Living with Nuclear Power

in Britain: A Mixed-methods
Study.

Nick Pidgeon, Karen Henwood, Karen Parkhill, Dan

Venables and Peter Simmons.
Cardiff University and the University of East Anglia.

Summary Findings Report: 30th September 2008

Copies of the report can be downloaded from the SCARR website:
www.kent.ac.uk/scarr

1
CONTENTS

PART A: PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION .............................................5

Section 1: Introduction ......................................................................................................... 6

1.1 Project funding .............................................................................................................. 6
1.2 Project team members...................................................................................................6
1.3 Project background: previous nuclear power research and findings ..................................6
1.4 Project rationale............................................................................................................8
1.5 Project research aims....................................................................................................9

Section 2: Case Study Areas Overview................................................................................. 9

2.1 Case study area 1: Oldbury ........................................................................................... 9
2.2 Case study area 2: Bradwell .......................................................................................... 9
2.3 Case study area 3: Hinkley Point .................................................................................. 10

PART B: EMPIRICAL STAGES (METHODS & RESU LTS)..................................11

Section 3: The narrative interviews..................................................................................... 12

3.1 Rationale.................................................................................................................... 12
3.2 Design and procedure ................................................................................................. 13
3.3 Analysis................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 14
3.4 Results....................................................................................................................... 15
3.4.1 Meta-theme 1: Making risk ordinary ....................................................................... 15
3.4.1a Familiarisation ................................................................................................ 15
3.4.1b Making risk normal ......................................................................................... 17
3.4.1c Conclusion to meta-theme 1............................................................................ 18
3.5 Meta-theme 2: Noticing the extraordinary – risk, threat and anxiety as part of everyday life
........................................................................................................................................ 19
3.5.1 Intersection of risk and biography ................................ ................................ ...... 20
3.5.2 Living with anxiety ............................................................................................ 22
3.5.3 Laughing it off: an exploration of the multiple roles of humour.............................. 23
3.5.4 Examining why anxiety remains......................................................................... 24
3.6 Reflecting on using the narrative approach ................................................................... 25
3.7 Conclusion to the narrative interviews ........................................................................... 27

Section 4: The Q-sorts at Bradwell and Oldbury................................................................. 28

4.1 Q-Method rationale................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 28
4.2 Introducing the Q-method approach ............................................................................. 28
4.3 Q participants ............................................................................................................. 28
4.4 Design and procedure ................................................................................................. 29
4.5 Analysis................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 30
4.6 Results....................................................................................................................... 30
4.6.1 Point of View 1: Beneficial and safe ....................................................................... 31
4.6.2 Point of View 2: Threat and distrust ....................................................................... 31
4.6.3 Point of view 3: Reluctant acceptance.................................................................... 32
4.6.4 Point of View 4: There’s no point worrying................................ .............................. 32
4.7 Q-method conclusion................................................................................................... 33

Section 5: The survey: Oldbury and Hinkley Point ............................................................. 35

5.1 Rationale.................................................................................................................... 35
5.2 Design and procedure ................................................................................................. 35

2
 5.3 Analysis and results .................................................................................................... 36
5.3.1 Survey sample ..................................................................................................... 36
5.3.2 Response rates .................................................................................................... 37
5.3.3 Comparisons of Oldbury/Hinkley survey with 2005 national survey .......................... 37
5.3.4 General environmental concern ............................................................................. 38
5.3.4a Nuclear power................................................................................................ 38
5.3.4b Radioactive waste .......................................................................................... 38
5.3.4c Climate change ................................ ................................ .............................. 38
5.3.5 Energy policy attitudes .......................................................................................... 39
5.3.5a Tackling climate change.................................................................................. 39
5.3.5b Increasing energy security in the UK ................................................................ 39
5.3.5c Scepticism about Government policy and ‘imposition’........................................ 39
5.3.6 Judgements of risks and benefits........................................................................... 39
5.3.6a ‘There are risks from having nuclear power stations in the UK’ .......................... 39
5.3.6b ‘There are benefits from having nuclear power stations in the UK’ ...................... 40
5.3.6c ‘How would assess the benefits and risks of nuclear power in general?’ ............. 40
5.3.7 New build ............................................................................................................. 40
5.3.7a ‘In the UK’ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 40
5.3.7b Locally versus ‘In the UK’ ................................................................................ 40
5.3.8 Q-Perspectives: relative proportions and characteristics.......................................... 40
5.3.9 Trust.................................................................................................................... 41
5.3.10 Place attachment ................................................................................................ 41
5.3.11 Predictors of support for local new build ............................................................... 42
5.3.12 Involvement in siting decisions ............................................................................ 42
5.4 Conclusions to survey ................................................................................................. 42

PART C: CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................45

Section 6: Conclusions....................................................................................................... 46
6.1 Summary of conclusions from the empirical stages........................................................ 46
6.2 Implications for future research .................................................................................... 50

BIBLIOGRAPHY & APPENDICES.............................................................................51

7.1 Bibliography.................................................................................................................. 52

7.2 (4.6) Appendix 1: Table 2: Highest and lowest ranked statements for the Q factors ..... 58

7.3 Appendix 2: Tables from Survey Section ................................ ................................ ...... 59

(5.3.4) General environmental concern........................................................................... 59
Table 6: Nuclear power ............................................................................................. 59
Table 7: Radioactive waste........................................................................................ 59
Table 8: Climate change ........................................................................................... 59
(5.3.5) Energy policy attitudes........................................................................................ 59
Table 9: Question: “I am willing to accept the building of new nuclear power stations if it
would help to tackle climate change” .......................................................................... 59
Table 10: Question: “Promoting renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind
power, is a better way of tackling climate change than nuclear power” ......................... 60
Table 11: Question: “Britain needs a mix of energy sources to ensure a reliable supply of
electricity, including nuclear power and renewable energy sources” ............................. 60
Table 12: Question: “It doesn’t matter what we think about nuclear power. Nuclear
power stations will be built anyway”............................................................................ 60
(5.3.6) Judgements of risks and benefits ........................................................................ 60
Table 13: Question: “There are risks from having nuclear power stations in the UK” ...... 60

3
 Table 14: Question: “There are benefits from having nuclear power stations in the UK” . 61
Table 15: Question: “How would assess the benefits and risks of nuclear power in
general?” (%) ........................................................................................................... 61
(5.3.7) New Build .......................................................................................................... 61
Question: Please indicate the extent to which you would support or oppose the following:
................................................................................................................................ 61
Table 16: The building of new nuclear power stations in the UK ................................... 61
Table 17: The building of a new nuclear power station at Oldbury/Hinkley Point vs. ‘In the
UK’ .......................................................................................................................... 61
(5.3.8) Q Perspectives .................................................................................................. 62
Table 18: Mean trust scores by Q-perspective and institution................................ ...... 62
Table 19: Mean acceptability (risks vs. benefits of nuclear power stations in the UK)
scores by Q-perspective (Point of view) ................................ ................................ ...... 62
(5.3.11) Predictors of support for local new build ............................................................. 62
Table 20: Predictors of support for new build locally ................................................... 62
(5.3.12) Involvement in siting decisions .......................................................................... 63
Table 21: Question: “The Government and nuclear industry should fully involve local
people in any decisions about siting a new nuclear power station here” ........................ 63

Appendix 3: Additional tables from the survey ................................................................... 64

Table 22: Perceived risks: ‘There are risks…’ ........................................................... 64
Table 23: Perceived benefits: ‘There are benefits…’.................................................. 64
Table 24: Risk/Benefit judgements (acceptability) ....................................................... 64

This report should be cited as:

Pidgeon, N. F., Henwood, K. L., Parkhill, K. A., Venables, D. and Simmons, P.
(2008) Living with Nuclear Power in Britain: A Mixed Methods Study. School of
Psychology, Cardiff University.
?

4
 Part A: Project
Background Information

5
Section 1: Introduction
1.1 Project funding
This project (Living with Socio-Technical Risk: A Mixed-methods Study) is a 5
year project (2003-2008) funded primarily by the Social Contexts and Responses
to Risk (SCARR) priority network of the Economic and Social Research Council
(ESRC). The ESRC has provided core support of £2.8 million (GBP) to nine
projects in the SCARR network under grant no. RES-336-25-0001. The SCARR
network is comprised of 14 Higher Education Institutions (UK) investigating
multiple typologies and aspects of risk1. For the third empirical phase (survey) a
small contribution towards survey administration was provided by the Leverhulme
Trust under grant no. F/00 407/AG to the Understanding Risk research group.

1.2 Project team members

Our research is a collaborative interdisciplinary project (between Cardiff
University and the University of East Anglia), directed by Professor Nick Pidgeon
(social psychologist in the School of Psychology, Cardiff University). The other
team members are:
o Co-Principal Investigator: Dr Karen Henwood (Reader in social
psychology in the School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University).
o Co-Principal Investigator: Mr Peter Simmons (Senior Lecturer in
environmental science in the School of Environmental Sciences,
University of East Anglia)
o Research Associate: Dr Karen Parkhill (human geographer with expertise
in qualitative research methods, in the School of Psychology, Cardiff
University)
o Research Associate: Mr Dan Venables (social psychologist with expertise
in quantitative research methods, in the School of Psychology, Cardiff
University)
We are all members of the Understanding Risk research group 2.

1.3 Project background: previous nuclear power research and findings

Nuclear power is generally thought of as a uniquely worrying technology capable
of generating intense emotiona l states such as fear and dread, due to the largely
invisible and long -lasting effects it is presumed to have in the event of something
going wrong, concerns about radioactive waste, and a historic association with
atomic weaponry (see for example, Weart, 1988: Slovic et al., 1991; Joffe, 2003).
In particular, national surveys have shown that dread of nuclear power stems

1
For more information on the SCARR priority network and individual projects involved, please go to
www.kent.ac.uk/scarr/index
2
The Understanding Risk research group is made up of a network of researchers who study risk in an
interdisciplinary manner and have a particular focus on examining risk within real life, applied situations.
Please go to www.understanding-risk.org for more information

6
from continued fears regarding potential contamination from radioactive material,
health fears (such as developing cancer), and the Chernobyl and Three Mile
Island accidents (Slovic, 1987; 1993; Slovic et al, 1991; also see Masco, 2006).
National surveys also show that, in recent years, there have been decreasing
levels of opposition to nuclear power (Knight, 2005), although i n research
conducted in 2005 it was found that, on balance, more people in Britain are still
against nuclear power than support it (Pidgeon et al., 2008). It has also been
consistently found in survey research, that the acceptability of nuclear power and
radioactive waste is closely related to levels of institutional trust.

Research which has focused on communities li ving in very close proximity to

nuclear facilities, has found that proximity is associated with somewhat higher
levels of support for nuclear power (Eiser et al., 1995). A commonly voiced
explanation is that acceptance of, or refusal to overtly criticise, nuclear power by
those living close to an existing nuclear facility, stems from the perceived
economic benefits it brings to a host community, in particular where a community
is otherwise economically marginalised (Blowers and Leroy, 1994; Wynne et al.,
2007 [1993]). However, qualitative research on local communities living in very
close proximity to the nuclear reprocessing plants at Sellafield and Cap le Hague
suggests that even where support and acceptance is expressed, this can be
highly qualified with a degree of underlying unease always present (Macgill,
1987; Zonabend, 1993).

The complexities of understanding local communities’ thoughts, feelings and

perceptions of living close to such industrial developments have also been
explored extensively in research on other major socio-technical and environment
hazards. Within such work, there are again a number of assertions made about
the perceived impacts such developments have on local communities in close
proximity. First, local people may feel that their area is geographically
stigmatised due to the presence of a hazardous facility and that they by
association are also stigmatised by people outside the area (Edelstein, 1987;
Bush et al, 2001; Flynn et al., 2001). Second, local people may reject suffering
any negative effects of living close to a socio-technical or environmental hazard ,
in an effort to prevent being stigmatised, leading to the creation of a so called
“halo effect” (Bickerstaff and Walker, 2001). Finally, whilst the apparent negative
features of a local place such as an industrial development, may be striking to
those who live outside the area, for those living there it may just be seen as a
‘part of the local experience’ (Burningham and Thrush, 2004).

Key to research which has focused on specific nuclear facilities as well as other
forms of socio-technical and environmental risk issues present within local
communities, is that local context, values and place are all essential components
for understanding how people live with (or resist) the notion that they are
exposed to risk. From such a perspective ‘place and space’ are constituted by
particular socio-cultural, geographical and political characteristics, that are vital to
understanding how people construct, perceive and reflect on their experiences of

7
living in close proximity to such hazards (cf. Bickerstaff, 2004; Bickerstaff and
Walker, 2001; Masuda and Garvin, 2006; also see Burningham and Thrush,
2004; Howel et al., 2002). Such studies reflect an emerging interpretive
perspective within socio-cultural risk research more generally (see Pidgeon et al.,
2006).

Eyles et al. (1993) neatly tie the importance of place to risk and studies of risk
perception by stating:

“Risk is now widely recognised to be socially constructed; appraisal and

management [of risk] are determined by people’s place in the world and
how they see and act in the world. All ideas about the world are in fact
rooted in experience and different forms of social organization and their
underlying value systems will influence risk perceptions” (pp. 282).

Clearly, while social, cultural and political factors represent important aspects of
risk perception, also pertinent is the role of the individual. Inherent in the above
quote by Eyles et al. (1993) is the notion that perceptions of risk are sedimented
through individuals’ life experiences. As such, perceptions of risks and
associated social constructions of socio-technical and environmental hazards
cannot be seen as divorced from the values people develop, as well as
processes of identity formation. Emphasised in risk research is the importance of
grounding risk perceptions in everyday life and, as such, visualising people as
“risk subjects ”, necessitating the examination of people’s “risk biographies”
(Tulloch and Lupton, 2003; Hollway, and Jefferson, 1997a). Intrinsic to such
notions, is that risk perceptions are subjective and subject to change in ways that
are mediated by social, cultural, political, geographical and psychological
processes. Thus when examining risk perceptions, research also needs to be
open to and allow for, reflexive discussion by risk subjects, so that further
grounding of risk subjectivities can occur not only in place, but also through time.

1.4 Project rationale

There are three reasons why this project is both timely and informative. First, as
the above discussion demonstrates, multiple-dimensions of context play an
important role in risk perception. However, whilst past research on both nuclear
and non-nuclear industrial developments has been informative , and parallels can
be expected, such insights should not be assumed to transfer in their entirety to
local communities living in close proximity to nuclear power stations within Britain
today. Second, particularly since the late 1980s very little research has taken
place in Britain on perceptions of nuclear power in communities who host o r are
in very close proximity to such facilities. Finally, for the first time in almost two
decades, the British Government has signalled a desire to encourage new
nuclear power stations to be built within the United Kingdom (BERR, 2008),
driven in part by concerns over meeting climate change targets and maintaining
energy security. This is likely to impact not only at sites already hosting nuclear
reactors, but also new sites. As such, conceptualising some of the complex

8
ways in which people currently living with nuclear power stations view this
technology will be important for understanding the unfolding dynamics of risk
perception around this issue , as well as the possibilities for constructive
engagement between varied other stakeholders to the nuclear debate and such
communities.

1.5 Project research aims

The theoretical, empirical and policy interests described in the previous sections
led to the development of a broad research question and aim:

1. How do people residing in close proximity to a major socio-technical

hazard/site (nuclear power plant) ‘live with risk’ in their everyday lives?

To address this primary aim, we have complete d three empirical phases

(narrative interviews, Q-method sort and survey) across three case study areas.
In addition, the initial phase of the project (narrative interviews) had the
methodological objective to n i vestigate whether eliciting people’s biographical
narratives – their storied identities – can contribute to an understanding of living
with risk.

Section 2: Case Study Areas Overview

2.1 Case study area 1: Oldbury
Oldbury nuclear power station is located in South Gloucestershire, England, on
the southern bank of the Severn Estuary. Oldbury-on-Severn itself is a small,
rural village (population approx 708) 3. The nearest towns are Thornbury
(population approx 12500), about 4 miles from the power station, and Chepstow
(population approx 11000), which is on the opposite bank of the Severn. The site
is relatively close to the M4 motorway, the Severn Bridge crossings, and the
major conurbation of Bristol (population approximately 400,000). In addition,
there is significant industrial activity, primarily petrochemicals and shipping,
within 10 miles further down the estuary. The power station itself consists of two
Magnox gas-cooled reactors, and began generating in 1968. We identified no
major local incidents or past instances of major organised opposition; although a
‘Stop Hinkley, Close Oldbury’ campaign has existed since 2000. This emerged
as an expansion of a long -established campaign opposing the Hinkley Point
power station some 40 miles further down the Severn Estuary, rather than
originating in the community local to Oldbury. At the time of data collection the
plant was operational, with decommissioning due to start at the end of 2008.

2.2 Case study area 2: Bradwell

Bradwell-on-Sea is a small village in Essex, England, with a population of
approximately 550 adults. The main towns in the district are Maldon (population
approx 13,000), Heybridge (approx 6,500) and Burnham-on-Crouch (approx

3
All population statistics have been taken the 2001 Census available from ww.statistics.gov.uk/census2001

9
7,500), all about 9 miles from the power station. There is also a small town about
2.5 miles away across the Blackwater Estuary at West Mersea from which the
power station is highly visible (population approx 6500). However, most people
adjacent live in small rural villages, many of which originally drew their livelihoods
from the coastal or agricultural economy. Although just under 50 miles from the
centre of London the area, being on a peninsula, remains quite isolated, with
poor transport links. Opened in 1962, the Bradwell nuclear power station is a
very early example of the Magnox type. The initial siting proposal was contested
at a short public inquiry held in 1956 (Welsh, 2000), and subsequent industry
efforts to investigate the feasibility of a repository for low and intermediate level
waste adjacent to the Bradwell site prompted intense local opposition in the mid-
1980s, but this was not directed at the local power station. The reactors were
shut down in March 2002, and the lengthy decommissioning process is ongoing

2.3 Case study area 3: Hinkley Point

Hinkley Point nuclear power stations (Hinkley A and Hinkley B), are located in the
county of Somerset, England. The nearest large town is Bridgwater (population
36,892), approximately 10 miles from the power station. Manufacturing is a key
source of employment for those in Bridgwater (approximately 21% of those in
employment between the ages of 16-74). Whilst Bridgwater is the nearest town
to the power stations, there are a number of smaller villages and hamlets in
closer proximity; for example, the village of Stogursey (population approximately
400) which is approximately 2.5 miles from the power stations. Hinkley A
(currently managed by Magnox South on behalf of the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority), a twin reactor power station, began generating in 1965 and ceased
producing electricity in 2000. It is currently into its lengthy decommissioning
phase. Hinkley B (owned by British Energy), comprises an Advanced Gas-
cooled Reactor (AGR) which started producing power in 1976. The estimated
decommissioning date for Hinkley B is 2016. In 1987 the Central Electricity
Generating Board applied for planning permission for a Pressurised Water
Reactor (Hinkley C), causing local contestation. Planning consent was eventually
granted by the Secretary of State, but no C Station was ever built. Two further
noteworthy incidents were the publishing of the paper “Incidence of leukaemia in
young people in the vicinity of Hinkley Point nuclear power station, 1959-86” by
Ewings et al. (1989) in the British Medical Journal, and the report by Chris Busby
and Helen Rowe entitled: ‘Cancer in Burnham on Sea North Results of the PCAH
[Parents Concerned About Hinkley] Questionnaire’ (Occasional Paper 2002/5,
Green Audit, Aberystwyth). Both papers caused, at the time, local concerns over
an alleged relationship between the nuclear power stations and the incidence of
cancer and leukaemia. An active local protest group named Stop Hinkley
Expansion started in the mid 1980s to protest against the proposed Hinkley C,
and was renamed Stop Hinkley in 1996 after these plans were shelved.

10
Part B: Empirical Stages
(Methods & Results)

11
Section 3: The narrative interviews
3.1 Rationale
The rationale for following a narrative approach in the initial interview phase
stems from three adjacent literatures in relation to : environmental values;
biographical risk research; and, qualitative methodology (narratives), and each of
these will now be briefly discussed.

Our initial interest in the use of narrative was stimulated by the insightful and
thought provoking work on narrative elicitation techniques by Terre Satterfield
(2001). Satterfield, an anthropologist unhappy with techniques for direct
measurement of individuals’ environmental values (for example, surveys or
contingent valuation methods4), sought to deve lop a method which would be
sensitive to the importance of intangible meanings and values. She advocated
the use of “narrative elicitation methods” for examining such judgement and
decision-making processes, including people’s values and subjective
preferences, embedded in meaningful, contextually and morally rich, value laden
and affectively charged stories about risk5.

Previous contextual risk research had tended to rely upon either quantitative
survey or group discussion methods, with little attention to the benefits that
narrative approaches might bring. The search for innovative methods also
stemmed from critiques of the theoretical sociological work under the broad
conceptual umbrella of the Risk Society (Beck, 1992; 1994; 1998; Giddens,
1998; 1999; also see the edited texts by Franklin, 1998; and, Adam et al.: 2000).
A prevalent argument here is that theorising around Risk Society has become
divorced from empirical research, and is accordingly in danger of overstating the
significance of risk in everyday life. In particular, Tulloch and Lupton (2003)
suggest that people’s risk discourses need to be examined in the context of their
everyday lives, with the study of “risk biographies” a key strategy (see also
Hollway and Jefferson, 1997a; 1997b). At the core of risk biography is the idea
that people’s thoughts, feelings, perceptions (and so forth) of risk, should not be
detached from their everyday lived realities: how people experience their lives,
their local (and other) social identities and values, and spatial and temporal
relationships all matter to the processes involved in the formation and
construction of risk – processes that, in turn, can make risk salient and
meaningful to people and demand that they engage with it as an issue (or not) in
their lives. Risk biographies, whilst not synonymous with narratives, are
nonetheless inherently and intimately linked.

4
Contingent Valuation is a technique within environmental economics, by which people indicate their
preference by stating the amount they are willing to pay for environmental ‘goods’ (see for example,
Fischhoff and Furby, 1988).
5
The research team wish to thank Terre Satterfield for the numerous dis cussions and insights which have
contributed to the conception of this project.

12
The more generic social sciences methods literature also held some compelling
reasons for adopting a narrative approach to the in-depth interviews. Firstly, by
using a narrative approach, which echoes the conventions of ‘normal’
conversation, interviewees will be more at ease, thus reducing (but not
necessarily eliminating) incidents of conversational reluctance, and prompting
greater disclosure. Secondly, through the active, interpretive process of
producing narratives, everyday lived realities can be made intelligible
(Czarniawska, 2004). Thirdly, using a narrative approach can prevent the
artificial fragmentation of interviewees’ experiences (Elliott, 2005). Finally, a
narrative approach does not necessarily mean using a single question to elicit a
holistic life narrative; narrative approaches can be combined with more focused
questions to avoid the use and production of bland assessments by the narrator
to produce more succinct “episodic” narratives (Flick, 2006).

It is for all of these reasons, that we deemed a narrative approach to be most

capable of fulfilling the aims and objectives of the first phase of the research.
Our approach (design) and procedure for the interviews will now be briefly
discussed.

3.2 Design and procedure

In the development of our interview schedule, it was a key aim to investigate
people’s narrations about risk in ways that seemed appropriate to them, as lived
in specific cultural and social contexts. Accordingly, in the development of our
interview schedule, we aligned ourselves within the field of interpretive qualitative
inquiry (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Denzin, 1989). By this we mean that we kept
central to our research, the aim of attending to our participants’ ways of
representing their experiences to themselves and others, by following their ways
of narrating about it. Therefore, whilst we used an adapted version of the
“episodic” narrative approach endorsed by Flick (2006), as outlined above, our
schedule remained flexible and adaptive to the emergence of new fields of
inquiry revealed in the production of narratives by the interviewee and responsive
to the conventions of normal conversations. As such, it was less a schedule and
more of a guide.

To elicit narratives which encompassed all of our research aims, objectives and
interests, we developed three broad types of question, designed to draw out
shorter, more focused, yet experientially relevant (to the interviewee) stories
about their experiences of living near to a nuclear power station. The first broad
type of question aimed to elicit everyday narratives about the power station, and
prompt reflexivity about the role it played and had played previously, in their
lives/area 6. The second broad type aimed to introduce life journey, biographical

6
For example: Could you tell me about your daily experiences of living near to Oldbury/Bradwell nuclear
power station? What difference (if any) would you say it makes to your life? Did you know about the
power station before you moved here/could you tell me about the building of the power station?

13
choices narratives, to firmly put their risk perceptions in context7. The fina l broad
type of question prompted for experientially relevant narratives surrounding
possible sources of risk issues and focused inquiry around specific events. Such
events included: localised sources of possible controversy (for example, in
Bradwell the late 1980’s NIREX proposals to identify a nuclear waste storage
facility; anecdotal health studies proposing a link between nuclear power and
cancer/leukaemia levels); national issues of interest (for example, the potential
for new nuclear power stations); and, international issues (for example, climate
change).

The Bradwell interviews 8 took place in late 2004 and early 2005. In 2007 we
returned to as many of the original interviewees as possible for the Q-sort stage
(see the following section). After completing the Q sort, Bradwell interviewees
were briefly asked to update us on their views. New Q participants were also
asked for background information relating to their views on the local power
station, nuclear power and their area. The Oldbury interviews took place in 2007.
In total 83 participants (Bradwell n=43, Oldbury n=39; total n=82) took part
across 61 in-depth narrative interviews (Bradwell n=30, Oldbury n=31; total n=61)
in the two case study areas. For the majority of the Oldbury interviews, the Q-
sort preceded the interview. All of the interviews took place in participants’
homes. All (with the permission of the interviewees) were recorded using audio
equipment. All of the interviews were then professionally transcribed, ready for
qualitative analysis. Subsequent to transcription, all original names and identities
were exchanged for pseudonyms within the interview transcripts. The form of
qualitative analysis will now be briefly discussed.

3.3 Analysis
To analyse the interviews, we have used the well established technique of
interpretive thematic analysis, in which we organised and subsequently
interrogated data for themes and patterns within and between the interview
transcripts (Miles and Huberman, 1994). For this a coding framework was
created. The codes were created, as is usual (see Coffey and Atkinson, 1996),
from a number of different sources: first from theoretical literatures pertinent to
our research; second from our own research aims and interests; and third, from
the transcripts themselves. The coding framework was refined through an
iterative process that involved applying the three sources of the coding
framework to the data, to ensure that the codes used remained congruent and
responsive to the data throughout (Henwood and Pidgeon, 2003). Coding and
data management utilised the CAQDAS (Computer Aided Qualitative Data
Analysis Software) NVivo™ (version 2). Whilst use of a computer package in
qualitative analysis does not inherently ensure greater rigour (Fielding, 2002), it
does facilitate, particularly with a very large data-set such as this, rapid and
systematic retrieval of data according to particular themes or demographic

7
For example: What are your thoughts and feelings about living in the area generally? How does living
here compare with other places you have lived?
8
We wish to thank Niamh Moore and Matthew Cotton for assistance with the Bradwell fieldwork.

14
categories. The application of the codes was evaluated through intensive group
discussions within the research team, to ensure that “blanket coding” had not
occurred (Fielding, 2002).

Other forms of analysis were utilised as required, including narrative approaches

for understanding biographical material and discourse analysis of certain aspects
of the language used by participants. The latter was particularly important in
relation to the section below (Meta-theme 2), in which careful attention was paid
to how participants talked about affectively charged states; a practice suggested
by Macgill (1987). For the former, careful attention was paid to “emplotted
narratives” (P olkinghorne, 1995), enabling the structure, plot developments and
characterisations used by our interviewees to be examined in some depth.

3.4 Results
After extensive analysis of the data corpus, we identified two broad meta-themes
associated with living with (nuclear) risk in everyday life. This section will
examine these themes (and the sub -themes within) more closely, before
concluding with reflections on using a narrative approach. However, before
exploring our results, we would like to make an initial observation. Despite
extensive development of a narrative-based approach collecting such data was
not unproblematic. At times, our interviewees did not necessarily feel directly
engaged with (elements of) the research topic and therefore there were periods
where the discussion of ‘risk’ occurred less as a result of biographical
accounting, but rather through prompts supplied by the interviewer.

3.4.1 Meta-theme 1: Making risk o rdinary

In contrast to the generic assumption that nuclear power is the archetypal dread
and feared technology (Weart, 1988), our interviewees often expressed
sentiments which denied the uniqueness of living close to a nuclear power
station. Indeed, the ordinariness of living close to either a nuclear power station,
or any anothe r socio-technical ‘risky’ development for that matter, was present in
the majority of the interviewees’ narrations. The process of making the power
station ordinary, or perhaps more accurately articulating a lack of noteworthiness
of the presence of the power station, was revealed in two sub-themes;
familiarisation and making risk normal.

3.4.1a Familiarisation

“…it used to be a pleasant sight if you were at sea, you had a bit of a rotten
voyage, you could see that power station and [think/say] ‘thank god we‘re
nearly home’”
(Trevor, Bradwell).
Within this sub-theme, ordinariness is apparent in the interviewees’ familiarity
with the nuclear station over the period of their life in the area, as well as the
longevity of the presence of the power station. There is a clear contrast between
the findings emerging from research on proposed and new socio-technical

15
developments (such as the siting of wind farms; see for example, Woods, 2003;
Devine-Wright, 2005; Parkhill, 2007) and those (such as ours) which focus on
existing developments already hosted by communities for a significant period.
Critical to this sub-theme is the emphasis placed by our interviewees on the
physicality of the nuclear power station fading into the background and simply
becoming part of the landscape; it is seen frequently, and through its prolonged
relationship with residents and place has become an unremarkable feature of the
area. For a small number of our interviewees who had moved to the area as a
child or had been born in the area, familiarity was engendered through ‘growing-
up’ with the power station; it was something that had always been there and had
been (physically at least) part of their everyday li ves.

Some of the interviewees also suggested functions which for them constructed
the power station as a benign entity. One such example is the power station
being used as a navigational aid, for sailors returning home on the Blackwater
Estuary (Bradwell) and the Severn Estuary (Oldbury) . Such constructions of the
power station go beyond the functionality of being a navigation aid, as in some
accounts the power station becomes representative of home, a significant
symbolism given the often cited (yet not wholly undisputed) belief that home is a
“haven and refuge” (Mallett, 2004: 70).

Being used to the presence of the power station in terms of its physical presence
was not the only source of familiarisation to which our interviewees pointed. It
was also the case that the familiarity, and ordinariness, of the power station were
reinforced through social networks. For some this came from direct experience
of working at the power station. For others, it was through having a family
member, a friend, a neighbour or even knowing a more casual acquaintance who
worked at the power station. Thus interviewees could express a sense of having
insight into how the power station worked, or of those who make the power
station work, enabling a judgement that it must also be safe.

A furthe r source of social familiarity, accrued from processes of imaginary

positioning (Wetherell and Edley, 1999), by which we mean that even if the
interviewee did not have direct contact, however infrequent or brief, with any
power station workers, they could imagine how such workers think and feel.
Inherent to such insights, was the demystification of the power station as a
distant institutional organisation. Through such social networks, social trust was
built and the power station workers seen as ordinary people and not “others”.
Intrinsic to this “de-othering” (a term borrowed and adapted from Buller and
Morris, 2003 who study human-animal relations), is our interviewees’ assertions
that power station workers have the same or similar value systems or moral
ordering as they have themselves.

Two further lesser used forms of de-mystification also occurred. First, some
interviewees equated domestic technologies (such as kettles) with the
technology underpinning the nuclear power station. Secondly, a small number of

16
interviewees intimated that they had some insight into the working practices of
the power station due to their knowledge of health and safety, and work
practices, in adjacent industries. Such knowledge, led them to once again de-
other the practices of the power station and see it as just another industry, rather
than a unique development.

In all of the above forms of ‘familiarisation’ and ‘ordinariness’ was the notion that
the power station is a taken-for-granted part of everyday life, with very little, if
any, engagement with issues of risk.

3.4.1b Making risk normal

“I think we just knew that there's not really very many places that haven’t got
an element of risk particularl y now we're faced with risk everywhere”
(Audrey, Bradwell)

In contrast to the previous sub-theme, in making risk normal the power station is
no longer an entirely benign presence. Interviewees, who set about normalising
the risk the power station represented to themselves and others, did so not by
denying that risks exist, but by attenuating risk (Pidgeon et al., 2003). It is as
Simmons (2003: 13) suggests; “to enact a safe, ‘normal’
environment...[one]...cannot, therefore, avoid enacting a risky[...] environment”.

A particular emphasis was that living in close proximity to a nuclear power station
did not represent a unique risk. Rather, living with risk was part of everyday life
in the sense that risk is everywhere and a possibility in everything that we do. So
to these interviewees the risk that the power station represents is no more a
threat than (for example) using a mobile phone, driving a car or living near to
another industrial development.

Even particular threats the power station is alleged to hold were normalised.
Take for example, the possibility of developing cancer. Many of our interviewees
were aware of the contested claims of associations between nuclear power and
cancer incidences. Even if awareness of such alleged (and highly contested)
associations were a product of our interview, they suggested that such illnesses
are simply part of everyday life.

As well as being normalised our interviewees used “strategies of normification”

(Bush et al., 2001: 54) to stress the ordinariness of living close to a nuclear
power station. Bush et al. (2001) assert that strategies of normification consists
of the disassociation from risk via two elements; invocations of differences and
sameness.

In normification strategies of differences, interviewees narrated their experiences

or imaginings of living near to other developments, or being involved in other
activities to assert that there are far more risky endeavours than the power

17
station, or that the threat of the power station as being a far less risky possibility.
Two such examples were, living near to other socio-technical developments such
as coal-fired power stations or chemical works. Such developments were
suggested to be more detrimental to one’s wellbeing (social, physical and
mental) than the nuclear power station. Making comparisons continued to be an
important element in the strategies of difference. Biographical narratives
particularly around their own (former) work practices demonstrated how other
activities and industries are comparatively riskier than the nuclear power station,
and once again reiterated that risk is a part, and has been a part, of their
everyday lives.

Even radiation – the aspect of nuclear power most heavily attributed with anxiety
- was both normalised and normified (through strategies of differences). First in
normalisation, radiation was depicted as being a natural phenomenon, with levels
being present everywhere. Second, through strategies of difference, exposure to
radiation was suggested by some as being not unusual due to air travel, x-rays
and (by one) volcanoes. Implicit in these, is once again the idea that nuclear
power and its by-products are not unusual, and that the technology is interwoven
into everyday lived experiences and not unique to individual geographical
locations.

In expressing sameness, participants accepted the nuclear power station as a

potential threat but denied this was limited to areas in close proximity to the
power station itself. An example of this was the claim that, in the event of some
sort of large explosion resulting in the leakage of radioactive material (however
unlikely this was deemed to be), the consequences would not be limited to local
communities, that radioactive clouds do not respect geographical and political
boundaries. The Chernobyl disaster was called upon (at times) to illustrate this.
This is reminiscent of the “democratisation” of risk issues discussed by Beck
(1992). Indeed, in the event of such an incident some interviewees suggested
that being in very close proximity may actually be advantageous, as they
envisioned that they would be killed in the initial blast, while those living further
away would suffer more unbearable consequences.

Closely allied to such discourses were beliefs about the proximity of other
nuclear power risks. In particular, France was constructed as a nation with a
number of nuclear power stations in relatively close proximity to Britain (and thus
the interviewees). As such, their local areas are already ‘at risk’ from nuclear
power, and the particular threat of ‘their’ power station is rendered less material.

3.4.1c Conclusion to m eta-theme 1

What we would like to emphasise, before moving on to examples where the
power station is explicitly constructed as a threatening presence, is the
prevalence of the discourses of ordinariness in both the Bradwell and Oldbury
interviews. Furthermore, due to the popularity and multiplicity of such
discourses, the social construction of the power station as benign, normal and

18
ordinary could be viewed as being the dominant discourse articulating normative
beliefs, assumptions and values, and facilitating the uninterrupted flow of daily
life. As Tulloch and Lupton (2003) also found, our interviewees clearly have a
heightened awareness of risk, as is particularly clear from the Making risk normal
sub-theme, but in general the nuclear power station was seen as one of many
sources of threat - routinely encountered and seen as not personally or socially
disabling. However, the interviews also contained important interruptions to the
dominant or normative discourses.

3.5 Meta -theme 2: Noticing the e xtraordinary – risk, threat and anxiety as part of
everyday life

“No not about the area but I have thought many times you know when there
were terrorist bombs in London and other places, I have thought the most
obvious place for a nuclear, for a terrorist attack would be a nuclear power
station and that made me really quite scared”
(Sara, Oldbury)

Let us first begin by stating we are not using a clinical definition of anxiety. When
we use the term anxiety, this refers to occasions when our interviewees have
either explicitly or implicitly indicated that they are worried about (a facet of) the
nuclear power station. In this respect our use of the term anxiety is closer to the
notion of risk as feeling or affect which has recently been extensively discussed
in the risk literature (cf. Slovic et al, 2004). Explicit uses of the noun anxiety were
rare in our data corpus . It was more often the case tha t people used adjectives
describing some degree of apprehension, unease, nervousness or agitation.
Therefore, this meta-theme was analysed via both interpretive thematic analysis,
and discourse analysis. Careful attention was paid not only to what issues or
circumstances induced threat, but also the language used by our interviewees.
This is important as “the language that people use (or have at their disposal)
reflects, conditions, and reveals the terms in which they (are able to) think about
things” (Macgill, 1987: 53). Thus whilst language is not an exclusive indicator of
perceptions of risk, threat or riskiness, it is nevertheless a powerful one (ibid.).
Key terms as used by our interviewees were “worried”, “horrified”, “concerned”;
all indicative of affectively charged framings and moments of fear, distress or
indeed frustration (however fleeting).

Other language tropes also implied and revealed sources of apprehension. This
included metaphors revealed in narratives and more dramatic story telling of
incidents . It was also the case that through risk biographies, our interviewees
made known through small stories how anxiety may not be felt in the present, but
as a past emotional state (or vice-versa). Finally, imaginary positions were
envisaged to indicate that if their biographical circumstances were different (for
example, being a parent), then they might be more reflexive about the risk the
power station represents.

19
However, key to all of the language tropes used was how it was, in a certain set
of circumstances rendered in place, time and biography, that the nuclear power
station was socially reconstructed from being ordinary to extraordinary. It is
these extraordinary moments which we will now discuss in more detail.

3.5.1 Intersection of risk and biography

“Years ago when it was first built and for the first few years, well up until
probably ten years ago, they used to come round here, always on a Sunday,
whether they got paid overtime I don’t know to do all these checks, but the
worrying thing was they’d park outside here and they’d all get out in their white
suits, like a space suit, helmet and everything to do all the testing, well there
we were sort of just ordinary…”
(Brandon, Oldbury)

Moments of reconstruction of the power station as risky and threatening do not

occur outside of a biographical and temporal vacuum. Irwin (2001: 175) asserts:

“Environmental problems do not sit apart from everyday life (as if they
were discrete from other issues and concerns) but instead are
accommodated within (and help share) the social construction of local
reality”.

The present empirical analysis suggests that it is when events or symbols of risk
and threat intersect with interviewees’ everyday lives that discourses of anxiety
can arise.

We would argue that a threat or risk becomes salient when the interviewee
deems it to be relevant to their circumstances and lives. We call this process the
intersection of risk and biography as a way of emphasising the role that temporal
and other forms of context play in recognition of the extraordinariness of the
power station. Intrinsic to this, is that whilst non-specific ‘dread’ and fear was
indeed articulated by some of our interviewees, it was far more common for
highly specific, often very concrete risk issues to be associated with affectively
charged language, thoughts and feelings. There were four main issues which
were narrated as primers of anxiety, specifically:

• terrorism;

• large explosions or Chernobyl-like events;

• health threats;

• and local experientially relevant threat issues.

20
Other risks and threats were articulated by the interviewees, spanning a plethora
of different issues (including contamination, proposed nuclear waste facility
siting, proposed new nuclear power stations, the legacy of nuclear power and
even more anecdotally, aesthetic, decommissioning and stigma concerns).
However, these four held the most prevalent and pervasive associations with
anxiety discourse within the data.

The four risk issues depicted above fell into two categories through which they
intersected the biographies of our interviewees. First, terrorism, large explosions
and knowledge of certain health issues appear to be primarily mediated risk
issues. That is, interviewees articulated that they had been made aware of such
issues via either the mass media, or from their social networks (for example, a
family member/friend/neighbour) recounting a threatening experience. The
preoccupation in both Oldbury and Bradwell with large explosions/Chernobyl type
events and terrorist incidents is particularly interesting . With the one exception of
the 1957 Windscale fire, no major reactor accident has occurred in the UK.
Equally, a terrorist attack has never (to our knowledge) taken place at a nuclear
power station. This seemed to be irrelevant, as the threat had been experienced
vicariously through witnessing or hearing about the events of Chernobyl, 9/11(the
attack on the twin towers in New York, USA) and July 7th (the London bombings
in 2005). What this reveals is how risk framings and sources of anxiety and
concern are dynamic entities, often constructed through reference to external
events (nuclear and non-nuclear) in ways which appear to disrupt the usual
(ordinary) framings of risk.

Second, intersections of risk and biography occurred through direct experiences

of threat, and, once again, included health issues. But rather than hearing of
anecdotal studies or media reports of cancer and nuclear power, or stories from
other people about individuals developing cancer, in this case health issues were
more immediate; either they themselves had developed cancer, or another loved
one (such as a family member, friend or neighbour). Cancer was not the only
health issue leading to uncertainty regarding the possible effects of living close to
a nuclear power station. A ny illness whose cause could not be immediately
identified was also a source of unease. Nor were experienced threats only
related to health issues. Our interviewees narrated stories of unexpected
intersections of risk and biography which had led them to experience concerns in
multiple ways. This included times when the power station was a source of
unanticipated disruption to their lives or environment: for example, when a minor
incident at the plant had caus ed the local roadway to be closed. Anxiety was
recounted as, in part, stemming from uncertainty due to a lack of information and
not being kept informed as to why the road had been closed. Even normal
working practices at the power station were capable of generating concern. One
such example was the release of steam, which took place annually. For some
interviewees, the infrequency of this event led them to temporally question
whether it was safe, largely due to the unfamiliar sounds that were produced.
Another example, again related to the (past) normal working practices of the

21
nuclear power station, was the practice of testing in areas adjacent to the power
station. Through the use of imagery, some interviewees described how power
station workers would come dressed in white “space suits” to conduct tests on or
near their land. It was the incongruity of the use of such safety gear juxtaposed
with the interviewees wearing simple everyday clothing that made temporarily
salient the extraordinariness of the power station’s presence.

It is beyond the scope of this report to discuss every such example. However,
what was common was that both mediated and direct experiences of threat
occurred spontaneously and were situated in time, space and biography. It
would be misleading for us to say that our interviewees were in a constant state
of anxiety, or that such incidents always led to the permanent re-
conceptualisation of the powe r station as threatening (although this did
sometimes occur). Instead it is more accurate to state that such incidents were
largely moments of anxiety, which bubbled to the surface and led, however
temporarily, to the power station being viewed as a risk, until such a time as the
risk was deemed no longer a threat, or the anxiety was in some way resolved.

3.5.2 Living with anxiety

“…it's like living with a bit of a birthmark. You know it's there, you get used to it,
you don't take any notice of it and then something will focus your mind if there's
an issue and you think about it a little bit more…”
(Audrey, Bradwell)

In Social Representations Theory (SRT) the concept of “anchoring” is used to

show how people incorporate ideas, meanings and framings from past events to
understand present day unknown risks. Through this process, the unknowable is
made more knowable, and uncertainty is reduced:

“As a consequence of anchoring, when a new event must be understood,

its integration is accomplished by moulding it in a way that it appears
continuous with existing ideas (Moscovici, 1984b)” (Joffe, 2003 :63).

“Anchoring is not purely an intrapersonal process of assimilation. Rather,

the ideas, images and language shared within groups steer the direction in
which members come to terms with the unfamiliar. This makes the alien
event imaginable. However, it removes from the new event both its
specificity and its potentially threatening quality” (Joffe, 2003: 63).

Whilst Joffe and others who engage with SRT clearly indicate anchoring can be a
mechanism to reduce uncertainty and risk, our data shows that anchoring can
also be a source of anxiety and threat. That is, by anchoring current knowledge
in what is known of past risky events, risk and threat are made salient. Yet as
was discussed in the first meta-theme, the power station is viewed by many as
ordinary and unremarkable. If this is the case, then how do people continue to

22
enact the ordinariness of the power station and live with risk whe n faced with
such pervasive and sometimes powerful moments of anxiety?

Zonabend (1993: 124) suggests that anxiety is “furtive”, “muted” and repressed
but always under the surface of people’s discourses and “is not difficult to detect
when you are talking to the people of la Hague”. She further suggests that this
repression of anxiety is “a hidden suffering on a modest yet real scale, indicating
the stubborn persistence of a sickness in our civilisation” (Zonabend, 1993: 124).
Our analysis here is congruent with that of Zonabend, in that ‘being anxious ’
appears not to be a constantly felt state , but one which ebbs and flows: that it is
an undercurrent. Our interviewees voiced a number of responses to the presence
of anxiety, for some they “bracketed” (Wynne et al., 2007 [1993]) it off by refusing
to think about it; pushing it to the back of their minds. For others, the particular
issue of threat was eventually deemed as irrelevant due to either distancing
through time passing, or through another biographical risk issue taking
precedence, and thus superseding, the previous issue (this could be a nuclear,
or non-nuclear event, including personal issues). Third, there was also some
indication that whilst the threat issue and anxiety might remain, this was an
accepted state. That is, some of our interviewees became reconciled to its
existence and simply moved on. Yet another possibility, indicated through our
interviewees, was that anxiety and threat were coped with via the use of humour.

3.5.3 Laughing it off: an exploration of the multiple roles of humour

“… we have the warning system, which can be a bit scary because

unfortunately they haven’t got it quite right; it starts off by telling you there’s a
major problem and then saying it’s just a test, I’d prefer it to do it the other way
round [laughs] scariest thing there is that, ‘run for your lives, actually it’s just a
test’ [laughs]”
(Oscar, Oldbury)

Where humour is discussed in risk research, it tends to be limited to that of ‘black

(macabre) humour’, or focussing on the absurd, and considered as a distancing
technique, to prevent the build-up of anxiety (see for example, Zonabend, 1993;
Irwin et al., 1999; Wynne et al. 2007). Whilst this is certainly present within our
data (mostly centred on the consequences of a large explosion or Chernobyl-
type incident), this is just one way that humour is evidently utilised by our
interviewees. Among our interviewees humour appeared to be a means of
disclosing difficult to reveal matters and (at times) to divert conversation away
from what was perceived as being too much of a morose subject.

However, interpreting humour simply as a distancing technique does not seem to

do it justice. Our data shows that whilst humour may act as a personal coping
mechanism, it can also, as Brannagan (2007) suggests (albeit in relation to
environmental protest groups) , through the use of irony, highlight discrepancies
between concepts and reality, and with underlying serious meanings (also see

23
Szersynski, 2007). For example, two of our interviewees used flippancy and
satirical imagery to describe how a proposed wind farm might be able to blow a
radioactive cloud from the power station (in the event of such a release),
revealing a sense of futility and powerlessness, not only about the consequence
of such an event (their inability to protect themselves from an indiscriminating
radioactive cloud ), but also the proposition of an unwanted wind farm. Yet
another interviewee told an ironic story of the rigid adherence to safety
regulations resulting in a greater number of people being put ‘at risk’ when
nuclear waste was transported. It is beyond this report to fully explore and
theorise the use of humour in the context of risk. However, we do suggest that
while the role of humour has been typically unexplored in risk (perception)
research, it can be an important aspect of people’s risk subjectivities and
biographies.

3.5.4 Examining why anxiety remains

“…There is this little history of Bradwell people you know, actually, not
wanting things to be steam-rollered through. I think lots and lots of people
living here, don’t like people, don’t like feeling people in authority like, you
know the Government agencies actually think we’re “local yocals” and don’t
know what the hell is going on in the world and that we don’t need to be taken
notice of, but in fact there’s lots of very wealthy people who live round here,
lots who’ve worked in the city and dealt with things, and they’ve come out
here for an easy life or they still commute in and you know, as I say lots of
quite vocal people. So what would happen if we had another power station
proposal I don’t know, no doubt there would be people who would oppose it
as well. It would depend on how it was sort of, how the proposal was
delivered as well I think.”
(Gemma Turner, Bradwell)

Risk subjects are complex beings and risk subjectivities are not static. Our
interviewees (as has been shown) do not rely on technical “probability” risk
assessments in their evaluation of what risk the nuclear power station represents
to them or their communities. Neither are evaluations of threats and the risk
reliant solely on issues related to nuclear power. Just as Chernobyl, the
archetypal industrial disaster, is “deployed on a number of occasions to reinforce
an argum ent about the risks associated [with other industries]” (Irwin et al., 1999:
1315), so too are adjacent publicised non-nuclear risk issues (for example,
terrorism) incorporated into our interviewees’ social constructions of the power
station. Therefore risk is constantly being socially constructed and what
constitutes a threat to and by the power station is constantly being re-negotiated.

Other reasons for the persistence of anxiety are found in our interviewees’
perceptions of the institutional bodies involved in the regulation of the power
stations. In particular, our interviewees at times articulated distrust of
Government and Government bodies. Sometimes this was based on generic

24
sentiments: notions of not being able to trust politicians, the civil service and
other Government bodies because of disenfranchisement. However, particularly
in Bradwell, previous specific (and unfavourable) dealings with Government
bodies were pointed to as a source of distrust. Once again, even specific
incidents were not necessarily related to the power station per sé: Bradwell
interviewees pointed to a proposed wetland flooding plan and a wind farm, as
well as a proposed nuclear waste incinerator and nuclear waste repository.
These proposals were perceived unfavourably not only due to the perceived
flaws of the proposals themselves, but also through the way they had been
presented to the community. It was felt by some Bradwell interviewees that
these proposals were presented as a “done deal” rather that through any desire
on the behalf of Government to meaningfully engage local residents. When this
occurred, interviewees expressed feelings of being under-valued both as citizens
and community members. Other (non-local) failings of Government also formed
a basis for distrust, includ ing the BSE (mad cow) crisis and the more recent
outbreaks of Foot and Mouth disease.

In general, particularly surrounding issues of health, our interviewees expressed

uncertainty about who they could trust to give impartial information and advice.
Once again Government was distrusted and was perceived by some as being
self-serving and incapable of objectivity, or as being focused only on the possible
economic benefits nuclear power might bring, rather than on the safety and
wellbeing of people. Thus Government, in particular, was seen as being
unwilling to reveal ‘the truths’ about nuclear power. The nuclear industry was
also distrusted, although here there seemed to be an absence of the betrayal
that was present in discourses of distrust of Government. Problems of
epidemiology were also discussed as reasons why any denial (or claim) of a link
between cancer incidences and nuclear power could not be wholly believed.

The final explanation for the perseverance of anxiety and possibility that the
power station could be a threat was due to the very composition of such socio-
technical systems. For some interviewees, once humans enter a system it
becomes fallible: short-cuts would be taken and the morals and values of some
involved (the nuclear industry and Government) would be questionable. For
others, stories of their own mistakes and fallibility served not as a source of
accusation of human error, but to suggest that anyone is capable of making an
honest mistake.

3.6 Reflecting on using the narrative approach

Using a narrative approach has been a valuable way of inquiring into how risk
issues associated with the nuclear power station feature in the lives of people
living close to such facilities. Our inquiries, drawing upon Tulloch and Lupton’s
(2003) approach, have pursued biographical, place-based narratives, making the
dynamics of temporal and spatial context central to analysis. They have
eschewed overly limiting models of risk subjectivity that reduce it, for example, to
the idea (often found in risk studies) that living with risk amounts to people

25
making probabilistic assessments involving more or less rational judgements
about risk stimuli , based on whether they are in possession of, or lack, objective
(technical) sources of risk knowledge.

Other researchers, focussing on people and communities living close to large

scale socio-technical and environmental hazard sites, as our work does, have
established the need to “locate research within a more multifaceted discussion”
of interviewees’ lives within place (Irwin et al., 1999: 1314). Our narrative
approach has done this, resulting in an account highlighting, among other things,
how:

• dominant discourses circulating within communities can provide ways of

framing issues as risky or not;
• biographical experiences, dynamically unfolding in and through space and
time, are interrupted by risk events (mediated and direct, real and
symbolic) to disrupt the us ually taken for granted normality surrounding a
power station’s presence in a particular locality;
• people’s assessments and judgements as risk subjects can be made
‘reflexively’, that is, by taking up positions contingently based on what
they know and imagine about the risk issue and the actions and motives
of other people and regulatory regimes;
• risk subjects dynamically use language and linguistic techniques such as
conversational tropes (for example, analogies and metaphors) and
humour to indicate issues considered, intermittently, to be troubling.

As a result of our narrative inquiries, discourses of the ordinariness of the nuclear

power stations have been identified as a central part of people’s ways of
orienting to their lives and worlds. Without taking such an approach in our study,
these discourses might have been omitted in their entirety. The initial, meta
theme, of everyday ordinariness and unremarkability of the power station, within
our data, provided a further context for our observation about the perceived
extraordinariness of risk and threat. In this way, it has furthered our
understanding of how risk and threat operates within a temporally defined, spatial
context, establishing the ebbs of flows of issues and risk as a constructed feature
of the power station.

Our narrative approach has also offered some alternative ways of exploring ‘risk
subjectivity’, making it possible to engage with the way (some) people respond
more emotively and anxiously to risk than others. Work not reported here (but
see Henwood, 2008) involving a temporal, narrative analysis of the dynamics and
interweaving of narrative themes, and how they are accounted for by
interviewees, is able to focus in more depth and detail on explaining a key
emotive theme (of betrayal), specifically avoiding flattening out the rich stream of
emotive data in the interviews, and illuminating some of the more elusive
psychological and social dynamics that may be underlying findings about
institutional distrust.

26
3.7 Conclusion to the narrative interviews
A central two -part question which we aimed to answer throughout this empirical
stage is: how do people living in close proximity to a nuclear power station live
with risk, and can studying the ways in which people narrate about their
experiences biographically, and dynamically through time contribute to such
understandings? Through this empirical phase we have examined how people
relate and represent their experiences of risk in their everyday lives, as ‘risk
subjects’. As was depicted in the above section, we have found that a narrative
approach to interviews has proven useful in focussing attention on specific
processes involved in the formation and constitution of the meanings of risk
associated with the nuclear power station. Our interviewees have revealed a
dynamic intersection between risk, time and biography, and our approach has
also avoided ‘flattening out’ rich seams of emotion which occur from time to time
in people’s accounts through attending to participants’ conceptualisations of the
nuclear power station through language use and humour.

We have clearly shown through our interviewees’ accounts that living with risk
involves processes which make the power station ordinary; these include seeing
it as a familiar part of daily life, demystifying it as a distant social organisation,
and deemphasising the significance of the power station’s local proximity, such
that it is not presented as a unique risk. Nonetheless, coexisting with this
dominant mode of conceptualising the power station’s local presence as ordinary
is the intermittent reconstruction of the nuclear power station as extraordinary
and indeed, as threatening (cf. Masco, 2006). Our interviewees have shown that
prompts for noticing the extraordinary occur through both mediated and direct
experiences of threat. Additionally, our interviewees have revealed that it is not
only nuclear events and threat issues which foster their conceptualisations of
extraordinariness; past and present non-nuclear events (for example, terrorist
activities) are also highly pertinent to how they reveal and view the riskiness of
the power station. We use the phrase ‘risk-biography intersections’ to draw
attention to these dynamic ways in which the power station’s extraordinariness is
recognised in specific circumstances relating to place, time and biography. A
further theme which runs through the interview data is that trust and distrust (of
those responsible for managing nuclear power) and the ways in which this can at
times reinforce confidence, and at others powerfully reinforce anxiety and
concern amongst some local people.

27
Section 4: The Q-sorts at Bradwell and Oldbury
4.1 Q-Method rationale
It is clear from the detailed analysis of the interviews that there were a multitude
of ways in which individuals could perceive and live with the two nuclear power
stations at Bradwell and Oldbury. The interviews were well placed to reveal the
qualitative complexities and intricacies involved in how people construct the local
power station as ‘risky’ or not and how this had featured in their everyday lives
and over time. However, although analysis of the narrative interviews highlights
the obvious complexities involved, it is not able to easily reflect how individual
conceptualisations might lead to distinct configurations in understandings across
broader social groupings. Stage 2 therefore utilised a method which retains a
degree of qualitative flexibility and contextual sensitivity but is also capable of
exploring such configurations, alongside an exploration of issues which might be
key in any overall evaluations of the power station (and nuclear power in
general). Q-method approach is a technique through which people’s opinions
can be examined through a more structured medium, and enables a wide variety
of expressed opinions and value positions to be condensed into a simplified form.
In essence, Q allows us to gain an understanding of which aspects of living close
to a nuclear power station were most important, and which were least, as well as
a means through which we could ‘summarise’ main configurations of belief (or
points of view) amongst the participants. The Q stage also represents a point of
departure from the initial methodological objectives of the project, to explore the
usefulness of narrative, as well as a move from a more retrospective (i.e. as
viewed in the past, biographical) consideration of living alongside Oldbury and
Bradwell stations to a more prospective consideration of past, present and the
future.

4.2 Introducing the Q-method a pproach

The Q-method approach (also referred to as Q-methodology), is a long-
established technique for identifying and differentiating between shared
viewpoints amongst a given group of individuals (Brown, 1980; McKeown and
Thomas, 1988). Participants in a Q-study are required to sort a set of predefined
statements (the Q-sort) with respect to the issue at hand, which are then
subjected to statistical analysis and further interpretation by the researcher. Q-
method is particularly well suited to the study of the complexities and distinct
configurations in understandings common to sub -sets of participants within well-
defined populations or expert communities, and has recently been utilised in a
range of risk studies (see Simmons and Walker, 1999; Niemeyer et al., 1995;
Tuler et al., 2005; Chess and Johnson, 2006).

4.3 Q participants
Data for the Q-study were collected in locations close to both Oldbury and
Bradwell between April and October 2007. The majority of participants in the
Bradwell sample had originally been recruited for the interview phase of the

28
project in 2004-5, and were re-contacted for the present stage. Most other
participants, particularly at Oldbury, were identified using professional
recruitment agencies which used local press advertising, canvassing (door to
door and at local events), and social networking to construct a sample of local
people. The final samples were designed to represent an approximate cross
section of gender, age group and length of residence at both locations, and
comprised 84 participants; a total of 42 from each location (Table 1).

To reflect the local population, individuals with specific affiliations to the local
nuclear power station, such as past or present employment, were explicitly
included in the sample (n=16). Individuals who described themselves as having
had past or present involvement with organised anti-nuclear groups were also
included in the sample (n=4, Bradwell) although we were unable to identify any
such participants during recruitment in the Oldbury area.
Table 1: Demographical Information of Q Participants
Characteristic Category Oldbury n (%) Bradwell n (%) Total (%)
Male 23 (55%) 19 (45%) 42 (50%)
Gender
Female 19 (45%) 23 (55%) 42 (50%)

18-29 6 (14%) 2 (5%) 8 (10%)

30-39 8 (19%) 8 (19%) 16 (19%)

Age group 40-49 8 (19%) 8 (19%) 16 (19%)

50-59 8 (19%) 10 (24%) 18 (21%)

60+ 12 (29%) 14 (33%) 26 (31%)

Power 7 (17%) 9 (21%) 16 (19%)

Affiliation Station
NGO 0 (0%) 4 (10%) 4 (5%)

Total 42 (50%) 42 (50%) 84

4.4 Design and procedure

Statements for the Q-sort were drawn initially from an inspection of the
transcripts of the 30 biographical interviewees with people living close to
Bradwell nuclear power station (see the previous section for more information)
collected in 2004/5. The interviews were mined for an initial sample of
statements reflecting as wide a diversity of views on the power stations as
possible, generating an initial corpus of 400 statements also known as the
‘concourse’. Selection of the final concourse ended when no new insights or
perspectives could be identified in the statements being generated (i.e.
theoretical saturation was reached). Examination of the main themes within the
selected statements enabled a sub -sample of statements (the ‘Q-sample’) to be
identified which reflected the overall concourse. A small number of additional
statements were then added by the research team, to reflect national policy and

29
other developments, leading to a final Q-sample of 62 statements. The study
was then conducted primarily at participants’ own homes and was administered
according to procedures described by McKeown and Thomas (1988). The
statements were printed on cards and participants sorted these onto a grid,
graded from ‘Least-’ to ‘Most like my point of view’.

4.5 Analysis
Data were analysed using PQmethod version 2.11, and were subjected to
principal components analysis with Varimax rotation. This revealed four factors,
or ‘Points of View’ in the sample. Prototypic sorts were then generated for each
factor.

4.6 Results
Factor meanings were interpreted from the prototypic sorts, with additional
reference to interview transcripts and individual sorts of people who loaded highly
on each factor. The highest (+5 and +4) and lowest (-5 and -4) ranked
statements for each factor (or ‘Point of View’) are also presented in Table 2 at the
end of this report (Appendix 1), representing items that were most strongly
endorsed or rejected within a particular point of view. As the factor solutions from
both the Oldbury and Bradwell sorts were broadly similar, the two sets of data
have been pooled in the analysis we present. We describe each point of view in
turn, and the four factors are also summarised in the Text Box 1 below.

Text Box 1: Factors (Points of View) Arising from the Q-Study at

Bradwell and Oldbury
Factor 1: Beneficial and Safe
o Emphasised the local and national benefits of nuclear power
o Felt that we should increase the UK’s energy security through nuclear power
o Felt confident that we could trust the local power station operators to keep us safe

Factor 2: Threat and Distrust

o Emphasised the risks of nuclear power
o Felt that nuclear power was not ‘clean’
o Did not trust the nuclear indus try, and to a lesser extent Government
o Considered that we should stop using nuclear power, and switch to renewable forms of
energy production as soon as possible

Factor 3: Reluctant Acceptance

o Gave conditional support to nuclear power. Regarded nuclear power as having
drawbacks, but accepted that it may be necessary to address climate change and
national energy security
o Unsure about who to trust
o Would reluctantly accept new build locally on the basis of a sense of ‘civic duty’: The
idea that ‘we should all do our bit’

Factor 4: “There’s No Point Worrying”

o Regarded the power station as ‘just part of the landscape’
o Critical of Government, nuclear industry and regulators
o Felt that the media exaggerate risks and blow small nuclear incidents out of proportion
o Regarded the ‘greens’ as getting in the way and blocking progress

30
4.6.1 Point of View 1: Beneficial and safe
This point of view was characterised by two main constructs: the benefits that
nuclear power brought both locally and nationally, and safety associated with
relatively high levels of trust in the competence of the power station operatives
and moderate confidence in the regulators. Supplementary questions regarding
attitudes to nuclear power indicated that almost all participants flagged on this
factor were positive about nuclear power in general, with 30 (81%) indicating that
they would support the building of a new nuclear power station on the existing
nuclear site.

Nuclear power was regarded as both safe and clean in this point of view, and
respondents were also emphatic (ranking +5; Table 2) that they would rather live
near to a nuclear power station than a coal fired one or by a dirty industrial site.
Nuclear power was considered necessary for the UK’s energy security, although
the need for renewable sources of energy production running alongside nuclear
was not dismissed. At a local level the nuclear power station was regarded as an
asset which brought benefits to the community, and people with this perspective
did not feel that the area would be contaminated and stigmatised by its presence.
Trust within this perspective was placed primarily in the competence of the power
station operatives to ensure nuclear safety. These were regarded as ‘ordinary
people just like us’ who could be relied on not to cut corners or take chances,
whilst fear amongst the public was regarded by these participants as ‘irrational’
and borne of a lack of understanding about nuclear power. Interestingly, although
clearly a perspective that views nuclear power as highly beneficial, the highest
ranked statement (ranked +5; Table 2) nevertheless expresses a degree of
ambivalence, acknowledging that while nuclear power is not perfect and has
drawbacks it is the best option available.

4.6.2 Point of View 2: Threat and distrust

This point of view was based strongly on themes of threat, distrust and, to a
lesser degree, social mobilisation. There was also a negative correlation with
point of view 1 of moderate strength (-.56; Table 3). This factor produced the
most unequivocal sort pattern overall, and as such represented a clear anti-
nuclear stance, with 24 of 29 (i.e. 86%) of the grouped respondents indicating
that they were opposed to nuclear power in general, and 28 (96%) indicating that
they were opposed to the building of a new nuclear power station locally, on the
general attitude measures.
Table 3: Correlations between factor scores

31
This perspective emphasised, above all, a perceived need to stop using nuclear
power and to move towards using renewable sources of energy as soon as
possible. Nuclear power was regarded as risky, and neither clean, nor a
‘necessary evil’ which might be required to help combat climate change or
improve energy security. There was a marked sense of distrust, particularly of
the nuclear industry, and terrorism and day to day emissions were major
concerns for people with this point of view. The storage of radioactive waste on
the site following decommissioning was a strong concern and there was a clearly
stated willingness to mobilise against any attempt to establish a permanent
waste facility on the site, and, to a lesser degree, to protest against new power
station proposals.

4.6.3 Point of view 3: Reluctant acceptance

This point of view was defined by fewer flagged sorts (8) than the previous two
perspectives. It retained elements of the other main points of view but very
clearly placed strong emphasis on particular aspects of nuclear power and in
doing so defined a unique stance. Unlike factors 1 and 2, the perspective was
dominated by a cluster of similar statements with high factor scores indicating the
reluctant acceptance of nuclear power. The majority of people associated with
this factor (7 out of 8) were either neutral or positive about nuclear power in
general, while half of these respondents were neutral on the issue of a new
power station locally.

The reluctant acceptance of nuclear power captured by this factor showed the
respondents holding this point of view were persuaded that nuclear power may
be necessary in order to combat climate change and ensure a secure energy
supply. Nuclear power appeared to be regarded as clean and efficient, and
although the existence of associated risks was acknowledged, these were
presented as something best not dwelt upon. It was notable that individuals with
this perspective appeared to be uncertain about whom to trust about potential
risks, distrusting the nuclear industry on the matter and to some extent the
Government too. Holistic reading of the sort suggests that the perspective
expresses a sense of civic duty to look beyond individual concerns in order to
see ‘the bigger picture’. In other words, a feeling that as nuclear power may be
necessary in the future whether people like it or not, a new station might be
tolerated in the locality since they would have to go somewhere.

4.6.4 Point of View 4: There’s no point worrying

As with factor 3, this emerged as a minority position among our sample, with only
4 sorts flagged, but one defined by consistently high factor scores of a small
number of similar statements. There was no clear pattern with regard to support
or opposition to nuclear power. Again, as with factor 3, people associated with
this point of view acknowledged that there may be risks associated with the

32
nuclear power station but appear to adopt a pragmatic, normalising, approach to
having to live with them.

For individuals with this outlook, the power station was ‘just part of the
landscape’. It was not something that they worried about particularly and they
barely noticed it was there. Nuclear power was regarded as a relatively clean
source of energy. Although there seemed to be some concern about emissions
to the local estuaries on which the stations were sited, minor incidents at the
power station were dismissed as inconsequential and subject to media
exaggeration. Nevertheless, the perspective captured by this factor did take a
critical view of institutions, expressing a lack of trust in Government and the
nuclear industry in particular, and little confidence in the nuclear and
environmental regulators. Closer to home it does express, in common with Factor
1 and to a lesser extent Factor 3, relatively more confidence in the workers at the
local power station, but there was no sympathy for local critics of the power
station, who were seen as having the choice to live elsewhere, while ‘Greens’
generally were seen as blocking progress.

4.7 Q-method conclusion

The Q study has investigated, in a contextually sensitive manner, the distinctive
points of view that exist in the two local communities at Oldbury and Bradwell. It
is beyond the scope of this report to discuss the theoretical implications of the
findings in great detail (see Venables et al, 2008). Participants were able to sort
the statements in ways that defined their own perspectives while also utilising the
analytical power of principal components analysis. The approach and the
commonalities and differences identified thus bridge the methodological divide
between qualitative and quantitative research philosophies – and as such Q-
method has much to commend it for interpretive and contextual risk perceptions
research. The patterns of results from the analysis were broadly similar in both
Oldbury and Bradwell, suggesting at least some degree of transferability of the
findings, at least to other UK nuclear communities living in similar circumstances,
and further research wo uld clearly be desirable to investigate this possibility.

The Q study has successfully identified 4 distinctive points of view amongst the
participants, which we have labelled ‘Beneficial and Safe’, ‘Threat and Distrust’,
‘Reluctant Acceptance’ and ‘There’s no Point Worrying’. However, while the Q is
extremely capable for identifying distinctive qualitative configurations of belief, it
is unable to give any indication of the distribution of such beliefs, a question that
we follow up in the following (survey) stage of the research. An important
consideration to arise from the detailed analysis of the emergent points of view is
that the ‘landscape of beliefs’ about nuclear power do not conform to simple (e.g.
anti- or pro-nuclear) opposites – the revealed perspectives were complicated and
nuanced in nature. That this is so is reflected in a number of features of the
obtained factors, but most clearly in the orientation of the respondents to the
issue of who to trust. In factor 1 (Beneficial and Safe) it was the operators of the
local plant who were relied upon to keep the plant and local community safe –

33
they were seen both as competent and ordinary people just like us. In this way,
and congruent with the narrative interview findings, social networks provide the
basis for shared confidence. By complete contrast individuals who sorted in
terms of ‘Threat and Distrust’ were highly sceptical of the nuclear industry more
generally (and not local operators) in terms of its lack of honesty and openness
regarding inc idents, the integrity of its consultation efforts, and a perception that it
engaged in propaganda regarding plant safety. Distrust was also expressed,
although to a lesser extent, towards both the Government and the Environment
Agency. These findings indicate that there might exist, in this particular case, a
qualitative asymmetry between trust and distrust, and that in theoretical terms we
may need to revisit the notion of trust and distrust in risk management as
separate constructs, rather than being at the opposite end of any single
continuum (see also Lewicki, McAllister and Bies, 1998). The following (survey)
stage of the research is also designed to further explore this somewhat
unexpected finding.

34
Section 5: The survey: Oldbury and Hinkley Point
5.1 Rationale
The design and implementation of the large-scale survey at Oldbury and Hinkley
Point power stations builds upon the previous two phases of the project. It
facilitates a degree of methodological triangulation across the project phases,
through a quantitative examination of some of the key findings to date. In
particular, the survey was designed to investigate the degree to which each of
the four ‘Points of View’ which had emerged from the Q-study might be evident in
a wider local sample, as well as judgements of trust in the Government’s
regulation of nuclear power; in the nuclear industry; and the ability of local plant
operators to run the nearby nuclear power station safely. This approach also
facilitated an attempt to quantitatively measure people’s personal ‘place
attachment’ and the extent to which the nearby nuclear power station was
considered part of local place and identity. It also enabled an examination of the
factors that predict respondents’ support for the construction of a new nuclear
power station in the local area, as well as permitting an indirect comparison
between the ‘local’ results and those obtained from a national sample in 2005.

5.2 Design and procedure

The survey was divided into six main sections and contained (a) items on
general environmental concern; (b) a vignette task examining the extent to which
each of the four points of view from the Q study matched the respondent’s own
point of view on nuclear power; (c) items eliciting judgements of trust in the
institutions responsible for nuclear power (Government, nuclear industry and
local plant operators); (d) risk/benefit judgements and judgements of the
acceptability of nuclear power and new nuclear build, both locally and nationally;
(e) place attachment and judgements relating to the presence of the nearby
nuclear power station in the local community; and finally (f) policy preferences
with respect to future national decisions about energy choices.

Questionnaires were distributed to communities near to the nuclear power

stations at Oldbury (Oldbury-upon-Severn; Oldbury Naite; Thornbury) and
Hinkley Point (Stogursey; Nether Stowey; Stockland Bristol; Cannington;
Fiddington; Spaxton; Four Forks; Combwich; Bridgwater) between June and
August 2008. The Hinkley Point site was chosen as the comparison to Oldbury
primarily because more time had passed (in total 6 years) since the generation of
electricity at Bradwell, and we wished the survey to elicit beliefs around currently
operating stations. A researcher called at private addresses at each location on a
weekday, between 4pm and 8pm, and asked the respondent if they would be
willing to complete the questionnaire. Completed questionnaires were then
collected 3 days later. Participants who had not completed the survey by this
collection date were given a stamped, addressed envelope and asked to post the
completed questionnaire back at their earliest convenience. In small villages
such as Oldbury-upon-Severn and Stockland Bristol, a researcher called at all

35
 households, while in larger conurbations, every third household was selected.
As Bridgwater was too large to cover in its entirety by this approach,
approximately 150 residences were visited randomly in each of the 6 main
districts in the town (Hamp; Parkway; Chiltern Trinity; Wembdon; Durleigh; Colley
Lane).

5.3 Analysis and results

5.3.1 Survey sample

Table 4 shows a detailed breakdown of the characteristics of the survey samples
and illustrates that there were few significant demographic differences between
the Oldbury and Hinkley Point samples. The mean length of residence was
longer in the Hinkley Point sample , whilst at Oldbury, there were slightly more
households with dependent children, and the questionnaire was answered more
frequently by the primary caregiver. The Hinkley Point sample comprised a
greater number of respondents with family or friends who worked, or had worked
at a nuclear power station or for the British Nuclear Industry, and significantly
fewer with no connections.

Table 4: Demographic Informat ion of Survey Participants

Demographics Place
Demographic Demographic Information Oldbury Hinkley Point Total Sig
Category n (%) n (%) n (%)
Age 18-24 16 (2.4%) 21 (3.3%) 37 (2.9%) ns
25-34 35 (5.1%) 38 (6.1%) 72 (5.6%) ns
35-44 121 (18.3%) 92 (14.6%) 213 (16.5%) ns
45-54 121 (18.0%) 114 (18.2%) 235 (18.2%) ns
55-64 161 (24.3%) 158 (25.2%) 319 (24.7%) ns
65+ 210 (31.7%) 205 (32.6%) 415 (32.1%) ns
Gender Male 341 (52%) 321 (48%) 662 (51%) ns
Female 322 (51%) 307 (49%) 629 (49%) ns
Dependents Households with dependent children 216 (57%) 164 (43%) 380 p<.05
Age of children:
0-14 163 (55%) 134 (45%) 297 ns
15-18 90 (64%) 50 (36%) 140 ns
Questionnaire completed by primary caregiver 180 (58%) 133 (42%) 313 p<.01
Length of Mean length of residence in years [range in years] 26.1 [0-83] 30.3 [0-84] 28.1 [0-84] p<.001
Residence
Power Station Work /have worked at nuclear station/for BNI 70 (10.3%) 82 (12.7%) 152 (11.5%) ns
Affiliation Have family or friends who work/have worked at 262 (38.6%) 332 (51.4%) 594 (44.8%) p<.001
nuclear station/for BNI
None 347 (51.1%) 232 (35.9%) 579 (43.7%) p<.001
Total (n) 680 646 1326 -

36
5.3.2 Response rates
Table 5: Survey Participants Response Rates
Oldbury Hinkley Point Total
Addresses visited 1839 (47%) 2079 (53%) 3918 (100%)
Doors answered 1129 (47%) 1273 (53%) 2402 (100%)
Questionna ires distributed 813 (50%) 824 (50%) 1637 (100%)
Questionnaires returned 680 (51%) 646 (49%) 1326 (100%)
Response rates – as a proportion of:
Addresses visited (a) 36.9% 31.1% 33.8%
Doors answered (b) 60.1% 50.7% 55.1%
Questionnaires distributed (c) 83.5% 78.4% 80.9%

A total of 1326 useable questionnaires were returned from both survey areas
(Oldbury: n=680; Hinkley Point: n=646). Response rates were calculated in three
ways: returned questionnaires as a proportion of (a) the number of addresses
visited (b) the number of doors answered, and (c) the number of questionnaires
distributed. We consider that the second of these figures (b) is the most
informative, as it includes those who actively refused to participate, having
answered the door, but excludes those who were not at home, and who therefore
did not have a chance to consider participating in the study. On this measure the
response rate was a respectable 55% in aggregate.

Although the data set also allows us to make comparisons between the two
areas (Oldbury and Hinkley Point) many of these were not significant, and we
only comment where an important significant result does occur.

5.3.3 Comparisons of Oldbury/Hinkley survey with 2005 national survey

In presenting the results of the present study, we draw a series of comparisons
with data obtained with identical questions from a nationally representative (GB)
poll conducted for us by Ipsos-Mori in October 2005 (Poortinga et al., 2006).
These comparisons are primarily illustrative, rather tha n definitive, being intended
to show possible differences between the beliefs of communities living close to
nuclear power stations, and those of the British population in general. There are
a number of limitations to this comparison approach which mean that any
conclusions drawn should be tentative.

First, although the present survey incorporated a large number of people across
a range of local towns and villages, the sample in aggregate is not fully
representative of the local population. In particular, younger people were under-
represented in our samples from both Oldbury and Hinkley Point. Thus, the 18-
24 age bracket comprised approximately 3% of our total sample, and the 25-34
years age bracket comprised 5.6%. We estimate from census data (2001) that
representative figures in the Oldbury and Hinkley Point areas would be closer to
9.45% (Oldbury: 8.9%; Hinkley Point: 10.0%) and 16.2%, respectively (Oldbury:
14.0%; Hinkley Point: 18.5%). Similarly, approximately 56.8% of our sample was
aged 55 years or over, whilst a representative proportion would be closer to
36.2% (Oldbury: 37.5%; Hinkley Point: 34.8%). The analysis presented here

37
does not explicitly weight the local data to correct for this, although we have been
able to inspect the breakdown of question responses by age to look for major
differences, and we comment on these where appropriate. In addition, the
regression analyses reported below did include age as an independent variable,
and generally this was a non-significant factor.

Second, the nationally representative data with which the comparisons are drawn
were collected in 2005, approximately 3 years earlier than the local data.
Clearly, national opinions might have changed over time, particularly in regard to
nuclear power, for which policy has developed rapidly over the last few years.
However, national results from recent Ipsos-Mori tracking surveys suggest that
opinions on nuclear power and related issues remained relatively stable in Britain
at least between 2005 and late 2007 (Knight, 2007).

Finally, unlike the 2005 Ipsos-MORI poll, we did not include a ‘Don’t know’ option
in our questionnaire. In the October 2005 poll, however, responses in this
category for comparator questions used here were not higher than 6% on any of
the questions we replicated, so the omission of this category in the present
survey is unlikely to have had a major impact on our results.

5.3.4 General environmental concern (see Appendix 2, Tables 6-8)

The questionnaire commenced with a number of items asking about general
environmental concern, asking participants to answer a series of issues on a 4-
point scale from ‘not at all concerned’ to ‘very concerned’. Tabulated frequencies
are shown in Appendix 2, Tables 6-8.

5.3.4a Nuclear power

Concern about nuclear power in the current 2008 Oldbury and Hinkley Point
survey stood at 41% very or fairly concerned (44% amongst those aged under
35). Perhaps not surprisingly, this was lower than found in the 2005 nationally
representative figures where 59% were very or fairly concerned.

5.3.4b Radioactive waste

Despite the differences between the two surveys with regard to concern about
nuclear power, there was far less difference on the issue of radioactive waste. In
the Oldbury/Hinkley Point samples, 77% were very or fairly concerned about
radioactive waste (73% amongst those aged under 35), compared with 80% in
the 2008 national sample. However, a smaller proportion of the local
Oldbury/Hinkley Point sample was very concerned (42% in the local samples
versus 50% in the national).

5.3.4c Climate change

Our survey suggested that the majority of people in the Oldbury/Hinkley Point
sample were concerned about climate change, with 81% very or fairly concerned
(82% amongst those aged under 35). The 2005 national sample gave a similar
figure at 82% concerned. However, fewer respondents (32%) were very

38
concerned in the Oldbury/Hinkley Point sample, compared with the 2005 national
sample (44%).

5.3.5 Energy policy a ttitudes (see Appendix 2, Tables 9-12)

5.3.5a Tackling climate change

In the Oldbury/Hinkley Point sample , 76% agreed or strongly agreed that they
were “willing to accept the building of new nuclear power stations if it would help
to tackle climate change” (72% amongst those aged under 35), and this can be
compared with only 53% in the 2005 national survey. By contrast only 44% in
the Oldbury/Hinkley Point sample agreed or strongly agreed that “promoting
renewable sources, such as solar and wind power is a better way of tackling
climate change than nuclear power” compared with 78% in the 2005 national
survey. However, in the local Oldbury/Hinkley Point sample, agreement that
renewables should be promoted over nuclear power was much greater amongst
respondents aged 18-34 years (66%) than in those aged 35 or over (42%;
p<.001).

5.3.5b Increasing energy s ecurity in the UK

We found strong support in the Oldbury/Hinkley Point samples (82% agree or
strongly agree; 80% in those aged under 35) for the development of a mix of
energy sources to ensure a reliable supply of electricity, including nuclear power
and renewables. This compares to 65% found nationally in 2005. Agreement
with this statement was particularly high at Oldbury (84% agree or strongly
agree) compared to only 79% at Hinkley Point (p<.001).

5.3.5c Scepticism about Government policy and ‘imposition’

There was more strong general agreement in the Oldbury/Hinkley Point sample
(73% ‘Tend to agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’; 64% amongst those aged under 35)
with the statement “it doesn’t matter what we think about nuclear power. Nuclear
power stations will be built anyway” . This compares with 62% found nationally in
2005. There was also a significant difference between sites on this question,
with more agreement in the sample at Hinkley Point (77%) than at Oldbury (69%;
p<.001).

5.3.6 Judgements of risks and benefits (see Appendix 2, Tables 13-15)

5.3.6a ‘There are risks from having nuclear power stations in the UK’
Surprisingly, the differences between local and national samples on judgements
of risk from nuclear powe r stations in the UK were relatively modest. A clear
majority of people in the Oldbury/Hinkley Point samples (69%; rising to 77%
amongst those aged under 35, p<.01) agreed or strongly agreed that there were
at least some risks from having nuclear power stations in the UK, compared to
72% from the nationally representative sample obtained in 2005.

39
5.3.6b ‘There are benefits from having nuclear power stations in the UK’
On the issue of the benefits of nuclear power, however, the differences between
the two surveys were more marked. Overall, fully 80% of respondents in the
2008 Oldbury/Hinkley Point survey (72% amongst those aged under 35)
indicated that they strongly agreed or would tend to agree with this item,
compared with 49% in the nationally representative 2005 survey.

5.3.6c ‘How would assess the benefits and risks of nuclear power in general?’
There were very large differences on the above item, which asks for a relative
judgement of ‘risks versus benefits’. Fully 62% of the 2008 Oldbury/Hinkley Point
samples considered that the benefits of nuclear power far or slightly outweigh its
risks, compared with only 32% in the 2005 national survey. Interestingly
however, in our Oldbury/Hinkley Point samples, only 43% of respondents aged
under 35 felt that the benefits far, or slightly outweigh the risks, compared with a
figure of 64% amongst those aged 35 years or older (p<.001).

5.3.7 New build (see Appendix 2, Tables, 16 & 17)

5.3.7a ‘In the UK’

Unsurprisingly, there was a far greater degree of support for the building of new
nuclear power stations in the UK amongst our Oldbury/Hinkley Point sample of
people (58%; although this falls to just 39% amongst those aged under 35,
p<.001), compared to the nationally representative sample (34%). However,
despite the general support for new build in the UK found in the 2008
Oldbury/Hinkley Point sample, it is notable that 21% of local people remain
opposed to such a development (rising to 29% amongst those aged under 35).

5.3.7b Locally versus ‘In the UK’

We asked local people living near to the nuclear power stations at Oldbury and
Hinkley Point to indicate the extent to which they would support new build, both
nearby (i.e. “at Oldbury” or ”at Hinkley Point”) and nationally (i.e. “In the UK”).
Despite the generally positive judgements expressed in the 2008 Oldbury/Hinkley
Point survey about the nearby nuclear power stations, only just above half said
they would support the building of a new nuclear power station locally (55%
‘Tend to’ or ‘Strongly’ support, falling to just 41% amongst those aged under 35,
p<.05). Although e l vels of support in the Oldbury/Hinkley Point sample were
similar for both new build locally (55%), and ‘In the UK’ (58%), the difference was
significant (p<.001). Opposition to local new build (those who would ‘Tend to’ or
‘Strongly’ oppose new build) was significantly greater at Oldbury (31%) than at
Hinkley Point (23%; p<.001).

5.3.8 Q-Perspectives: relative proportions and characteristics (see

Appendix 2, Tables 18 & 19)
Respondents read four vignettes, each describing elements of one of the four
‘points of view’ identified in the Q-study, and were asked to indicate which was
closest to their own point of view on nuclear power. We found that 38% of local

40
people identified most with the ‘Reluctant Acceptance’ point of view (491
respondents) , and 34% with the ‘Beneficial and Safe’ perspective (430
respondents) . The ‘Threat and Distrust’ point of view was chosen as closest to
their point of view by 16% of the sample (203 respondents), and 12% chose the
‘There’s No Point Worrying’ perspective (150 respondents) .

There were significant differences between these four ‘Points of View’ on the
overall trust ratings; That is, in the Government’s management of nuclear power;
in the nuclear industry; and in local plant operators; (all p<.001) and in their risk-
benefit judgements regarding the acceptability of nuclear power in the UK (all
p<.001; Tables 18 & 19).

Respondents who indicated that the Beneficial and Safe point of view was most
like their own tended to be male (68%; p<.001), had the highest mean levels of
trust in the various institutions responsible for the regulation, management and
safety of nuclear power stations, and gave, on average, the most favourable risk-
benefit judgements.

Respondents who indicated that the ‘Threat and Distrust’ vignette was closest to
their own point of view tended to be women (63%; p<.001), and also gave the
lowest trust ratings and the least favourable risk-benefit judgements.

Levels of trust, and risk-benefit judgements were similar in those who identified
most with the ‘Reluctant Acceptance’ and the ‘There’s No Point Worrying’ points
of view, falling on average close to the overall scale mid-point of 3, whilst risk-
benefit judgements suggested that on average, respondents who identified with
these points of view considered that the benefits of nuclear power slightly
outweighed its risks. In addition, respondents who identified most with the
‘There’s no Point Worrying’ point of view tended to be women (61%; p<.001).

5.3.9 Trust
We found that respondents at Oldbury/Hinkley Point trusted most in the local
power station operators, and least in the Government (p<.001), with their level of
trust in the nuclear industry intermediate between the two (p<.001). This pattern
was consistent between sites (Oldbury and Hinkley Point samples) and also
between all 4 Q-perspectives.

There were , however, slightly higher perceptions of openness and honesty of the
plant operators at Oldbury, compared to Hinkley Point (p<.05).

5.3.10 Place attachment

We constructed two reliable ‘Place Attachment’ scales from a series of nine
questions intended to measure the extent to which (a) respondents regarded
themselves as integrated into, or part of the local ‘place’ (‘Personal place
attachment’; Cronbach alpha=.791); and (b) the nearby nuclear power station as
part of the local ‘place’ (‘Place attachment: Power Station’; alpha=.836).

41
Participants at Oldbury had higher levels of Personal place attachment than
those at Hinkley Point (p<.001), and the power station was considered more a
part of ‘local identity and place’ at Hinkley Point than at Oldbury (p<.01).

5.3.11 Predictors of support for local new build (see Appendix 2, Table 20)
Multiple regression analysis suggested that support for local new build was
predicted by: the power station being viewed as a part of local identity and place;
trust in the nuclear industry (but not the current plant operators or Government);
low levels of concern about climate change; male gender; a perception that the
nearby nuclear power station at Oldbury or Hinkley Point brings benefits to local
people; and a perception that risks to local people from the nearby nuclear power
station are low. Age and length of residence were included as independent
variables in this analysis, and were found to be non-significant.

5.3.12 Involvement in siting decisions (see Appendix 2, Table 21)

We found that, regardless of people’s opinions on nuclear power and new build,
local people wanted to be fully involved in any siting decisions about any new
local nuclear power station. Overall, 84% of respondents either ‘Tended to’
agree or ‘Strongly’ agreed with this statement. There was a small difference
between sites in this respect, with general agreement at Oldbury being 85%,
compared to 82% at Hinkley Point (p<.05).

5.4 Conclusions to s urvey

From our 2008 data it was clear that there was less overall concern about
nuclear power in the two samples with a nuclear power station in very close
proximity (Oldbury and Hinkley Point), when compared to a nationally
representative sample which was obtained in 2005. Indeed, overall, local people
at Oldbury and Hinkley Point emphasised that the benefits of having nuclear
power stations in the UK outweigh its risks, although this was significantly less
likely to be the case amongst those aged under 35. However, many local people
at Oldbury and Hinkley Point felt that there are risks associated with nuclear
power, and in particular, the majority of our samples remain concerned about the
issue of radioactive waste

Our findings also suggest that there is considerable variation in opinion, which is
masked when looking at average levels of support for nuclear power. Indeed we
have found that between 10 and 20% of local people surveyed at both Oldbury
and Hinkley Point remain strongly opposed to nuclear power. Furthermore, in
the vignette task the most popular point of view was one that we have labelled
‘reluctant acceptance’, which was chosen by 38% of local people. Such
individuals give only conditional support to nuclear power. One implication here
is that if such people consider that the development of nuclear power is not
delivering on the outstanding issues that concern them, or if there is a major
nuclear accident anywhere, a more concerted level of opposition could quickly
arise.

42
Finally, trust, perceived risks and benefits, as well as views on the ‘place of the
exisiting power station in the locality’ all predict residents’ support for new build –
economic factors, while important, appear not to be the whole story. However,
regardless of their opinion on nuclear power, it was clear from our survey that the
majority of local people want to be fully involved in any siting decisions about
new nuclear power stations, a finding that we view as particularly important in the
context of current Government policy on nuclear energy.

43
44
Part C: Conclusion

45
Section 6: Conclusions
6.1 Summary of conclusions from the empirical stages
To recap the study’s main aims our broad research question was:

1. How do people residing in close proximity to a major socio-technical

hazard/site (nuclear power plant) ‘live with risk’ in their everyday lives?

In addition, the initial phase of the project (narrative interviews) had the
methodological objective to investigate whether eliciting people’s biographical
narratives – their storied identities – can contribute to an understanding of living
with risk.

To address these questions, between November 2004 and July 2008 we

completed three empirical stages, with residents in close proximity to the existing
British nuclear stations of Bradwell (Essex), Oldbury (Gloucestershire) and
Hinkley Point (Somerset). The empirical phases comprised:

• A total of 61 in-depth narrative interviews with residents living near

Bradwell and Oldbury.

• A Q-sort procedure with 84 residents living near Bradwell and Oldbury

• A major household survey (n=1326) of residents living near Oldbury

(n=680) and Hinkley Point (n=646).

The three stages, each using slightly different methodologies, provide for a
degree for methodological triangulation for our overall conclusions. The research
as a whole underlines the complexity of the views people hold about a local
power station, and about nuclear power in general.

A first, and clear conclusion is th at the majority of our participants view the
existing station through a dominant frame of ‘ordinariness’ and are also
supportive of nuclear power in general. However, each empirical phase has
shown how a broad categorisation (i.e. pro- or anti- nuclear) is far too simplistic:
there are intricate processes continually at work and differing dimensions to local
residents’ risk perceptions.

The narrative interview stage at Bradwell and Oldbury has revealed a dynamic
involving intersections between people’s awareness of and engagement with
risk, time and biography, and is methodologically valuable in, for example,
avoiding flattening out rich seams of emotion in people’s accounts through
attending to the study of participants’ language use and humour. ‘Living with risk’
involves several processes:

46
• The dominant discourse across much of our interview data from Bradwell
and Oldbury is one which represents the nuclear power stations as both
ordinary and normal: this includes, viewing them as a familiar part of
everyday life and the local place; deemphasising the significance of
proximity, such that the local station is not presented as a unique risk or
one which is any worse or threatening than the many other risks in life.
These are all underpinned by a form of social trust, in that the local station
personnel (through personal and other contacts) are known and trusted to
do a competent and safe job.

• Nonetheless, coexisting with the dominant mode of relating to the existing

power stations are an intermittent set of discourses which disrupt the
dominant view and do construct the existing station as threatening. This
can be thought of as a process of noticing the extraordinary. Disruption
could occur either at moments when media and other sources heightened
for people related risk issues (Chernobyl, terrorist bombings) leading them
to reflect upon their local situation, or when more personal events arose
such as a case of cancer in a family member or friend, or when small
incidents or drills triggered highly visible actions by station or other
personnel. These disruptions could bring with them moments of anxiety for
our interviewees, despite the dominant discourses of the power stations
being familiar and normal. In addition, some of the language and humour
used in the interviews was indicative of affectively charged meanings
associated with moments of uncertainty, unease, even anxiety. We use
the phrase ‘risk-biography intersections’ to draw attention to ways in which
the power station’s extraordinariness is recognised in specific
circumstances relating to place, time and biography.

• The interviews at Bradwell and Oldbury also revealed important aspects

the ways in which trust and distrust are manifest at the local level. As
noted above, trust in the station’s operators was often associated with
confidence in the safety of the local plant. However, distrust could also
lead to persistence of anxiety about the risks of the stations, founded on
our interviewees’ perceptions of the institutional bodies involved in the
regulation of the power stations. In particular, our interviewees at times
articulated distrust of Government and Government bodies. Sometimes
this was based on generic sentiments: notions of not being able to trust
politicians, the civil service and other Government bodies because of
disenfranchisement. At other times it was founded in a perception that
various authorities had failed (particularly at Bradwell) to meaningfully
engage local people over the years regarding planned developments. In
addition, particularly surrounding issues of health, our interviewees
expressed uncertainty about who they could trust to give impartial
information and advice, with ‘Government’, in particular, seen as being
unwilling to reveal ‘the truths’ about nuclear power.

47
The narrative interviews were well placed to reveal the qualitative complexities
and intricacies involved in how people construct the local power station as ‘risky’
or not and how this had featured in their everyday lives over time. However,
interview analysis was not able to easily reflect how individual conceptualisations
might lead to distinct configurations in understandings across broader social
groupings. The Q study was designed to investigate the distinctive points of view
that exist at Oldbury and Bra dwell, and the patterns of results were broadly
similar at both, suggesting at least some degree of transferability of the findings,
at least to other nuclear communities in Britain living in similar circumstances. In
particular the Q study identified 4 distinctive points of view amongst the
participants, which we have labelled:

• Beneficial and Safe’,

• ‘Threat and Distrust’,

• ‘Reluctant Acceptance’

• ‘There’s no Point Worrying’.

Detailed analysis of these points of view suggest that the ‘landscape of be liefs’
about nuclear power does not conform to simple (e.g. anti- or pro-nuclear)
opposites – the 4 revealed perspectives were complicated and nuanced in
nature. For example, the ‘Beneficial and Safe’ and ‘Threat and Distrust’ points of
view were not polar opposites, seen most clearly in the orientation of the
respondents to the issue of who to trust. In factor 1 (Beneficial and Safe) it was
the operators of the local plant who were relied upon to keep the plant and local
community safe – they were seen both as competent and ordinary people just
like us. In this way, and congruent with the narrative interview findings, social
networks provide the basis for shared confidence. By contrast individuals who
sorted in terms of ‘Threat and Distrust’ were highly sceptical of the nuclear
industry more generally and to a lesser extent of both the Government and the
Environment Agency. Equally, the ‘Reluctant Acceptance’ point of view
expressed support for nuclear energy at both local and national levels in ways
that were highly conditional (e.g. upon its contribution to climate change, and
upon the parallel development of renewable energy) rather than being
unequivocal or certain.

While the Q is extremely capable for identifying distinctive qualitative

configurations of belief, it is unable to give any indication of the distribution of
such beliefs, a question that we follow up in the final (survey) stage of the
research. This led to the design of the major survey in 2008 at Oldbury and
Hinkley Point. The Hinkley Point site was chosen as the comparison to Oldbury
primarily because it held an operational station, and we wished the survey in
particular to elicit beliefs around currently operating stations.

48
Taken as a whole, the survey results paint a picture, broadly in line with the
narrative interview findings, of a local population which is broadly accepting of
nuclear power. For example, there was less overall concern about nuclear power
in the Oldbury and Hinkley Point samples, and far more people thought the
benefits of nuclear power outweighed its risks, when compared to a nationally
representative (GB) sample obtained in 2005. However, notwithstanding this, the
majority of local people in the Oldbury and Hinkley Point samples still felt that
there are risks associated with nuclear power, and in particular, many remain
concerned about the issue of radioactive waste. The survey findings also suggest
that there is considerable variation in opinion, which is masked when looking at
the (broadly positive) average levels of support for nuclear power at these
locations. In particular:

• We found that between 10 and 20% of local people surveyed at both

Oldbury and Hinkley Point remain strongly opposed (depending upon the
precise question asked) to nuclear power as a national or local
development.

• Furthermore, in the vignette task the most popular point of view was one
that we have labelled ‘reluctant acceptance’, and was chosen by fully 38%
of survey respondents. Such individuals give only conditional support to
nuclear power.

• Finally, and as highlighted in the earlier stages and in other research (e.g.
on radioactive waste siting) trust and distrust are important mediators of
perceived risks, benefits and acceptability. Congruent with the narrative
and Q findings, trust in the the local operation of the station appears for
many to be a critical factor in their confidence, while distrust in
Government and the nuclear industry is associated with underlying
concern in others.

One implication here is that if people consider that future plans for local
development of nuclear power (if they ever do arise) are not delivering on the
outstanding issues that concern them, or if there is a major nuclear accident
anywhere over the ensuing 5-10 years, then local confidence and trust could be
lost and a very concerted level of opposition might quickly arise.

As a final comment on the research, and regardless of their opinion on nuclear

power, it was clear from our survey that the majority of local people want to be
fully involved in any siting decisions about new nuclear power stations locally, a
finding that we view as particularly important in the context of current policy on
nuclear energy. Failing to consult in a proper manner, or in a way that does not to
fully recognise and re spond to a local population’s ambivalences and concerns,
would almost certainly serve also to undermine local confidence, something
which has clearly been painstakingly built up in all locations studied over a
consdierable period of time.

49
6.2 Implications for future research
The research has highlighted several issues for further inquiry. In particular:

• We have collected a rich range of baseline data at three sites, at least one
of which (Hinkley Point) is now involved in proposals by the energy
generators for new nuclear power stations. Accordingly, in-depth follow up
research to see how views in these locations evolve over time would be
very valuable.

• Our findings indicate that there might exist, in the particular case of
nuclear energy, a qualitative asymmetry between trust and distrust, and
that in theoretical terms we may need to revisit the notion of trust and
distrust in risk management as separate constructs, rather than being at
the opposite end of any single ‘trust’ continuum. Further research on this
theoretical issue is also warranted.

• As noted above, the patterns of results were broadly similar in both

Oldbury and Bradwell (interviews and Q) and Oldbury and Hinkley
(survey), and further research with other nuclear communities in Britain
living in similar circumstances might be desirable to investigate the further
transferability of our findings.

• There are some indications from the survey analysis that age might be a
factor in beliefs about nuclear power in such communities (with younger
people, in the 18-35 age bracket, voicing more opposition compared to
older residents). We note that it was difficult to engage large numbers of
younger people in the research using the present recruitment methods
and as a result the sample of younger participants is relatively restricted.
Clearly, further research on the beliefs and attitudes of younger compared
with older populations is warranted at such locations.

• Finally, across the three empirical phases of the project, we have

generated findings relating, specifically, to the significance of the power
station’s ‘place’ in the local geographic and social fabric. In the narrative
interviews, the power station’s proximity was not seen as presenting a
unique risk, and thus risk becomes attenuated. The perception of local
benefits from the power station, and seeing it as ‘just part of the
landscape, were items defining two of the Q sorts (‘beneficial and safe’
and ‘there’s no point worrying’, respectively). And in the survey, seeing the
power station as part of the local place, and as contributing to local
identity, was a factor significantly predicting support for new build. These
findings are novel and, as such, require further detailed research in
relation to proximity (spatial and psychological) to socio-technical hazards
(nuclear and non-nuclear).

50
Bibliography & Appendices

51
7.1 Bibliography

Adam, B., Beck, U., and Van Loon, J., (eds), 2000, The Risk Society and
Beyond, London: Sage.

Beck, U., 1992, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, London: Sage.

Beck, U., 1994, “The reinvention of politics: towards a theory of reflexive

modernization”, Beck, U., Giddens, A., and Lash, S., Reflexive Modernization:
Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order, Cambridge: Polity
Press, pp. 1-55.

Beck, U., 1998, “Politics of Risk Society”, in Franklin, J., (Ed), Politics of Risk
Society, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp.9-22.

BERR (Department of Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform), 2008,

Meeting the Energy Challenge: A White Paper on Nuclear Power, United
Kingdom: Crown Copyright.

Bickerstaff, K, 2004., “Risk perception research: socio-cultural perspectives on

the public experience of air pollution”, Environment International¸ Vol. 30, pp.
827-840.

Bickerstaff, K., and Walker, G., 2001, “Public understandings of air pollution: the
‘localisation’ of environmental risk”, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 11, No.
2, pp. 133-145).

Blowers, A., and Leroy, P., 1994, “Power, politics and environmental inequality: a
theoretical and empirical analysis of the process of peripheralisation”,
Environmental Politics, Vol. 3, 197-228.

Branagan, M., 2007, “The last laugh: humour in community activism”, Community
Development Journal, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 470-481.

Brown, S. R., 1980. Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q-methodology in

Political Science, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press

Buller, H., and Morris, C., 2003, “Farm animal welfare: a new repertoire of nature
society relations or modernisms re-embedded?”, Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 43, No.
3, pp. 216-237.

Burningham, K., and Thrush, D., 2004, “Pollution concerns in context: a

comparison of local perceptions of the risks associated with living close to a road
and a chemical factory”, Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 213-232.

52
Busby, C., Rowe, H., 2002, [WWW], “Cancer in Burnham on Sea North Results
of the PCAH”, Occasional Paper 2002/5, Aberystwyth: Green Audit, Available
from: http://www.greenaudit.org/cancer_in_burnham_on_sea_2002.htm, Last
Accessed: 22/09/08.

Bush, J., Moffatt, S., and Dunn, C., 2001, “‘Even the birds round here cough’:
stigma, air pollution and health in Teeside”, Health & Place, Vol. 7, pp. 47-56.

Chess, C. and Johnson, B. B., 2006, “From the inside out: environmental agency
views about communications with the public”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 26, pp. 1395-
1407.

Coffey, A., and Atkinson, P., 1996, Making Sense of Qualitative Data:
Complementary Research Strategies, London: SAGE.

Czarniawska, B., 2004, Narratives in Social Science Research: Introducing

Qualitative Methods, London: Sage.

Denzin, L. K., 1989, Interpretive Interactionism: Applied Social Research

Methods Series, Vol. 16, London: Sage.

Devine-Wright, P., 2005, ‘Beyond NIMBYism: towards an Integrated Framework

for Understanding Public Perceptions of Wind Energy’ Wind Energy, Vol. 8, pp.
125-139.

Edelstein, M., R., 1987, Toward a theory of environmental stigma. In J. Harvey &
D. Denning (eds) Public Environments. Ottowa: Environmental Design Research
Associates, pp. 21-25.

Eiser, J. D., Van Der Pligt, J. and Spears, R., 1995, Nuclear Neighbourhoods:
Community Responses to Reactor Siting, Exeter: University of Exeter Press.

Elliott, J., 2005, Using Narrative in Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches, London: Sage.

Ewings, P. D., Bowie, C., Phillips, M., J. and Johnson, S. A., 1989, “Incidence of
leukaemia in young people in the vicinity of Hinkley Point nuclear power station,
1959-86”, British Medical Journal, Vol. 299, No. 6694, pp. 289-293.

Eyles, J., Taylor, M. S., Baxter, J., Sider, D. and Willms, D., 1993, “The social
construction of risk in a rural community: responses of local residents to the 1990
Hagersville (Ontario) tire fire”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 281-290.

Fielding, N. G., 2002, Chapter 7: Automating the Ineffable: Qualitative software

and the meaning of qualitative research’, in May, T., (ed), Qualitative Research in
Action, London: SAGE .

53
Fischhoff, B. and Furby, L., 1988, “Measuring values: a conceptual framework for
interpreting transactions with special refere nce to Contingent Valuation of
visibility”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 1, pp. 147-184.

Flick, U., 2006, An Introduction to Qualitative Research, (3rd Ed), London: Sage.

Flynn, J, Slovic, P. and Kunreuther, H., 2001, Risk, Media and Stigma, London:
Earthscan.

Franklin, J., 1998, Politics of Risk Society, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Giddens, A., 1998, “Risk Society: The Context of British Politics”, in Franklin, J,
(Ed), Politics of Risk Society, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 23-34.

Giddens, A., 1999, “Risk and Responsibility”, The Modern Law Review, Vol. 62,
No. 1, pp. 1-10.

Henwood, K. L. and Pidgeon, N. F., 2003, “Grounded theory in psychology”, In

Camic, P. M., Rhodes, J. E. and Yardley, L., (Eds), Qualitative Research in
Psychology: Expanding Perspectives in Methodology and Design. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association Press, pp. 131-155.

Hollway, W. and Jefferson, T., 1997a, “The risk society in an age of anxiety:
situating fear of crime”, The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 266.

Hollway, W. and Jefferson, T., 1997b, “Eliciting narrative through the in-depth
Interview, Narrative Inquiry, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 53-70.

Howel, D., Moffatt, S., Prince, H., Bush, J. and Dunn, C. E., 2002, “Urban Air
Quality in North-East England: Exploring the Influences on Local Views and
Perceptions”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 121-130.

Irwin, A., 2001, Sociology and the Environment: A Critical Introduction to Society,
Nature and Knowledge, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Irwin, A., Simmons, P. and Walker, G., 1999, “Faulty environments and risk
reasoning: the local understanding of industrial hazards”, Environment and
Planning A, Vol. 31, pp. 1311-1326.

Joffe, H., 2003, “Risk: From perception to social representation”, British Journal
of Social Psychology, Vol. 42, pp. 55-73.

Knight, R., 2005. “What the polls tell us”, Nuclear Engineering International, April
2005, pp. 24–25.

54
Knight, R., 2007, [WWW], “Public Attitudes to the Nuclear Industry”, report
completed by Ipsos MORI for the Nuclear Industry Association, December 2007,
available from: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/content/attitudes-to-nuclear-
energy.ashx Last Accessed: 21/09/08.

Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G., 1985, Naturalistic Inquiry, London, Sage.

Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J. and Bies, R. J., 1998, Trust and distrust: new
relationships and realities. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, pp.
438-458.

McKeown, B. and Thomas, D., 1988, Q Methodology: Quantitative Applications

in the Social Sciences No. 66, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Macgill, S. M. 1987, The Politics of Anxiety: Sellafield’s Cancer-link

Controversey, London: Pion Limited.

Mallet, S., 2004, “Understanding home: a critical review of the literature”, The
Sociological Review, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 62-89.

Masco, J., 2006, The Nuclear Borderlands: The Manahattan Project in Post-Cold
War New Mexico, Woodstock, Oxfordshire: Princetown University Press.

Masuda, J. R. and Garvin, T., 2006, “Place, Culture, and the Social Amplification
of Risk”, Risk Analysis, 26 (2), pp. 437-454.

Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M., 1994, Qualitative Data Analysis, London:

Sage.

Niemeyer, S., Petts, J. and Hobson, K., 2005, “Rapid climate change and
society: assessing responses and thresholds ”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 25, pp. 1443-
1456.

Parkhill, K., 2007, “Tensions between Scottish National Policies for onshore wind
energy and local dissatisfaction - insights from regulation theory”, European
Environment, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 307-320.

Pidgeon, N. F., Kasperson, R. E. and Slovic, P., Eds), 2003, The Social
Amplification of Risk, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pidgeon, N. F., Lorenzoni, I. and Poortinga, W., 2008, “Climate change or

nuclear power - no thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk
framing in Britain”, Global Environmental Change, Vol.18, 69-85

55
Pidgeon, N. F., Simmons, P. and Henwood, K.L., 2006, “Risk, environment and
technology”, In Taylor-Gooby, P, and Zinn, J, (eds.) Risk in Social Science.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 94-116.

Polkinghorne, D. E., 1995, “Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis”, in

Hatch J. A. and Wisniewski, R., (eds), Life History and Narrative, London:
Routledge, pp. 5-24.

Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N. and Lorenzoni, I., 2006, “Public Perceptions of

Nuclear Power Climate Change, and Energy Options in Britain: Summary
Findings of a Survey conducted during October and November 2005”, Centre for
Environmental Risk, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East
Anglia, UK.

Satterfield, T., 2001, “In search of value literacy: suggestions for the elicitation of
environmental values”, Environmental Values, Vol. 10, pp. 331-359.

Simmons, P., 2003, “Performing safety in faulty environments”, The Sociological

Review, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 78-93.

Simmons, P. and Walker, G., 1999, “Tolerating risk: policy, principles and public
perceptions”, Risk Decision and Policy, Vol. 4, pp. 179-190.

Slovic, P ., 1987, “Perceptions of risk”, Science, Vol. 36, pp. 280-285.

Slovic, P., 1993, “Perceived risk, trust and democracy”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 13,
pp. 675-682.

Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E. and MacGregor, D., 2004, “Risk as analysis
and risk as feeling: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk and rationality”, Risk
Analysis, Vol. 24, 311-322.

Slovic, P., Flynn, J. H. and Layman, M., 1991, “Perceived risk, trust and the
politics of nuclear waste”, Science, Vol. 254, No. 5038, pp. 1603-1607.

Szersynski, B., 2007, “The post-ecologist condition: irony as symptom and c ure”,
Environmental Politics, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 337-355.

Tuler, S., Webler, T., and Finson, R., 2005, “Combining perspectives on public
involvement: planning for risk characterisation and risk communication about
radiological contamination from a national laboratory”, Health, Risk & Society ,
Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 247-266.

Tulloch, J. and Lupton, D., 2003, Risk and Everyday Life, London: Sage.

56
Venables, D., Pidgeon, N., Simmons, P., Henwood, K. and Parkhill, K., 2008,
[WWW], “Living with Nuclear Power: A Q-method Study of Local Community Risk
Perceptions”, SCARR Working Paper 24, Available from:
http://www.kent.ac.uk/scarr/publications/Wkgpaper2008.html Last Accessed:
15/09/08.

Weart, S. R., 1988, Nuclear Fear: A History of Images, London: Harvard

University Press.

Welsh, I., 2000, Mobilising Modernity: The Nuclear Moment, London: Routledge.

Wetherell, M. and Edley, N., 1999, “Negotiating hegemonic masculinity:

imaginary positions and psycho -discursive practices”, Feminism and Psychology,
Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 335-356.

Woods, M., 2003, “Conflicting environmental visions of the rural: windfarm

development in Mid Wales”, Sociologia Ruralis¸Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 271-288.

Wynne, B., Waterton, C. and Grove -White, R., 2007 [1993], “Public Perceptions
and the Nuclear Industry in West Cumbria”, Centre for the Study of
Environmental Change, Lancaster University.

Zonabend, F., 1993, The Nuclear Peninsula, Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

57
 7.2 (4.6) Appendix 1: Table 2: Highest and lowest ranked statements for the Q factors
Position Nuclear safety via social trust Threat, distrust and social mobilisation Reluctant acceptance of nuclear power ‘There’s no point worrying’
I’d rather live close to a nuclear po wer station than We need to move towards using renewable Nuclear power has drawbacks but at the end There’s no point worrying about the risks, otherwise
a coal fired one, or a factory billowing out toxic energy sources as soon as possible of the day it will be necessary if we want to you’ll spend your whole life worrying
+5 fumes have a secure energy supply – we can’t rely
on imported gas and oil
I’m confident that this nuclear power station is safe There are far less risky ways of generating I don’t like the idea of nuclear power but I I’ve never given the power station a thought – it’s just
electricity than nuclear reluctantly have to admit that we may need it part of the landscape
+5 if we are to have any chance of combating
climate change
Nuclear pow er has drawbacks but at the end of the If they tried to put a permanent radioactive I don’t really want nuclear power here, but According to the news, everything is going to give you
day it will be necessary if we want to have a secure waste store on the power station site, I for one these things have got to go somewhere cancer, so I don’t let it worry me
Most +5 energy supply – we can’t rely on imported gas and would do whatever I could to stop them
like
oil
my
Nuclear power is one of the best forms of electricity I don’t like the idea of radioactive waste being Nuclear power is one of the cleanest ways of Any lit tle incident is blown out of proportion by the
point generation. The country needs it and will have to stored on the power station site after producing energy media and treated as a major nuclear catastrophe
+4
of build more nuclear power stations decommissioning
view Nuclear power is one of the cleanest ways of When you get a study that shows there’s more I don’t like the idea of radioactive waste being Nuclear power is one of the cleanest ways of
producing energy cancer here than there should be, they just say stored on the power station site after producing energy
+4 it’s a ‘statistical blip’. You get the feeling they decommissioning
are trying to hide something
The power station has been a great asset to the The nuclear industry doesn’t really consult – There’s no point worrying about the risks, There’s nothing to stop terrorists crashing a plane into
+4 community over the years they go through the motions but the important otherwise you’ll spend your whole life the power station and causing a major disaster
decisions have already been made worrying
People are only worried about nuclear power The nuclear industry tries to brainwash people If there was a major incident at the power People are only worried about nuclear power because
+4 because they don’t understand it into thinking that nuclear power is safe and station, it would affect me wherever I lived they don’t understand it
acceptable
The nuclear industry tries to brainwash people into Nuclear power is one of the cleanest ways of Because of the power station, this will be a If they tried to put a permanent radioactive waste store
-4 thinking that nuclear power is safe and acceptable producing energy polluted, hazardous place forever on the power station site, I for one would do whatever
I could to stop them
I worry something will go wrong because of people I find the power station quite comfort ing rather I would welcome a new nuclear power station If there was a problem, there is a very good, fail-safe
cutting corners or making mistakes than a threat being built here system. The power station would just cut out, like
-4 pulling a plug out of the wall. It would just shut down,
and that would be that
A lot of people are unhappy about the power station The nuclear industry is open and honest The power station has provided good jobs for We can trust the industry to come forward and tell the
Least -4 but they don’t do anything about it. Only a few of the area - without it, this place would have truth about any discharges and incidents
like us are willing to stand up and be counted ceased to exist
my There’s just something about nuclear power that I’m confident that this nuclear power station is The Chernobyl accident focused my mind on I am reminded of the potential risks of the power
point -4 makes me feel uneasy safe the fact that I was living with that potential station only when I see it, or when someone nearby
of danger has got cancer
view The power station is a terrible eyesore We can trust the industry to come forward and I find the power station quite comforting Because of the power station, this will be a polluted,
-5 tell the truth about any discharges and incidents rather than a threat hazardous place forever
There are lots of cancer risks associated with the Nuclear power is one of the best forms of The presence of the power station si just There are lots of cancer risks associated with the
-5 power station electricity generation. The country needs it and another example of this area being picked on power station
will have to build more nuclear power stations
Because of the power station, this will be a polluted, I would welcome a new nuclear power station A lot of people are unhappy about the power The Chernobyl accident focused my mind on the fact
hazardous place forever being built here station but they don’t do anything about it. that I was living with that potential danger
-5 Only a few of us are willing to stand up and
be counted

58
7.3 Appendix 2: Tables from Survey Section9
(5.3.4) General environmental concern
Question: “How concerned are you, if at all, about the following issues?”

Table 6: Nuclear power

Not at all Not very Fairly Very
concerned concerned concerned concerned
(%) (%) (%) (%)

2005 National GB 11 27 31 28

2008 Oldbury/Hinkley
Point 22 37 27 14

Table 7: Radioactive waste

Not at all Not very Fairly Very
concerned concerned concerned concerned
(%) (%) (%) (%)
2005 National GB 3 14 30 50
2008 Oldbury/Hinkley
6 17 35 42
Point

Table 8: Climate change

Not at all Not very Fairly Very
concerned concerned concerned concerned
(%) (%) (%) (%)

2005 National GB 3 12 38 44

2008 Oldbury/Hinkley 4 16 49 31
Point

(5.3.5) Energy policy attitudes

Table 9: Question: “I am willing to accept the building of new nuclear power

stations if it would help to tackle climate change”
Neither
Strongly Tend to Tend
Agree nor Strongly
Disagree Disagree to Agree
Disagree Agree (%)
(%) (%) (%)
(%)
2005 National GB
9 16 16 44 9
2008 Oldbury/Hinkley
4 6 14 49 27
Point

9
All 2005 National Survey figures do not total 100% as we have not reported the “Don’t Know” category.

59
Table 10: Question: “Promoting renewable energy sources, such as solar and
wind power, is a better way of tackling climate change than nuclear power”
Neither
Strongly Tend to Tend
Agree nor Strongly
Disagree Disagree to Agree
Di sagree Agree (%)
(%) (%) (%)
(%)
2005 National GB
1 5 10 37 41
2008 Oldbury/Hinkley
9 23 24 23 21
Point

Table 11: Question: “Britain needs a mix of energy sources to ensure a reliable
supply of electricity, including nuclear power and renewable energy sources”
Neither
Strongly Tend to Tend Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree nor to Agree Agree
Disagree
(%) (%) (%) (%)
(%)
2005 National GB 3 10 18 47 18
2008 Oldbury/Hinkley
2 6 10 47 35
Point

Table 12: Question: “It doesn’t matter what we think about nuclear power.
Nuclear power stations will be built anyway”
Neither
Strongly Tend to Tend Strongly
Agree nor
Disagree Disagree to Agree Agree
Disagree
(%) (%) (%) (%)
(%)
3 14 14 50 12
2005 National GB
2008 Oldbury/Hinkley
2 9 16 52 21
Point

(5.3.6) Judgements of risks and b enefits

Table 13: Question: “There are risks from having nuclear power stations in the
UK”
Neither
Strongly Tend to Tend Strongly
Agree nor
Disagree Disagree to Agree Agree
(%) (%) Disagree (%) (%)
(%)
2005 National GB 1 8 14 48 24
2008 Oldbury/Hinkley 5 12 14 51 18
Point

60
Table 14: Question: “There are benefits from having nuclear power stations in the
UK”
Neither
Strongly Tend to Tend Strongly
Agree nor
Disagree Disagree to Agree Agree
Disagree
(%) (%) (%) (%)
(%)

2005 National GB 7 12 25 40 9

2008 Oldbury/Hinkley
3 6 11 53 27
Point

Table 15: Question: “How would assess the benefits and risks of nuclear power
in general?” (%)
The The benefits The The risks of
The risks of
benefits of of nuclear benefits nuclear nuclear
nuclear power and risks of power
power far
power far slightly nuclear slightly outweigh
outweigh outweigh power are outweigh
the benefits
the risks the risks about the the benefits
(%)
(%) (%) same (%) (%)
2005 National
13 19 20 16 25
GB
2008
Oldbury/Hinkley 41 21 20 9 9
Point

(5.3.7) New Build

Question: Please indicate the extent to which you would support or oppose the
following:

Table 16: The building of new nuclear power stations in the UK

Tend
Strongly Tend to Neither Strongly
to
Oppose Oppose Support nor Support
Support
(%) (%) Oppose (%) (%)
(%)
2005 National GB 22 20 21 23 11
2008 Oldbury/Hinkley 9 12 21 34 24
Point

Table 17: The building of a new nuclear power station at Oldbury/Hinkley Point
vs. ‘In the UK’
Tend
Strongly Tend to Neither Strongly
to
Oppose Oppose Support nor Support
Support
(%) (%) Oppose (%) (%)
(%)
Oldbury/Hinkley Point 14 13 18 33 22
In the UK 9 12 21 34 24

61
 (5.3.8) Q Perspectives

Table 18: Mean trust scores by Q-perspective and institution

Q-perspective

Institution Reluctant Beneficial Threat and ‘There’s no Point Sig

Acceptance and Safe Distrust Worrying’
Government 2.98 3.52 2.35 3.07 p<.001
Nuclear Industry 3.23 3.90 2.51 3.39 p<.001
Local Plant
3.45 4.05 2.78 3.58 p<.001
Operators
Sig
p<.001 p<.001 p<.001 p<.001
(Higher score=more trust, the midpoint on the scale=3)

Table 19: Mean acceptability (risks vs. benefits of nuclear power stations in the
UK) scores by Q-perspective (Point of view)
Point of View Mean Score
Reluctant Acceptance 2.25
Beneficial and Safe 1.46
Threat and Distrust 3.92
‘There’s No Point Worrying’ 2.08
Sig. p<.001
Higher score=risks increasingly outweigh benefits
Midpoint on scale (the point at which benefits and risks are judged equal) = 3.00

(5.3.11) Predictors of support for local new build

Table 20: Predictors of support for new build locally

Beta coefficient S.E. of
Variable Sig.
(standardised) Beta
Place attachment (Power station) .429 .007 p<.001
Trust in Nuclear Industry .301 .003 p<.001
Perceived local benefits .078 .030 p<.001
Female gender -.093 .051 p<.001
Concern about climate change -.090 .033 p<.001
Perceived local risks -.053 .026 p<.03
Model: r2=.625; Adjusted r2=.623; df=1057; f=292.637; p<.001

62
(5.3.12) Involvement in siting decis ions

Table 21: Question: “The Government and nuclear industry should fully involve
local people in any decisions about siting a new nuclear power station here”
Strongly Tend to Neither Tend Strongly
Agree nor
Disagree Disagree to Agree Agree
(%) (%) Disagree (%) (%)
(%)
2005 National GB (not - - - - -
asked)
2008 Oldbury/Hinkley 1 4 11 40 44
Point

63
Appendix 3: Additional tables from the survey
2008 Oldbury/Hinkley Point Survey: Comparisons of local people’s
risk/benefit judgements about Nuclear Power locally (‘At Oldbury’/At
Hinkley Point’) vs. generally (‘In the UK’)

Table 22: Perceived risks: ‘There are risks…’

Strongly Tend to Neither Tend Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree nor to Agree Agree
(%) (%) Disagree (%) (%)
(%)
‘From having
nuclear power
5 12 14 51 18
stations in the
UK’
‘To local people
from the
nuclear power
11 24 17 38 10
station at
Oldbury/Hinkley
Point’

Table 23: Perceived benefits: ‘There are benefits…’

Strongly Tend to Neither Tend Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree nor to Agree Agree
(%) (%) Disagree (%) (%)
(%)
‘From having
nuclear power 3 6 11 53 27
stations in the
UK’
‘To local people
from the
nuclear power
4 8 15 50 23
station at
Oldbury/Hinkley
Point’

Table 24: Risk/Benefit judgements (acceptability): Question: ‘How would you

assess the benefits and risks of…?’
The benefits The benefits The benefits The risks The risks far
far outweigh slightly and risks are slightly outweigh the
the risks (%) outweigh the about the outweigh the benefits (%)
risks (%) same (%) benefits (%)
Nuclear power
stations in the 41 21 20 9 9
UK
Oldbury/Hinkley
Point nuclear 39 19 21 11 11
power station

64