Public Awareness and Understanding

Abstract

The marked difference between the public response to the risks of nuclear power and to those of commercial aviation is at first glance puzzling. Both are complex technologies, but whereas hundreds of people die annually from aviation accidents, commercial nuclear powerplants have never produced an identified public fatality. Nevertheless, despite their comparative safety records, acceptance of nuclear power is far slower than acceptance of aviation. When one goes beyond the safety data for the two technologies, some reasons for the difference in public perceptions and reactions become evident. The reasons include, but are not limited to the following: Uncertainty about risks. The public believes that aviation risks are well known and understood by those who operate and regulate that technology. The opposite is perceived to be the case for nuclear power. Perceived catastrophic potential. Although both technologies exhibit the potential for catastrophic accidents, albeit at low probability, losses due to airplane accidents are perceived to be limited by certain physical parameters, most notably the capacity of aircraft. On the other hand, nuclear risks are perceived by some as being unbounded in their consequences. Familiarity with the technology. Aviation technology is familiar to the public and relatively well understood by them. Nuclear power plants have high fences and thick walls, implying something to hide, and the technology is less well understood by the general public. Social and media response to accidents. Because of people’s familiarity with aviation’s long-term safety record, accidents do not substantially alter their risk estimates. The undefined fear of nuclear risks causes even minor nuclear incidents at powerplants