opinion on thisquestion in I r e l a n d (38%), Por t uga l (35%), Cyprus (32%) and Spain (32%).

Q4.3 . An ad van tag e o f n u c lear p o wer is th a t i t p ro d u ces less g reen h o u se g as em iss io n s

th an o th er en erg y so u rces su ch as o i l o r co a l

6 2 %

8 7 %

7 9 %

7 7 %

7 6 %

7 4 %

7 2 %

7 2 %

7 1%

7 0 %

6 9 %

6 6 %

6 6 %

6 5 %

6 4 %

6 2 %

5 6 %

5 4 %

5 4 %

5 3 %

4 8 %

4 5 %

4 1%

4 1%

4 0 %

4 0 %

19%

5 %

13%

15%

16%

11%

13%

19%

19%

13%

2 0 %

15%

12%

13%

19%

11%

2 0 %

2 8 %

17%

3 1%

2 0 %

2 2 %

2 4 %

4 4 %

2 9 %

2 2 %

19%

8 %

7 %

8 %

8 %

15%

14%

9 %

10%

18%

11%

19%

2 2 %

2 2 %

17%

2 7 %

2 4 %

2 9 %

17%

3 2 %

3 2 %

3 5 %

15%

3 0 %

3 8 %

18%

0% 100%

EU25

SE

FI

CZ

B E

NL

HU

DE

SI

DK

SK

EE

LT

FR

P L

UK

LV

LU

M T

IT

CY

ES

P T

A T

EL

IE

Agree Disagree DK


37/80


- 36 -

The socio-demographic analysis of levels of agreement with these three statements(1.5.1, 1.5.2, 1.5.3) reveals the following:

More men seemed to agree with the three propositions studied here; Although the possibility of diversifying energy sources through the use ofnuclear energy appears to be recognised less by respondents aged 55 and

over, the reduced greenhouse gas emissions from this type of energy seems

less widely acknowledged by young people aged between 15 and 24 years;

The higher the educational level of the interviewees, the more they agreedwith the three statements;

Generally speaking, citizens positioning themselves on the right politically alsoagreed with the statements; while supporters of the left showed themselves to

be more reluctant to agree with the three principles set out in this question;

A higher level of agreement was obtained among managers and conversely, alower percentage among people staying at home;

The level of agreement among people living in large towns was slightly higherthan among rural dwellers.

Citizens regarding themselves as well-informed about radioactive waste ingeneral are more likely to agree that nuclear energy has these threeadvantages the diversification of energy sources, less dependence on oil and

lesser greenhouse gas emissions;

Finally, the greatest divergence of opinion about these three statementsappears, logically enough, between those supporting nuclear energy and its

opponents. While supporters of this type of energy broadly express theirapproval of these three principles (at rates varying between 82% and 87%),opponents take a more cautious position. It should be noted, however, that a

significant proportion of opponents also agreed with these three statements(varying between 49% and 52%).

The table on the following page shows the percentages of agreement obtained for each

of the three statements by socio-demographic category.


38/80


- 37 -

Q4 .

% A gr ee

The use o f nuc lear

energy enab les Europ ean

c oun t r i es to d i v e r s i f ythe i r ene r gy s ou r c es

We c ou ld r educ e ou r

dependence on o i l i f w eus e mor e nu c lea r ene r gy

An advantage o f nuc learpow er i s tha t i t p r oduc es

less greenhouse gas

emis s ions than o t he renergy sou rces such as

o i l o r coa l

EU25 62% 61% 62%

Sex

Male 68% 66% 69%

Female 57% 56% 56%

Age

15-24 63% 60% 59%

25-39 65% 62% 63%

40-54 64% 62% 64%

55 + 59% 60% 61%


15 52% 52% 51%16-19 65% 62% 64%

20+ 69% 68% 71%



(1-4) Left 62% 59% 63%

(5-6) Centre 65% 64% 65%

(7-10) Right 71% 70% 69%



Managers 71% 71% 73%





Retired 61% 61% 62%










In favour 87% 82% 83%

Opposed 50% 49% 52%


39/80


- 38 -

2 . The percep t ion o f t he r i sk o f rad ioac t i ve w aste

In this section, we shall first see how citizens of the European Union perceive the risksassociated with the transport and storage of radioactive waste. We shall then analyse

their fears regarding the possible construction of a disposal site in their

neighbourhood, before considering what role they would wish to play in decision-making regarding the construction of such a site.

2.1 . Transpor t


- Seven ou t o f ten peop le be l ieve the t ranspor t o f l ow - leve l rad ioact i ve w aste p resen ts a r i sk -

A vast majority of the people interviewed believe that transporting low-level

radioactive waste carries risks (71%). Among these, 42% state that transporting this

type of waste represents a high risk and 29% even state that it represents a very highrisk.

Furthermore, while nearly a quarter of respondents see a low risk in this type of

transport (23%), only 2% of respondents believe that the transport of low-levelradioactive waste represents no risk at all.

Q7. D o you th ink tha t the t ranspor t o f lo w leve l radioac t ive was te is som eth ing tha t represents?

29% 42% 2 3% 2 % 3%

0% 100%

A very high risk A fairly high risk A lo w risk No risk at all DK


40/80


- 39 -

Although a vast majority of citizens of the European Union acknowledge a major risk in

the transport of low-level radioactive waste, nevertheless some divergences of opinionbetween the Member States are observed.

The citizens who seem to fear this type of transport most live in Greece , I r e l a n d andAus t r i a . In these three countries, (more than) one out of two respondents stated thatthe transport of this type of waste represents a very high risk.

The opinion of the risk involved when transporting low-level radioactive waste appearsto be more qualified in other countries. This is the case in Belg ium where a proportion

of 23% of respondents perceive a very high risk, 36% a high risk and 37% a low risk,Sweden (18%, 41%, 37%), D e n m a r k (16%, 37%, 37%) and t he Ne t he r lands

(15%, 38%, 41%).

Finally, the response 'presents no risk at all' was given by a very low percentage of

respondents across all 25 Member States.

Q7 . Do y o u t h i n k t h a t t h e t r a n s p o r t o f l o w l e v e l r a d i o a c t iv e w a s t e i ss o m e t h i n g t h a t r e p r e s e n t s ?

29 %

55 %

53 %

50 %

46 %

46 %

38 %

37 %36 %

36 %

35 %

34 %

34 %

33 %

30 %

28 %

28 %

24 %

23 %

23 %

23 %

23 %

21%

18%

16%

15%

42 %

35 %

30 %

34 %

40 %

46 %45 %

48 %

36 %

46 %

38 %

34 %

46 %

44 %

39 %

42 %

36 %

39 %

43 %

41%

50 %

41%

37 %

38 %

23%

11%

12%

33%

37%

37 %

3%

3%

5%

3%34%

42 %

4 1%

37%

17%

12%

25 %

13%

12%

10%

26%

2 9%

2 3%

18%

7%

15%

7%

28%

29%

25%

19%

24%

13%

7%

4 %

4 %

7%

6%

4%

8%

5%

6%

3%

0% 100%

EU25

EL

IE

A T

CY

LV

HU

IT

P T

P L

LU

ES

SI

M T

LT

FI

CZ

EE

B E

DE

FR

UK

SK

SE

DK

NL

A very high risk A fairly high risk A low risk No risk at all DK


41/80


- 40 -

The perception of risk in the transport of low-level radioactive waste varies in

accordance with the socio-demographic characteristics of the people interviewed:

Women seem more afraid of the transport of low-level radioactive waste thanmen;

All age categories respond in a fairly similar way regarding their perception ofthese risks, although more older people regard the transport of this type of

waste as very risky; Respondents who had studied until a maximum age of 15 seem more likely to

perceive a very high risk whereas those who studied until at least the age of 20

years are more likely to see a low risk; More citizens positioning themselves on the left politically speaking expressed a

more pronounced fear in relation to this type of transport, as did peoplestaying at home full-time;

Citizens considering themselves to be well-informed about radioactive wasteare more likely to consider the risk of such transport to be low;

Finally, supporters of nuclear energy feared the transport of low-levelradioactive waste less than its opponents.

Q7 . A v e r yh igh r i s k A fa i r l yh igh r i s k A l ow r i s k No r isk a ta l l DK

EU25 29% 42% 23% 2% 3%

Sex

Male 26% 40% 29% 3% 2%

Female 32% 44% 18% 1% 5%

Age

15-24 26% 46% 22% 2% 4%

25-39 29% 43% 24% 2% 2%

40-54 29% 42% 25% 2% 2%

55 + 31% 39% 22% 2% 5%


15 36% 39% 17% 2% 6%16-19 29% 43% 23% 2% 3%

20+ 23% 42% 31% 2% 2%

Still Studying 25% 48% 22% 2% 3%


(1-4) Left 30% 41% 24% 1% 3%

(5-6) Centre 27% 43% 25% 2% 2%

(7-10) Right 25% 41% 29% 3% 2%


Self-employed 26% 42% 28% 2% 2%

Managers 21% 39% 35% 3% 2%

Other white collars 29% 42% 25% 2% 3%

Manual workers 30% 42% 23% 2% 3%House persons 36% 42% 14% 1% 6%

Unemployed 29% 46% 20% 2% 4%

Retired 31% 40% 21% 2% 5%

Students 25% 48% 22% 2% 3%


Well informed 23% 40% 32% 3% 2%

Not well informed 31% 43% 21% 2% 4%


In favour 17% 40% 37% 4% 2%

Opposed 38% 44% 15% 1% 2%


42/80


- 41 -

2.2 . Sto r age


- Th ree-quar te r s o f c i t i zens o f the Un ion cons ide r tha t the s to r age o f l ow- leve l rad ioact i ve w aste p resen ts a r i sk -

Citizens of the European Union perceive the risks associated with the storage of low-level radioactive waste in a similar way to those associated with its transport. Thus, amajority of respondents believe that this storage represents a high risk (44%, the

result being 42% for transport) and 30% a very high risk (29% for transport). Onecitizen in five perceives a low risk in the storage of this type of waste (21%, 23% for

transport).

More than one in two respondents stated that the storage of low-level radioactive waste

represents a very high risk in Greece (56%), Aust r ia (52%) and Cyprus (50%).

On the other hand, this risk is perceived as being much lower, in Sweden primarilywhere 40% of citizens think that the storage of this type of waste carries a low risk.

More than a third of respondents also gave this answer in D e n m a r k (37%), t h e

Ne t he r lands (36%), Belg ium (35%) and the Un i t ed K ingdom (33%).

Analysis of this question by socio-demographic variables reveals the sameobservations as those described above for the risks of the transport of low-level

radioactive waste.

Q6 . Do y o u t h i n k t h a t t h e s t o r a g e o f l o w l e v e l r a d i o a c t i v e w a s t e i ss o m e t h i n g t h a t r e p r e s e n t s ?

30 %

56%

52%

50 %

48%

44 %

40%

39%

38 %

36 %

36 %

35 %

35%

33%

32%

29%

27%

25 %

25 %

24 %

24 %

21%

19%

15%

14%

13%

44%

34 %

34 %

33 %

46 %

39 %

47 %

39 %

33 %

44%

48%

48%

43%

42 %

44 %

47 %

54 %

49 %

46%

41%

40 %

45%

41%

42 %

2 1%

10%

18%

2 3 %

3 6 %

3 7 %

4 %

2 %

3 %

4 %

44 %

2 8 %

3 3 %

11%

13%

3 5 %

2 6 %

8 %

12%

8 %

11%

2 5 %

2 7 %

2 2 %

10%

17%

2 1%

2 0 %

11%

2 3 %

19%

4 0 %

3 %

1%

2 %

7 %

4 %

1%

1%

2 %

4 %

4 %

5 %

3 %

7 %

6 %

2 %

2 %

10%

7 %

2 %

2 %

10%

4 %

0% 100%

EU25

EL

AT

CY

IE

LV

P L

HU

IT

LU

M T

PT

LT

ES

SI

CZ

DE

EE

SK

FR

FI

BE

UK

NL

DK

SE

A very high risk A fairly high risk A low risk No risk at all DK


43/80


- 42 -

2.3 . Fears regard ing t he cons t ru c t ion o f a d isposa l si t e


In order to measure European citizens' fears regarding the disposal of radioactive

waste with more precision, they were asked what aspect, in the event of theconstruction of an underground disposal site for radioactive waste near their home,

worried them most.

- The ef fec ts o f rad ioact i ve w aste on the env i ronm ent and hea l th rep resen t

the m a in concern fo r Europeans -

Across the European Union, the main fear expressed regarding the hypothetical

construction of an underground disposal site for radioactive waste near their home isthe possible impact on the environment and health, a concern mentioned by 53% of

citizens of the European Union.

Next, 28% of respondents feared the risks of radioactive leaks when the site is inoperation.

The other responses came a long way behind. 7% of interviewees are worried aboutthe transport of waste to the disposal site, 4% feared a possible terrorist attack and

finally 3% were worried about a major drop in local property prices.

The same type of question had already been asked in late 2001, but since the possibleresponses were considerably modified between the two surveys, a comparative

analysis of the results is difficult. However, it can be noted that in 2001, the principle

concerns were the same as in 2005, namely the possible impact on health and theenvironment in hundreds or thousands of years (38%) and the risk of radioactive leaks

when the site is in operation (39%). The risks in transporting waste to the disposal siteconcerned 11% of people interviewed at the time.

Q13. I f a d eep u n d ergro u n d d ispo sa l s i t e fo r rad io act ive waste were to b e b u i lt

n ear yo u r h o me, wh at wo u ld wo rry yo u m o st ? % EU

No ne of these; 2%

A m ajor drop in local

property prices; 3%

The risks due to a

terrorist attack; 4%

DK; 2%

Other; 1%

Transport of waste to

the dispos al site; 7%

The risks o f radioact ive

leaks while the site is in

operation; 28%

The possible effects o n

the environment and

health; 53%


44/80


- 43 -

The majority of respondents in all Member States mentioned the possibleimpact on the environment and health as their main worry, with the exceptionof Slovakia where a narrow majority of respondents were more concerned

about the risk of leaks when the site is in operation. The risks to health and environment posed by such a site close to them most

worried citizens in Cyprus (70%), Lithuania (69%), Malta (68%), Greece(66%), Finland (61%) and Slovenia (61%).

As has been mentioned, a majority of Slovaks were anxious about the risk ofleaks (44%). In France more than a third of respondents answered similarly(36%).

The citizens most worried about the transport of waste to this undergrounddisposal site are predominantly in Sweden (24%) and to a lesser extent in

Finland (15%). The risk of a terrorist attack is of slightly less concern for the Danes (7%),

Swedes (7%) and Germans (6%). Finally, respondents in Sweden (8%), the Netherlands (7%) and Finland (7%)

are slightly more concerned than their neighbours about a major drop in

property prices in their area.

Q13.

The poss ib le

e f fec ts on theenv i ronmen t and

hea l th

The r i sks o frad i oac t i ve

l eaks w h i l e

the s i te i s i n

ope ra t i on

T ranspo r t o fw a s t e t o t h e

d isposa l s i te

The r i sks

due to ate r ro r i s t

a t tack

A m a j o r d r o p

in loca lp r o p e r t y

pr i ces

None o f

these( SPONTANE-

OUS)

Othe r(SPONTANE-

OUS)

DK

EU2 5 5 3% 2 8% 7 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 % 2 %

BE 55% 31% 7% 2% 3% 1% 0% 1%

DK 43% 30% 11% 7 % 4% 1% 0% 4%

DE 58% 22% 8% 6 % 3% 3% 0% 0%

EL 6 6 % 27% 2% 1% 1% 3% 1% 0%

ES 49% 30% 8% 2% 0% 2% 1% 7%

FR 49% 3 6 % 6% 3% 3% 2% 1% 1%IE 42% 31% 9% 5% 3% 2% 5% 4%

IT 53% 25% 7% 5% 3% 2% 1% 3%

LU 52% 31% 6% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3%

NL 45% 29% 10% 5% 7 % 2% 0% 1%

AT 54% 25% 8% 4% 2% 5% 1% 2%

PT 56% 24% 7% 1% 1% 3% 0% 9%

FI 6 1 % 12% 15 % 4% 7 % 2% 0% 1%

SE 41% 18% 2 4% 7 % 8 % 2% 1% 0%

UK 48% 27% 8% 4% 6% 2% 1% 2%

CY 7 0 % 25% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0%

CZ 52% 30% 6% 5% 4% 2% 0% 1%

EE 60% 25% 6% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3%HU 56% 26% 8% 4% 3% 2% 0% 1%

LV 60% 28% 5% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2%

LT 6 9 % 18% 3% 2% 1% 3% 1% 3%

MT 6 8 % 17% 6% 1% 5% 2% 0% 2%

PL 58% 30% 5% 3% 1% 2% - 1%

SK 41% 4 4 % 6% 4% 2% 1% 0% 2%

SI 6 1 % 31% 3% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0%


45/80


- 44 -

When analysed in terms of interviewees' socio-demographic characteristics:

More women seemed concerned by the possible impact on the environmentand health of the construction of such a site (differential of 9 points bycomparison with men). Slightly more men worry about the risk from leaks and

the transport of waste to the disposal site.

Respondents aged 55 and over seem to fear the possible impact ofunderground disposal on the environment and health less, in contrast tostudents who are the most concerned by this question.

A slightly higher percentage of citizens positioning themselves in the centrepolitically speaking are

Documents

2005 06 Nucelar Waste En