Several years ago, Alvin Weinberg went so far as to call public acceptance "the most serious question now facing nuclear energy." At the time of Weinberg's statement, however, the Harris poll showed supporters of nuclear power outnumbering those who opposed it by three to one. In the next years, however, the ratio of support declined somewhat, although it still stood at two to one in an October 1978 Harris poll. Then, in March 1979, came the accident at Three Mile Island. Among the important questions raised by this highly publicized occurrence was whether its apparent confirmation of some critics' accusations would lead to a wholesale rejection of nuclear technology by the public.
A careful review of the many relevant national and state polls after the accident reveals that, although the accident heightened public opposition to nuclear power, those who support nuclear power continue to outnumber those who oppose it. Six months after the accident a majority of Americans were still willing to believe that nuclear power can be made safe enough to warrant its further use. The level of uncertainty about this technology is high, however, and, if given a choice, large majorities would prefer the use of coal and, especially, solar energy.
Between April and January 1980 more than forty publicly available polls were conducted by the leading pollsters, asking national and state samples their opinions about the accident and about nuclear power more generally. Although singly many of these polls have weaknesses, taken together they can be crosschecked against each other and evaluated in the context of earlier, pre-accident polls (including an RFF national telephone survey which was conducted in August 1978). What emerges is a reasonably clear picture of the public's reaction to the accident.
Reaction to the accident. Only the polls taken in the first weeks after the accident probed the public's views about the accident itself. These early surveys showed an almost universal awareness of the accident and a very high level of public concern about it. For example, 66 percent of Washington, D.C., area residents regarded the accident as "very serious;" 41 percent nationally in an ABC—Harris poll were "deeply disturbed" about it; and 12 percent nationally and 22 percent in the East said they were "extremely worried about self or family's safety." Unfortunately, we do not know whether people changed their views about the accident's seriousness once the news coverage died down because none of the later polls chose to probe this issue.
An important finding in the early polls was that relatively few people were inclined to write the accident off as an aberration. Depending on the wording of the question, from 50 to 75 percent of those queried in three of the early national polls rejected the view that the Three Mile Island accident was a freak occurrence. Moreover, when asked about the likelihood of a "much worse" accident occurring, 20 percent in a Washington, D.C., area poll said it was "very likely," and a further 32 percent judged this possibility to be "somewhat likely."
The handling of the accident by the press, by the federal government or Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and, especially, by the Metropolitan Edison Company was criticized by fairly sizable segments of the public. In one poll, only 47 percent said the government handled the situation as well as possible. In another poll, the performance of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission received a positive rating from 44 percent and a negative rating from 41 percent of a national sample. Consistent majorities accused Metropolitan Edison of concealing the danger from the public. The press, on the other hand, was accused by one person out of four in a national poll of "greatly exaggerating" the danger, and the Rocky Mountain Poll reported that about as many people believed the press, radio, and television coverage of the accident to be "basically opinionated and emotional" (40 percent) as believed it to be "basically factual and objective" (38 percent). Furthermore, in spite of the massive press coverage, 21 percent of the people interviewed in the Rocky Mountain states by this poll, a week after the accident, claimed to be "basically uninformed" about it. Only 23 percent said that they considered themselves "well informed," while 50 percent felt "somewhat informed."
Its impact on public acceptance. The two major trend lines on nuclear power in the 1970s, compiled by Harris and Cambridge reports, provide the best glimpse of public support for nuclear power following the accident. Although the Harris and Cambridge trends differ somewhat, both reveal moderate gains in opposition. The Harris trend for 1975 to January 1980 is shown in figure 1. Shortly after the accident the previous 26 percent gap between those who favor and those who oppose building more nuclear power plants narrowed to a 1 percent difference. As the accident, with no apparent damage to human health, receded from the headlines, support for building more plants gradually recovered. This recovery peaked in August when the gap widened to 19 percentage points and then dipped again when the Kemeny Commission Report was released in late October. Twice in the October—November period pluralities opposed to building more plants were registered. Support recovered again, and by January 1980, nine months after the accident, the gap in favor stood at 12 percent, half of what it was before the accident, signifying a net gain of 7 percentage points in the number who oppose building more plants. The Cambridge Report's trend line for a very similar question also shows a continued plurality in favor of building more nuclear power plants by a narrower margin than before the accident.
Figure 1. The Harris poll trend line on building more nuclear power plants. Each poll is based on a national sample. Some were telephone but most were personal interview surveys. The question asked was, "In general, do you avor or oppose the building of more nuclear power plants in the United States?" Haris Poll data made available by the Edison Electric Institute.
Two reasons may lie behind this relatively mild longer-term reaction to the accident. First, the nature of the accident was itself contradictory, leading to different interpretations according to one's prior disposition toward nuclear power. To some people, the accident provided sufficient cause for optimism because no one was hurt and the emergency systems worked; to others, the accident was sufficient cause for pessimism because they believed only luck had prevented a catastrophe from occurring.
The other reason which may partially explain the mild reaction to the Three Mile Island accident is that a shift in opinion against nuclear power had already occurred before the accident. Both the Harris and Cambridge trend lines showed increased opposition to nuclear power in the months preceding it and, in an October 1978 poll, Harris for the first time found strong majorities opposed to having a nuclear plant in their community (56 percent to 35 percent). This represented a sharp reversal of Harris's findings on this question in previous years. That this prior shift may have mitigated the impact of Three Mile Island to some extent is suggested by the fact that when the local nuclear plant question was repeated, by the CBS News—New York Times survey, shortly after the accident, there was virtually no shift of opinion on this issue from the Harris survey of six months before
Contrary to the expectations of the antinuclear movement, polls taken before and after the accident show only a slight increase in those who sympathize with the movement. Furthermore, the polls also show a corresponding increase in the percentage of those who express a lack of sympathy toward the movement, suggesting an increased polarization of views. In 1978 (see figure 2) 21 percent were unsympathetic and 44 percent expressed neutrality. When this question was repeated a year later, three months after the accident, the number declaring neutrality was down by 9 percent, while 4 Percent more were favorably inclined toward the antinuclear movement and 0.5 percent more expressed opposition to it.
The Harris poll trend line on building more nuclear power plants. Each poll is based on a national sample. Some were telephone but most were personal interview surveys. The question asked was, "In general, do you favor or oppose the building of more nuclear power plants in the United States?" Harris Poll data made available by the Edison Electric Institute.
While the bottom has not dropped out of the support for nuclear power, and while only 15 to 20 percent in any post-accident poll approve the antinuclear militants' demand that all nuclear Power plants be shut down permanently and no more be built, a close reading of the polls shows that a large percentage of the population have a distinct lack of enthusiasm for or ambivalence about the nuclear option. If there are 15 to 20 percent hardcore shut-them-down-now opponents, those strongly in support of nuclear power are hardly greater in number. For example, only 25 percent in a CBS News—New York Times poll chose nuclear power over burning coal, or, in answer to another question, chose nuclear power over "cutting back" on their "own use of energy." Given the opportunity to say that they "haven't made up their mind yet" on the issue, approximately one out of three persons chose that option, a high figure. Moreover, when given the choice, most do not prefer nuclear to other forms of energy unless the alternative involves paying higher prices for imported oil.
Figure 2. Attitude toward the antinuclear movement before and after the Three Mile Island accident. The question asked was, "In the past several years the antinuclear movement has been very active. Do you think of yourself as an active participant in the antinuclear movement, sympathetic toward the movement but not active, neutral, or unsympathetic to toward the antinuclear movement?" Source: Opinion Research Corporation, Public Opinion Index Report, Princton, N.J., August 1979.
Why then does nuclear power continue to show pluralities on general questions such as the Harris trend item? The answer is simple: despite Three Mile Island, many people believe nuclear power is needed and are still willing to believe that nuclear power can be made safe. Astonishingly, none of the post-accident national polls asked a direct question about this latter topic, but the Rocky Mountain regional poll did, and 70 percent of its respondents said they thought "the safety systems for nuclear power plants can be perfected enough to prevent accidents such as the one that occurred in Pennsylvania from happening again."
What the national polls do show on this topic is that the level of support or opposition to nuclear power is highly dependent on the degree of assurance about safety contained in the wording of the question. Analysis of the twelve questions which link building more plants with a statement about safety shows that the level of opposition can be made to shift by 40 percentage points, just by varying the assurance of safety. At one extreme, 67 to 75 percent approve of a temporary moratorium on new plants until safety questions are answered. At the other extreme, only 21 to 26 percent would disapprove of the federal government issuing more licenses for nuclear plants if it insisted on better safety standards.
The national polls also show that the accident apparently had very little effect on people's views about the safety of nuclear power plants. One of the most revealing of all the postaccident poll findings was the Harris poll trend for the question, "From what you have heard or read, how safe are nuclear power plants that produce electric power—very safe, somewhat safe, or not so safe?" Harris asked this question in a telephone poll the week after the accident and compared it with the results from three previous polls, including one conducted in October 1978. Right after Three Mile Island, 21 percent said nuclear power plants are "very safe," 46 percent said "somewhat safe," for a total of 67 percent, while 30 percent said they are "not so safe." Comparing these data with those from the October 1978 survey, the April data show only a 2 percent increase in those who said the plants are "not so safe." Although there is a 5 point decline from October to April in the percentage of those who regarded the plants as "very safe," the total for the "very" and "somewhat safe" categories actually increased by 3 percent over that time period, from 64 percent in October to April's 67 percent.
Three Mile Island has occasioned a national seminar of sorts on the nuclear option. As a result, public awareness of nuclear power is now far greater than it was before the accident when many people were unaware of even the simplest facts about producing electricity by nuclear fission. Thus far, the polls show this more knowledgeable public is still willing to accept the Faustian bargain offered them by this technology, albeit by a narrower margin than before.
A version of this article appeared in print in the January 1980 issue of Resources magazine.
