Chapter 5: Confessing Transgression
5.3 What is confessable?
Law 6.938/81 provides for the National Environmental Policy and CONAMA Resolution No. 001/86 governs the process of environmental licensing [18]6. Public hearings are utilized to present the results of environmental studies and create opportunities for people to ask questions about a particular venture. In the municipality of Iperó, a public hearing was held for presenting and debating the implementation of the RMB [19]. In 2013, there were three public hearings, one in Iperó, one in Sorocaba and another in São Paulo. The hearing in Iperó attracted little involvement of the population, even though the organizers had promoted it by disseminating information throughout the city.
This result for public hearings was also reflected in the responses obtained during the questionnaires, as many residents claimed not to know about the RMB implementation project, were uninformed about the public hearings and, especially, were unaware of the purpose of the reactor. Responses to the question in the questionnaire that sought to know the involvement of respondents with the arrival of the RMB to the municipality showed little involvement with the project, as well as a lack of information and low interest in participating in the public hearings occurring during the period (Fig. 2). On first being approached with the questionnaire, many participants said they did not know about the project and did not receive information about the event, even though the report submitted by the Comissão Nacional de Energia Nuclear (CNEN) contained photos of dissemination advertisements and news in the local media [19].
6 A preventive legal instrument that should be observed prior to installation of any enterprise or potentially polluting or environmentally degrading activity [18].
69 FIG. 2. Judgments of the respondents about their own involvement in the implementation of the RMB in the city.
Responses to the question that was aimed at establishing the feelings of the respondents about the arrival of the reactor to the city showed that in most cases the participants did not feel safe with the implementation of the RMB in Iperó (Fig. 3). This concern was also expressed in the public hearing held in Iperó, as can be seen in the document presented by the CNEN [19], indicating that there was still a gap between the public and experts, even after almost two years of completion of the public hearings. It indicates that the public hearings, as well as other possible interventions, were not successful in changing the risk perception of a group from the studied population. As noted earlier, the report on the public hearings highlighted general concern regarding the safety of RMB deployment in the city, as illustrated by the response of a participant in the public hearing held in Iperó, indicated on page 95 of the report [19]:
“Are we going to have security if something goes wrong with the RMB? Will we be warned in time to evacuate our homes, or will we be left to ourselves? It is a nuclear reactor, is it not? For better or for worse, Bacaetuva is a neighbourhood next to the RMB project with a population 358 inhabitants”.
FIG. 3. Feelings related to personal safety related to the implementation of the RMB.
70
To check on the perception of personal danger from the reactor, respondents were asked to judge the possibility of personal risks related to the implementation of the RMB. The results are shown in Fig. 4. According to the data obtained, we can say that the risk perception of respondents is high due to the higher number of answers scoring 4 or more on the Likert scale.
On page 100 of the report on the public hearings [19], a participant raises the following question:
“...I understand that it is safe, but the others are lay people — what do you have to say in order to explain things in non-technical terms so that people can stay calm?”
The experts assured the local resident and the others present in the public hearing that environmental education programmes would be implemented in order to work on the risk perception didactically, so as to overcome possible risks of misunderstanding. Up to the first half of 2016, no environmental education programmes were embarked upon in the city and the interviewed public did not know about the project.
FIG. 4. Evaluation of the respondents about the possibility of personal risks.
Another issue addressed with members of the local community was their personal assessment regarding the possibility of a risk to the municipality of Iperó with the arrival of the RMB. The answers to the question are presented in Fig. 5. The answers provided to this question show a high risk perception because the majority of respondents preferred to answer the question with a score of 4 or more, mainly choosing the end of the scale (a score of 7) for the possibility of some risk to the municipality. Again, the data may show that the gap in communication between the public and the experts did not decrease after the public hearings, highlighting an urgent need to clarify the project for the population.
71 FIG. 5. Evaluation of respondents as to the possibility of negative events occurring in Iperó using the Likert scale.
Initially, the results showed a negative risk perception of the population regarding the arrival of the RMB in Iperó. However, some issues included in the questionnaire were aimed at finding out about the respondents’ view of the perceived benefits of the reactor to the country.
Again, the respondents were asked to respond using the Likert scale. The results are shown in Fig. 6. Although 20% of respondents thought that there would be no benefit to Brazil, the vast majority of respondents (66%) had a low risk perception regarding the benefits that the RMB could bring to the region, choosing scores of 4 or more on the Likert scale. At the same time, on analysing separately the percentages associated with each score on the scale, the highest percentage was associated with a score of 7 (high benefit to the country).
FIG. 6. Evaluation of respondents regarding benefits to the country with the arrival of the RMB at Iperó.
Respondents were asked if Iperó trade would be adversely affected with the arrival of the RMB. The evaluation again was based on the Likert scale. The results are shown in Fig. 7. In this evaluation we can say that the respondents did not associate the arrival of the RMB with possible changes in trade, with most answers to the question being a score of 4 or less on the Likert scale (81% of respondents). Around 43% of respondents gave a score of 1, which could
72
facilitate the acceptance of the reactor presence in the city if the issue were to be addressed in a more efficient way for locals.
FIG. 7. Assessment of respondents regarding the negative impact on the city’s trade.
Another question in the interviews referred to the feeling of pride in knowing that the municipality of Iperó would receive the RMB and if the future would be a credit to the place.
The results are shown in Fig. 8. In this evaluation, the highest percentage (32%) was for a score of 1 on the Likert scale, suggesting strongly that the reactor would not induce a feeling of pride within the city for most respondents. If we analyse the set of answers, we can also say that most of the respondents judged that the reactor would not be a source of pride because they opted for scores of 3 or less.
FIG. 8. Assessment of respondents on a feeling of pride regarding implementation of the reactor.
From the responses to this questionnaire, it can be concluded that there would be some acceptance of the deployment of the RMB in the city because of the benefits to the country. On the other hand, the perception among respondents was that such deployment would not bring economic benefits to the local community and would not be a source of pride among the population. These negative views could easily be changed if there were to be greater knowledge among, and easier access to, local residents, as well as more frequent interventions in order to allay their concerns.
73 4. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
The risk perception related to nuclear technology changed after the Second World War, when such technology started to be seen in a negative way. Since then, the technology has also come to be used for energy production in several countries. According to some experts, nuclear power causes less impact on climate change and may therefore be an option for sustainable energy systems [20], at least while making the transition to other energy sources. Over the years, however, there have been failures in nuclear power plants causing accidents with widespread effects. With all these events, the negative risk perception on this issue has increased. The role of the media has been decisive in the consolidation of risk perception and social representation, as exemplified in 2011 by the accident at the nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan, news of which was highlighted in the newspapers and was featured on the evening news for weeks. Even weeks and months later, it was kept alive in people’s memory with the publication of new reports. On the other hand, any positive news regarding nuclear technology is reported on only briefly and without any highlighting or proper credit given.
It is evident that certain issues can influence public opinion and direct a social decision-making process, as discussed in Ref. [21]. This is true with regard to the RMB. From the results obtained in this study, it is clear that the communication of risks related to new nuclear facilities is an essential activity for the formation of a rational and balanced public opinion base [22].
However, as noted herein, those responsible for the communication of new enterprises still tend to rely on technical and scientific explanations to the public, which has a subjective risk perception. The role of the media in shaping the risk perception of the population is crucial [21].
It is evident that communication between the scientific community and the public is still very raw in the nuclear area.
Analysing the results presented in this article, it is clear that there is a need for intervention in the municipality for further information about the arrival of the RBM, because the population feels neither enlightened nor safe with the project. Therefore, to increase the RMB acceptance in the municipality of Iperó, an alternative may be to use the media, recognizing the socio-cultural force that it has, through interviews, articles and discussions about the issue, as discussed in Ref. [21]. The use of the media can reach a wide audience of different age groups and should be directed to it. However, it must work together with environmental education programmes and partnerships with schools, as promised at the time of the public hearings, as well as new public hearings and dissemination of information on the implementation of the RMB in schools. The public can then reflect on the topic and critically evaluate the arrival of the reactor in Iperó.
REFERENCES
[1] LIMA, R.S., PIMENTEL, L.C.F., AFONSO, J.C., O Despertar da radioatividade ao alvorecer do século XX, Química Nova na Escola 33 2 (2011).
[2] YIM, M.-S., VAGANOV, P., Effects of education on nuclear risk perception and attitude:
Theory, Progress in Nuclear Energy 42 2 (2003) 221–235.
[3] PIDGEON, N.F., LORENZONI, I., POORTINGA, W., Climate change or nuclear power
— No thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain, Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 69–85.
[4] GOODFELLOW, A.B., HUGO R.W., ADISA, A., Nuclear renaissance, public perception and design criteria: An exploratory review, Energy Policy 39 10 (2011) 6199–
6210.
[5] KOERNER, C.L., Media, fear, and nuclear energy: A case study, Social Sci. J. 51 (2014) 240–249.
[6] SJÖBERG, L., Factors in risk perception, Risk Analysis 20 1 (2000).
74
[7] OLTEDAL, S., MOEN, B.-E., KLEMPE, H., RUNDMO, T., Explaining risk perception:
An evaluation of cultural theory, Rotunde publikasjoner 85 (RUNDMO, T., Ed.), Department of Psychology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim (2004).
[8] SLOVIC, P., “Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm”, Social Theories of Risk (KRIMSKY, S., GOLDING, D., Eds), Praeger, Westport, CT (1992) 117–152.
[9] BECK, U., World Risk Society, Polity, Cambridge (1999).
[10] COTE, J.A., BUCKLEY, M.R., Measurement error and theory testing in consumer research: An illustration of the importance of construct validation, J. Consumer Res. 14 (1988) 579–582.
[11] VIEIRA, K.M., DALMORO, M., Dilemas na Construção de Escalas Tipo Likert: O Número de Itens e a Disposição Influenciam nos Resultados?, XXXII Encontro da Anpad (2008).
[12] Fundação Sistema Estadual de Análise de Dados (SEADE), Informações dos Municípios Paulistas, Iperó SP,
http://www.imp.seade.gov.br/frontend/#/perfil (accessed 1 July 2016).
[13] INSTITUTO BRASILEIRO DE GEOGRAFIA E ESTATÍSTICA (IBGE), Iperó SP, http://www.cidades.ibge.gov.br/xtras/perfil.php?lang=&codmun=352100&search=sao-paulo|ipero (accessed 27 Mar 2015).
[14] GIL, A.C., Como Elaborar Projetos de Pesquisa, 5th Edition, Atlas, São Paulo (2008).
[15] SJÖBERG, L., “Nuclear waste risk perception and attitudes in siting a final repository for spent nuclear fuel”, Values in Decisions on Risk (VALDOR) (Proc. Conf. Stockholm, 2016) (ANDERSSON, K., Ed.), (2006).
[16] MOSCOVICI, S., Representações Sociais: Investigações em Psicologia Social, 6th Ed., Editora Vozes, Petrópolis, Brazil (2009).
[17] TANIMOTO, K.S., Proposta de um Questionário Destinado a Avaliar a Percepção de Risco Relativa a um Repositório de Rejeitos Radioativos, Dissertação (Mestrado em Tecnologia Nuclear Aplicações), Instituto de Pesquisas Energéticas e Nucleares, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo (2011)
http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/85/85131/tde-19122011-164013/ (accessed 25 Jan 2015).
[18] CONSELHO NACIONAL DO MEIO AMBIENTE (CONAMA), Resolução nº 01, de 23 de janeiro de 1986: Dispõe Sobre Critérios Básicos e Diretrizes Gerais para o Relatório de Impacto Ambiental (RIMA),
http://www.mma.gov.br/port/conama/legiabre.cfm?codlegi=23 (accessed 1 Aug 2016).
[19] COMISSÃO NACIONAL DE ENERGIA NUCLEAR, Relatório da Audiência Pública Referente ao Estudo de Impacto Ambiental do Reator Multipropósito Brasileiro (RMB), Nos Municípios de Iperó/SP, Sorocaba/SP e São Paulo/SP, de Responsabilidade da Comissão Nacional de Energia Nuclear, presentation to Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), Brasilia, 2013.
[20] VICHI, F.M., MANSOR, M.T.C., Energia, meio ambiente e economia: O Brasil no contexto mundial, Quím. Nova 32 3 (2009) 757–767,
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-40422009000300019&lng=en&nrm=iso (accessed 5 Aug 2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-40422009000300019.
[21] CARVALHO, D.W., FREIRE, M.T., VILAR, G., Mídia e violência: um olhar sobre o Brasil, Rev. Panam. Salud Publica 31 5 (2012) 435–438.
75 [22] RIBEIRO JUNIOR, J.A., Um estudo simplificado da percepção pública dos benefícios e riscos de centrais termonucleares: Sugestões para a comunicação de valor com o público, Dissertação (Mestrado em Tecnologia Nuclear-Reatores), Instituto de Pesquisas Energéticas e Nucleares, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo (2007).
76