2.2. Erotismo y perversión
2.2.1. El punto de arranque: subjetivismo y complejización
of the nuclear power plant were studied with a question where the respondents were asked to select the three most important impacts during both construction and opera- tion (Figure 7-45). The respondents were of the opinion that the most important impacts during the construction phase would be the impact on employment (111 responses), impact on traffic (116 responses), impact on people’s living conditions and comfort (69 responses), and noise impacts (64 responses). The same issues were considered the most important in the 2008 resident survey. Other impacts mentioned included the impact on nature conservation areas, the impact on fishing waters, multinationality, and the use of foreign labor. Holiday residents considered the impact on the environment to be more important than the permanent residents.
The respondents were of the opinion that the most important impacts during the operation phase would be the impact on water systems and water quality (86 responses), the impact of radioactive emissions (73 responses), the impact on people’s perceived feeling of safety (59 responses), and the impact on people’s health (59 responses). Most of these issues considered important during the operation phase were also considered important in the 2008 resident survey. Other impacts mentioned included the impact from the spent nuclear fuel and the impact on tax revenue.
The respondents were shown several statements on the pro- ject and its environmental impacts with three response alterna- tives (“I agree”, “I disagree” and “I cannot say”) (Figure 7-46).
Approximately 53 % of the respondents stated that they are in favor of constructing the Fennovoima nuclear power plant
and 39 % stated that their attitude towards the project is nega- tive. There was no similar question in the survey of 2008. The attitudes of the holiday residents were slightly more negative than those of the permanent residents. The attitudes of women and men were clearly different from each other. About 64 % of the men were in favor of the project while 28 % opposed the nuclear power plant. Of women, 38 % were in favor and 56 % opposed the project. The attitude towards the project also depended on the respondent’s place of residence. Around 38 % of those living less than five kilometers from the plant site were in favor and 55 % opposed the project. The attitudes of people living 5–20 km from the plant site were clearly more positive, 61 % of them were in favor and 32 % opposed the project.
Almost two in every three respondents (60 %) were of the opinion that the nuclear power plant would benefit the region. In 2008 47 % of the respondents were of this opin- ion. More than half of the respondents (58 %) believed that the nuclear power plant will be safe once completed, while a little over a quarter (28 %) suspected the project’s safety. A significant share of the respondents (46 %) believed that they are unable to influence the project’s environmental impact assessment procedure. This distribution of responses is almost exactly the same as the distribution of responses for this statement in the 2008 resident survey. However, more than half of the respondents believed that the envi- ronmental impacts will be thoroughly studied.
The respondents were asked whether there are any particu- larly susceptible areas, sites, or activities close to the project site which the respondents believe the construction and oper-
Construction Phase Operation Phase Impact on employment Impact on traffic
Impact on water systems and water quality Impact on people’s living conditions and comfort
Impact on flora and fauna
Impact on perceived feeling of safety Impact on fishing and fishery Impact of radioactive emissions Noise impact
Impact on human health Impact on air quality and climate
Other, please specify 7
25 59 6 73 55 59 34 45 86 23 58 4 18 9 64 23 23 56 69 38 116 111 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Kpl
Figure 7-45. Respondents’ assessments on the project’s most important impacts during the construction phase and operational phase.
184 7 Assessment methods, the present state of the environment and the assessed environmental impacts
ation of the nuclear power plant would influence. Most of the responses referred to the area’s nature and recreation values. The respondents were concerned whether the recreational opportunities, such as fishing and hunting, would remain. The land and sea area of Hanhikivi headland was considered an especially vulnerable recreation area which is currently in its natural state and which is valuable for both people and animals. Other vulnerable items mentioned included the white-tailed eagle, monuments of antiquity, fishing waters, species protected by the Habitats Directive, seawater, avifauna, local agriculture, people’s holiday homes, and the moor frog.
The respondents were asked to state means that could be used to prevent and mitigate possible adverse impacts or risks. The respondents considered active communication with different stakeholders during the different phases of the project to be an important means of mitigation. They also wished that communication about problems, if any occurred, would be open. They presented a wish that the traffic routes and safety arrangements in the area would be functional and good. They hoped that the project would be optimally planned and supervised. They hoped that the construction workers would be competent and that proper working con- ditions would be arranged for migrant labor. Some of the respondents proposed using as many Finnish employees and the services of as many Finnish companies as possible. The respondents proposed that dredging should take place in the wintertime and traffic arrangements improving the traffic routes would be made on main road 8. Measures proposed to minimize the impacts on the water systems included careful processing of service water and building a protective break- water on the cooling water intake. Most of the respondents who stated that they oppose the project proposed refraining
from building the nuclear power plant or transferring the project to another location as the mitigation means.
Communications and other issues
The respondents were of the opinion that they had received enough information about the project (Figure 7-47). A small number of respondents even stated that there had been too much information about the project. The distribu- tion of opinions is very similar to that of the survey imple- mented in 2008. The respondents were especially inter- ested in the project’s safety, issues pertaining to the final disposal of spent nuclear fuel, the project’s environmen- tal impacts, employment opportunities, and the project’s impacts on people. Other issues mentioned by the respond- ents included the project’s impact on agriculture and on the value of real estate as well as changes in people’s living environment during construction. The respondents wanted more information about the nationality of employees par- ticipating in the project and any adverse impacts caused by the large-scale construction project, such as adverse impacts on the sense of community and a variety of side effects. They hoped that information about the project be commu- nicated via a wide range of communication channels. They wished to obtain information about the project online, from newspapers, and from interactive events. They hoped that visits to the project site would be arranged.
Key issues in which the respondents wished the project organization to pay attention to during project planning were related to safety factors. Safety issues were mentioned in many of the answers to the open-ended questions, and the respondents proposed several means that could be used to promote safety of the project. In addition, they hoped that
I’m in favor of the Fennovoima nuclear power plant project
I believe that the construction of the nuclear power plant will benefit my home region
I believe that the nuclear power plant will be safe once completed
I can influence environmental impact assess- ment procedure of the Fennovoima nuclear power plant project
I believe that potential environmental impacts of the Fennovoima nuclear power plant project will be thoroughly studied
Agree Disagree Can not say
Figure 7-46. Respondents’ responses to the statements about the project (n = 169–172).
56
12
58
60
53
29
46
28
31
39
15
42
14
8
8
0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 100 %185