Why a Picture is Worth a Thousand Words When It Comes to Nuclear Waste
Ann S. Bisconti, PhD
June 5, 2021
Many observers believe that fear of nuclear waste is the major barrier to public support for nuclear energy, but that assumes that nuclear waste is on people’s minds and pictured in their heads. It isn’t. For years, our surveys asked open-ended questions to find out reasons for opinions about nuclear energy. Most recently, in March 2015, we asked a national sample of 1,000, “What are the reasons for your personal opinions about nuclear energy?” Of those who opposed nuclear energy, 49 percent expressed concerns about plant safety and just 10 percent expressed concerns about waste. Being unfamiliar also makes nuclear waste sound scary when the topic is raised. It is hard for the public to picture nuclear waste, so they picture the worst.
Compare the following drawings by focus group participants showing how they imagined that used nuclear fuel is stored at their local plant with the picture of a fuel pellet and fuel assembly at the right. These focus group participants were asked also whether they pictured the waste as liquid or solid and secure or not secure. Many viewed nuclear waste as a liquid or something like the proverbial “glowing green ooze.”
It’s not easy to put the picture of the fuel pellet and the fuel assembly into words, but the following attributes create confidence that this “stuff,” which sounds scary, is well managed:
Solid—small solid ceramic pellets of enriched uranium oxide inside metal fuel rods
Small and compact
Safely contained
Strictly regulated
I always carry a little card that contains a dummy fuel pellet and a picture of a fuel assembly— just in case someone wants to talk about the subject.
Some in the industry use the relatable image of a football field to convey the small amount of used nuclear fuel that actually exists: “In fact, the U.S. has produced roughly 83,000 metrics tons of used fuel since the 1950s-and all of it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards.”¹
Lessons from Research about Siting Waste Facilities
The need to convey an accurate picture of what is to be stored applies especially in areas where a waste facility could be sited. The public in these areas also wants to know about safeguards:
a) physical barriers, b) regulations/monitoring and oversight, and c) trained experts in charge.
Lessons for siting waste facilities emerged consistently from research we sponsored in Nevada, low-level waste compact states, and at nuclear power plant sites—as well as national surveys.²
Here are the top three:
Americans want solutions. Any mention of a problem must be accompanied by a clear presentation of a credible solution. Ignoring this rule undermines confidence in the process and the government. One constant refrain that undermines confidence is: “The government failed to meet its obligations.”
Americans look to science for answers. Americans are reassured to learn that “scientific organizations around the world, including America’s National Academy of Sciences, agree that radioactive waste can be disposed of safely and permanently.”
Local involvement is important. For example, a 1994 survey by Southwestern Associates found:
28 percent of Nevadans said they would trust information about Yucca Mountain from the U.S. Department of Energy; 44 percent said they would trust the same information from U.S. Department of Energy people who live in Nevada. (Southwestern Associates 1994)
¹ Energy.gov: 5 Fast Facts about Spent Nuclear Fuel
² For more details, see Ann Stouffer Bisconti, “Ten Lessons from Research for Communicating about Radioactive Waste Issues,” Nuclear Energy Institute, 1994
© Ann Stouffer Bisconti, 2021.