Skip to main content

What the Poll Shows

blue-growth-chart We’ve looked at a few polls over the last couple of weeks and will reiterate about the new poll from Harris Interactive that I made about the earlier ones: taking a survey when a story about the subject is hot in the news is not going to yield a very believable result. After the situation has stabilized and the media inflammation of the public has receded – well, that’s the time for a poll.

In this case, the numbers are pretty good:

Three weeks after a massive earthquake and tsunami crippled four nuclear reactors in Japan, Americans are displaying only a slight shift in their opinions on nuclear power, a new Harris Interactive/HealthDay poll shows.

The U.S. public is almost equally divided on whether or not more nuclear power plants should be built on American soil, with 41 percent supporting the idea and 39 percent opposed. This represents only a slight change from three years ago, when 49 percent supported nuclear plants and 32 percent opposed them, according to a new Harris Interactive/HealthDay poll released today.

Pew had nuclear energy down considerably more. These new numbers suggests wither that the end of the big news stories has had an impact or Harris caught a more sanguine group. Here’s some of the specific numbers:

  • 73 percent of respondents believed that nuclear waste disposal remains a "major problem," while 55 percent thought that the possible escape of radioactivity into the atmosphere is equally dangerous
  • Almost a third of all adults (29 percent) still consider nuclear power plants "very safe," with another 34 percent saying they are "somewhat safe." In 2008, those numbers were very similar, at 34 percent and 33 percent, respectively.
  • 46 percent of U.S. adults agreed that, "The risk of accidents and radiation exposure from nuclear power plants is too high to be acceptable."
  • More than half (55 percent) of Americans agreed that there is need to build nuclear power plants because they do not produce greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming and climate change unlike those that use oil, gas or coal.
  • Additionally 59 percent of those surveyed agree to this statement, "It is OK to build nuclear power plants if we build them far enough away from earthquake fault lines and areas with large populations."

In other words, 60 percent consider nuclear energy safe – there are some polls that get this higher in less fractious times – Gallup, for one – but not by much.

If I’m not going to let my mood droop when poll numbers are low, I’d be a hypocrite to let it soar now.

Let’s just leave it at this: nuclear energy is a logical but not very stable polling target at the present time. Oh, and, if we wanted to spin it a little – not the whole circus plate spin but a little - perhaps we can see this poll as a harbinger of the Japan story taking a somewhat less prominent spot on the news page in the wake of Libya.  (And if you want to really let elation overtake you, assume that this is the worst it’s going to get at Harris – pretty darn good.)

But even that feels a bit of an overreach. But you know – I could be wrong. Take a look and see what you think.

Oh, and here’s a full story on the poll from Health Day.

Comments

jimwg said…
Good to see such early polls, nevertheless those numbers are not reassuring since the public views all the events at Fukushima and things nuclear through the human-interest colored lens of the media. I sincerely believe that an educational PSA blitz that takes on anti-nuclear activists by the horns with perspective and facts would markedly raise the nuclear energy approval level. It might be a cold view, but heart-tugging nuclear-damning features such as the plight of the "Fukushima Fifty" should be even-handedly balanced by citing the dozens of coal miners killed whom our public forgets the next day. The U.S. nuclear industry shouldn't be punished for mishaps in Russia or Japan or where ever, which is pretty much the attitude behind the off-the-wall Doomsday speculations and nit-pick fears and sheer lack of perspective in reporting out there.

James Greenidge
Not said…
The U.S. nuclear industry shouldn't be punished for mishaps in Russia or Japan or where ever, which is pretty much the attitude behind the off-the-wall Doomsday speculations and nit-pick fears

You must be deeply anti-nuclear to be taking this line of argument, which if adopted in the future will assure that no new projects ever see the light of day.
jimwg said…
Ah so! Please do explain!

James Greenidge

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …