Online survey reveals public perceptions of decontamination and high-level radioactive waste disposal, suggesting mixed acceptance levels.
The aim of this study was to gather practical insights into the social aspects of waste disposal following environmental decontamination after a nuclear accident. By comparing decontamination waste with high-level radioactive waste and industrial waste, we gained a clearer understanding of the public’s perceptions. In March 2024, an online survey was conducted targeting people aged 20–69 in the Kanto region of Japan, with 1,500 respondents assigned to each of three categories (decontamination waste, high-level radioactive waste and industrial waste), totalling 4,500 participants. The survey measured the acceptability of a proposed disposal site, emotional valence, risk perception, benefit perception, stigma and trust in the relevant authorities using open-ended questions on impressions of a waste-disposal siting plan. Differences in psychological factors were analysed using structural equation modelling, and impressions were evaluated through text analysis. The survey results showed that public impressions and the impact of emotion on the acceptability of decontamination waste disposal sites were similar to high-level radioactive waste. In contrast, emotions, risk perception and acceptability of decontamination waste disposal sites were similar to those for industrial waste or positioned between industrial waste and high-level radioactive waste disposal sites. These findings suggest that winning the public’s acceptance of disposal sites for decontamination waste may be less challenging than for high-level radioactive waste. However, the results also emphasise that authorities must be cautious of the public's strong aversion to nuclear issues and negative images when communicating with stakeholders and making decisions. This requires communication grounded in common language and values, along with structural support for partnerships between host and surrounding communities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Takada et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: