Countermeasures to the Chernobyl accident in the Nordic countries: Public reactions

摘要

In Sweden the TMI accident was the direct cause to a decision to hold a national referendum on nuclear power on March 23, 1980. The referendum and the subsequent political decision to phase out nuclear power by 2010 to some extent neutralized the issue and nuclear attitudes returned to a mildly positive state. However, the Chernobyl accident in 1986 again changed the scene. Just as the TMI accident had been something of a surprise to many, the Chernobyl accident and its consequences in Scandinavia were not anticipated. Attitudes to soon resumed their initial mildly positive position again. Even if the radioactive fall-out never reached truly alarming levels authorities in Finland, Norway and Sweden took measures to counteract the effects of radioactivity and to protect the population. This was done in a very heated atmosphere and intense attention was paid by the mass media. Trust in authorities and governments was put to a stringent test during these days 10 years ago. Several psychologists, sociologists and mass media researchers were active from the very beginning to document the events taking place, e.g. by means of surveys of the public opinion. The reports they wrote were usually in local languages and much of this material was never published in print but remained as project reports. It is the purpose of the present project to localize these report and to summarize and interpret their contents, and to give bibliographical information about where the sources can be located. Different experiences and conditions in the three countries account for somewhat different approaches of the three country chapters. There is no doubt that Chernobyl was a very significant social and psychological event in the three countries discussed in the present report. It was also regarded by many as a significant threat to public health, although radiation experts assured the public that the direct effects of the Chernobyl fall-out were so small that they would not be statistically confirmed. Public health effects were instead associated with stress and anxiety created by (unfounded, according to the experts) fear of radiation. One important difference between the countries is that Norway did not, and does not, have nuclear power while Sweden and Finland do. Compared to Continental Europe and the UK, the Nordic countries tend to be more ethnically homogenous (although this is rapidly changing in Sweden), and possibly less affected by social conflicts and suspected corruption in the political and economical spheres of society. Sweden has a history of non-corrupt and competent authorities, directed by persons appointed largely on the basis of substantial competence rather than political contacts. Although this state of affairs may have been changing during the last few decades, it is probably still true that people have trust in authorities. In contrast, they have little trust in politicians - although they like the democratic system. Possibly, people - at least in Sweden - would like to see more referenda and other types of direct democracy