are at least two other reasons for involving the public in decisions about nuclear energy. First, without public cooperation, in the form of political support, observance of safety rules, and reasonable use of the court system, nuclear power cannot be managed effectively. Second, as a democracy, we cannot ignore the beliefs and desires of our society's members (21).

While public perspectives already are reflected to some extent in NRC decisions, further efforts could be made to involve the public. More research could be conducted to define and quantify public opinion, and dialog with nuclear critics could be expanded with more attention paid to the substance of their concerns. Perhaps the most

important step in reducing public fears of nuclear power is improved management of operating reactors to eliminate or greatly reduce accidents and other operating difficulties. Even though accidents at commercial reactors in the United States have never caused a civilian death, the public views both accidents and less serious events at operating reactors as precursors to a catastrophe. An accident with disastrous consequences already is viewed as being much more likely than technical studies and experts project, and any continuation of accidents or operating problems will tend to confirm that perception. Approaches to increasing public acceptance are discussed in the conclusion of this chapter.

Which is More Important? Some analysts of public opinion have argued that basic values-those things that people view as most morally desirable-play a relatively small role in influencing people's attitudes toward nuclear power. For example, Mazur has argued that most of the general public, unlike energy activists, do not "embed their positions for or against a technology in a larger ideological framework of social and political beliefs" (41). In addition, nuclear advocates sometimes suggest that it is primarily a lack of knowledge which leads people to oppose nuclear energy, and that better education programs would increase public acceptance (13,42). However, as discussed below, the available evidence calls both arguments into question.

Although energy experts who are very knowledgeable about nuclear power generally support the technology, studies of the effects of slightly increased knowledge on attitudes among the broader public have yielded mixed conclusions. Two studies found greater support for nuclear power among more knowledgeable persons, but another found the opposite, and several studies have found no significant relationship (46). For example, a 1979 survey conducted just prior to the TMI accident revealed only a very weak rela

tionship between knowledge about nuclear power and support for the technology among the general public. These findings supported a "selective perception" hypothesis in which those strongly favoring or strongly opposing nuclear energy selected and used information to bolster their arguments. Attitudes toward nuclear power among all respondents were influenced heavily by preexisting political beliefs and values (58). These results could help to explain why the accident at TMI appeared to have little impact on some people's opinions about safety. For those who already were firmly convinced that nuclear power was safe, the accident confirmed the effectiveness of safety systems. For those who were skeptical, it reinforced uncertainties.

A recent analysis of national survey data provides additional evidence that people's values and general orientations may be stronger determinants of nuclear power attitudes than specific knowledge about energy or nuclear power issues. In this study, sociologist Robert Mitchell tested the strength of the correlation between various "irrational" factors-such as belief that a nuclear plant can explode-and people's assessments of reactor safety. While the analysis showed that the public was generally misinformed about energy issues, this lack of knowledge appeared to have little effect on attitudes toward nuclear safety and

hence on overall attitudes toward nuclear power. When Mitchell went on to test the correlation between values and attitudes toward reactor safety, he found a much stronger relationship. Environmentalism was associated closely with concern about nuclear safety among women, while skepticism about whether the future benefits of scientific research would outweigh the resulting problems appeared to have a strong influence on men's concerns about reactor safety (46). Several other studies also indicate that values have played an important role in both the growth of the antinuclear movement and continued support for nuclear power (8,27,32).

Values

A value has been defined as "an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferred" (61). While all people share the same values to some degree, each individual places different priorities on different values. This ordering of the absolute values we are taught as children leads to the development of an integrated set of beliefs, or value system. Because values have their origins in culture and society, changes in societal expectations can, over time, lead to changes in an individual's value system.

During the 1960's and 1970's, the emergence of new social movements both reflected and encouraged changes in the priority some Americans placed on different values. Values that appeared to become more prominent to many people included equality of all people, environmental beauty, and world peace. Critics of nuclear power (and, to a lesser extent, proponents) were successful in attracting broader public support by appealing to these emerging values, and by linking their organizing efforts with the related peace, feminist, and environmental movements. Until a convincing case is made that nuclear power is at least as consistent with these values as other energy sources, it will have difficulty gaining acceptance with those who place a high priority on these values.

Overall, Americans are very supportive of science and technology, viewing them as the best routes to economic progress (39). The public's

enthusiasm is reflected in the current computer boom and in the emergence of a flood of science magazines such as Omni, Discover, Science 83, and Technology as well as new television programs including "Cosmos," "Life on Earth," and "Nova," and the reliance on high technology by both major political parties. However, this support is tempered by a growing concern about the unwanted byproducts of science, including accelerating social change, the threat of nuclear war, and environmental pollution. The National Opinion Research Center recently compared a national poll of adult attitudes toward science taken in 1979 with a similar survey conducted in 1957. They found that, over the 20-year period, an increasing number of survey respondents believed that "science makes life change too fast"' or "breaks down people's ideas of right and wrong." The percentage of respondents who believed that the benefits of science outweigh the harms declined from 88 percent in 1957 to 70 percent in 1979 (46). This curious duality of attitudes may help to explain the public's ambivalent attitude toward nuclear power. While acceptance of the technology has declined, the rate of change has been slow, and votes on referenda have demonstrated that Americans are unwilling to forego the nuclear option entirely.

One of the most undesired products of modern science is the threat of nuclear war. Because of the technological and institutional links between nuclear power and nuclear weapons, opposition to buildup of nuclear weapons leads some people also to oppose development of civilian nuclear energy. AEC, which developed and tested weapons after World War II, was the original promoter of commercial nuclear power. In the late 1950's and early 1960's, growing public concern about radioactive fallout from AEC's atomic bomb testing provided a context for increasing fears about the possibility of radioactive releases from nuclear powerplants. Some prominent scientists spoke out against both nuclear power and nuclear weapons, and links developed between groups opposing the arms race and nuclear power (48). However, after the United States and the Soviet Union signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963, concerns about both nuclear fallout and nuclear power temporarily subsided.

Since the mid-1970's, rapid international development of nuclear power and growing global tensions have led to increasing concern about the possible proliferation of nuclear weapons from nuclear power technologies. Organizers in the peace movement and nuclear critics have built on this concern in an attempt to renew the early linkages between the two movements. Case studies of the Maine Yankee and Diablo Canyon nuclear plants indicate that concern about nuclear weapons contributed to opposition to these plants during the late 1970's and early 1980's (see Case Studies).

Today, a single Federal agency-the Department of Energy-still is responsible for research and development of both nuclear weapons and commercial nuclear power. In addition, some private firms are involved in both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. These connections encourage a linkage in people's minds between the peaceful and destructive uses of nuclear energy. Due to growing concern about the rapid buildup of nuclear weapons, some groups critical of nuclear energy are shifting resources toward weapons issues. However, most local groups and national organizations continue their efforts to improve the safety of nuclear power as they expand their focus to include nuclear weapons. The linkages between environmental and energy groups and anti-nuclear weapons groups may strengthen the environmental groups and help them maintain their criticism of commercial nuclear power (33).

On the pronuclear side of the debate, organizers have emphasized the importance of nuclear power to national energy independence which is in turn linked with national security. Analysis of 10 years of public opinion polls indicates that a view of nuclear power as an abundant American resource which could reduce foreign oil dependence is a very important factor in favoring continued development of nuclear power (57).

One of the most important values to affect opinions on nuclear power is environmentalism. A 1972 poll by Louis Harris & Associates indicated that many Americans believed that the greatest problem created by science and technology was pollution (46). Polls taken in 1981 indicate that

most Americans continue to strongly support environmental laws despite recessions and an increasing skepticism about the need for government regulation of business (4).

The role of the environmental movement in coalescing and leading the criticism of nuclear power has been well-documented. The first national anti-nuclear coalition (National Intervenors, formed in 1972) was composed of local environmental action groups (40). By 1976, consumer advocate Ralph Nader, who later became allied with the environmental movement "stood as the titular head of opposition to nuclear energy'' (30). Today, all of the major national environmental groups are opposed to at least some aspects of the current path of nuclear power development in the United States. While some of the groups do not have an official policy opposing nuclear power, their staffs stay in close communication, and there is substantial cooperation and support on nuclear energy issues (33). A list of these groups is shown in table 32.

Both sides of the nuclear debate have emphasized environmental concerns to influence public opinion. In the late 1960's and early 1970's, opponents of local nuclear plants most frequently pointed to specific environmental impacts, such as thermal pollution, low-level radiation, or disruption of a rural lifestyle as reasons for their opposition. During that same period, nuclear proponents increasingly emphasized the air-quality benefits of nuclear power when compared with coal (41). Today, environmentalist opponents of nuclear power are more concerned about broad, generic issues such as waste disposal, plant safety, weapons proliferation, and "a set of troublesome value questions about high technology, growth, and civilization" (30). This evolution of concerns is demonstrated in two case studies of local opposition to nuclear plants. In these cases, environmentalists at first did not oppose the local nuclear plant because it offered environmental benefits when compared with a coal plant. However, those positions were later reversed (see Case Studies).

Along with environmentalism, people's general orientations toward economic growth appear to influence their attitudes about nuclear power. In

1971, political scientist Ronald Inglehart identified a shift in the value systems of many Americans away from a "materialist" emphasis on physical sustenance and safety and toward "post-materialist" priorities of belonging, self-expression, and the quality of life. At that time, he hypothesized that this shift could be attributed to the unprecedented levels of economic and physical security that prevailed during the 1950's and 1960's. Based on analysis of more recent surveys, Inglehart argued in 1981 that, despite economic uncertainty and deterioration of East-West detente, post-materialist values are still important to many Americans. And, he says, those who place a high priority on post-materialist values "form the core of the opposition to nuclear power'' (27).

Like Inglehart, psychologist David Buss and his colleagues have observed two conflicting value systems or "worldviews" among Americans (71). Using in-depth interviews with a random sample of adults from the San Francisco area, they identified "Worldview A" which favors development of nuclear power as an important component of a high-growth, high-technology, free enterprise society, and "Worldview B" which includes concern about the risks of nuclear power along with an emphasis on a leveling off of material and technological growth, human self-realization, and participatory decisionmaking.

While different priorities within Americans' value systems appear to influence attitudes toward nuclear power, it is important to recognize that the public is not completely polarized. Inglehart noted that "post-materialist" values can only be given priority when basic human needs are met, making both priorities essential to individuals and to American society (27). An extensive national survey of attitudes toward growth conducted in 1982 indicates that the public may be developing a new perspective that includes both a desire to ensure opportunities for development and concerns about environmental quality (60). In this survey, few respondents could be classified as totally favoring either resource preservation or resource utilization, and the majority appeared to be quite balanced in their views on economic growth. Those who leaned toward resource preservation were more opposed to nuclear power than those who favored resource utilization.

However, even among those who most strongly supported resource utilization, 50 percent indicated that no more nuclear powerplants should be built.

Views about "appropriate technology" as defined by the British economist, E. F. Schumacher, may also affect attitudes toward nuclear energy. Most members of mainstream environmental groups share this view, which endorses technologies that are inexpensive, suitable for smallscale application, and compatible with people's need for creativity (44,64). In 1976, Amory Lovins brought nuclear energy into the middle of this technology debate with publication of his article, "Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken" in Foreign Affairs magazine. In that article, Lovins argued that America's energy needs could be met by the "soft energy path" of conservation, renewable energy and other appropriate technologies, and rejected nuclear energy as unneeded, centralizing, and environmentally destructive (37). These concerns were found important in the local opposition to one case study plant (see Case Studies). Residents of that rural area at first objected to the plant on the basis that its electricity was not needed locally, and that the locality should not have to bear the impacts of plant construction when it would not reap the benefits. Later objections were based on the contention that the electricity produced would not be needed anywhere in the surrounding three States.

Advocates of the appropriate technology philosophy fear that increased use of nuclear power will lead to a loss of civil liberties and individual freedom, and decreased world stability due to weapons proliferation. The extent to which these views have been accepted by the American public is difficult to ascertain. National opinion polls showing that the majority of Americans prefer solar energy to all other energy sources and view nuclear power as the least-favored energy option would appear to reflect such values (57). A recent survey conducted in the State of Washington shows that large majorities there share Lovins' view that it is possible to have both economic growth and energy conservation (54). In addition, many people, even those skeptical of renewable energy, share Lovins' distrust of large centralized organizations (utilities and the government) that promote nuclear energy.

Another shift in American value systems that may help to account for increased opposition to nuclear power is a growing distrust of institutions and their leaders in both the public and private sectors. The Vietnam War and the Watergate investigation contributed to growing public cynicism about the Federal Government during the 1960's and 1970's. By 1980, an extensive survey of Americans revealed a dramatic gap between the public and leaders in both government and industry on questions of politics, morality, and the family. Religious values were found to be of profound importance to the majority of Americans, and respondents indicated that they placed a greater emphasis than before on the moral aspects of public issues and leadership (59).

Some early supporters of nuclear power, including prominent environmentalists, felt betrayed by the nuclear establishment when new information about the uncertainties of the technology became known. The nuclear industry's early denials of the possibility of accidents, and the Government's handling of safety studies have contributed to the critics' and broader public's skepticism. Some critics have expanded their activities from examination of technical safety issues to include critiquing the nuclear regulatory process, and groups that formerly were concerned primarily with "watchdogging" Federal agencies have entered the nuclear debate. These activities, and Daniel Ford's recent book, The Cult of the Atom, which focuses primarily on regulatory "misdeeds" in the early nuclear program, may contribute to the public's disillusionment with government in general and the NRC in particular.

The American public's growing concern with leadership applies to business as well as government. Americans increasingly are skeptical of the ability of both the public and private sectors to produce quality work. According to Loyola University professor of business ethics Thomas Donaldson, survey data indicate that, despite an improving corporate record, the public has become increasingly disappointed with corporate ethics over the past 20 years. Corporations now are viewed as "part of the overall social fabric that relates to our quality of life," not merely as providers of goods and services (15).

This growing skepticism about industry and government was reinforced by the accident at Three Mile Island. Post-TMI polls indicate that less than half of the public were satisfied with the way the accident was handled by Pennsylvania State officials and the NRC, and Americans were even less pleased with the utility (General Public Utilities) and the plant designer (57). One observer has described public reaction to the accident as "essentially a crisis in confidence over institutions'' (30). A feeling that the nuclear utility was being dishonest helped spark the first referendum to shut down Maine Yankee, and events at Diablo Canyon led to nationwide doubts about the credibility of the nuclear industry (see Case Studies).

A final societal change that has been closely intertwined with negative attitudes toward nuclear power is the growth of the women's movement. Public opinion polls over the past 20 years have shown a strong correlation between gender and attitudes toward nuclear power: Women are consistently more opposed (41). While the strength of this correlation is well-known, the reasons for it are not clear. Environmental values and having young children have been linked with women's opposition to nuclear power (46). Sociologist Dorothy Nelkin argues that women's distrust of nuclear power cannot be attributed to a greater aversion to risk in general. Instead, Nelkin's analysis of women's magazines and the feminist press suggests that women's opposition begins with the specific risk of cancer in the event of a major radioactive release from a reactor. Personal value priorities, including some women's view of themselves as nurturers or "caretakers of life," also lead them to oppose what they view as a life-threatening technology (49).

These connections have helped to bring nuclear power as an issue into the mainstream of the women's movement. Women's magazines ranging from Redbook to Ladies Home Journal to Ms. have questioned nuclear safety, and the national Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA) took a public stand against nuclear power in 1979. The League of Women Voters has developed a national policy favoring only limited construction of new reactors, and the League's local affiliates have taken even stronger anti