perception of nuclear risk at the kola...

Northern Studies Working Paper No. 18:2001

cerum, Centre for Regional Sciencese-90187 UmeåSweden

Perception of Nuclear Risk at the Kola Peninsula

Arnfinn TønnessenDivision of Disaster Psychiatry University of Oslo

Umeå Universitycerum,

Centre for Regional Science

Perception of Nuclear Risk at the Kola Peninsula

Arnfinn TønnessenDivision of Disaster Psychiatry University of Oslo

cerum Northern Studies Working Paper no. 18isbn 91-7305-102-0issn 1400-1969

Address: Cerum, Umeå University, se-901 87 Umeå, SwedenTelephone: +46-90-786.6079, Fax: +46-90-786.5121www.umu.se/[email protected]

4 Modelling and Visualizing a Nuclear Accident’s Short Term Impact on Transportation Flows

Table of Contents

The Project “Nuclear Problems, Risk Perceptions of,and Societal Responses to, Nuclear Waste in the Barents Region”- an Acknowledgement 7

Introduction 8

Part I: Project administrative progression 9

Where the project objectives reached?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Research insights gained. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Spin-off effects of participating in the Research Program. . . . . . . . 11

Part II: The research results of the project 12

Introduction to the nuclear threat context at the Kola Peninsula. . 12

Project publication 17

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

References 29

Part III Data Set Appendixes 31

Appendix I-1 “General concerns responses in Russian” . . . . . . . . . 31

Appendix I-2 “General concerns, translated responses” . . . . . . . . . 39

Appendix II-1 “Personal concerns responses in Russian” . . . . . . . . 46

Appendix II-2 “Personal concerns translated responses” . . . . . . . . 55

Northern Studies Working Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

5

6 Modelling and Visualizing a Nuclear Accident’s Short Term Impact on Transportation Flows

The Project “Nuclear Problems, Risk Perceptions of, and Societal Responses to, Nuclear Waste in the Barents Region”- an Acknowledgement

Since the late eighties, CERUM has developed research with a focus onthe shaping of and development within the Barents Region. Two spe-cific features have characterised this research. First of all our ambitionhas been to develop research projects in close collaboration with inter-national and especially Russian researchers. This has materialised as anexchange of researchers at conferences both in Sweden and in Russia.Secondly, our view has been that the Barents region must be analysedby researchers that represent a broad set of competences. Especially ourambition is to develop a deeper and more integrated collaborationbetween researchers from social sciences and arts on one hand and nat-ural sciences on the other.

With the Swedish Board for Civil Emergency Preparedness (ÖCB)as the main finacier, CERUM has for a couple of years developed re-search within the project “Nuclear Problems, Risks Perceptions of, andSocial Responses to, Nuclear Waste in the Barents Region”.

This report is produced within the afore-mentioned project. Theproject deals with vulnerability as a response to the latent security ques-tions associated with the existence of nuclear power and nuclear wastein the Barents region. Clearly there is within the project a large scoopfor an analysis with its roots in natural sciences of the size and disper-sion of various types of waste from the region. The project also has pro-duced a set of such papers. Those papers raise questions that immedi-ately lead to other papers and a discussion with its roots in social sci-ences, of civil emergency preparedness in a broad and spatially delim-ited sense as well as a discussion of the need for an enlarged concept ofsafety. The pattern of spatial risk dispersion, which in this case not haltsat the national borders, and the associated construction of governancein the Barents region also imply that trans-border negotiation, conflict,and cooperation become key words in the discourse.

Gösta Weissglas Lars WestinProject leader Director of CERUM

The Project “Nuclear Problems, Risk Perceptions of, and Societal Responses to, Nuclear Waste in the

Introduction

This final report summarises the work accomplished in the project“Perception of Nuclear Risk at the Kola Peninsula”. The project frame-work was regulated by contract 1998–03–26 between Centre forRegional Science – CERUM, Umeå University and The Division ofDisaster Psychiatry (KKP) University of Oslo and the revised projectplan dated March 25th 1998.

According to the revised project plan of March 25th 1998, the re-duced project encompassed 2,5 man moths of labour by a qualified re-searcher, the purchase of R&D services and other operating expenses.

The report is made up of three parts, a project administrative part,detailing how the different tasks were executed, a part listing the con-text and research result and appendixes listing the data sets generated bythis research.

8

Part I: Project administrative progression

Project organisation

Tønnessen A. Project manager, senior scientist, NRPA

Scientific supervisors

Reitan J.B. MD PhD, Medical. Director NRPA, Radiation MedicineDepartmentWeisæth L. MD PhD, Professor, University of Oslo, Division of disas-ter psychiatryWaldahl, R. PhD, Professor University of Oslo, Department Of Mediaand Communication

Scientific advisor to the Project

Hansen Erik Researcher at The University College of South Stock-holm

The “Perception of Nuclear Risk at the Kola Peninsula” project has con-stituted of the following main parts+ Two identify the respondents giving a radiological concern in their

open-ended replies.+ Localisation of the questionnaires of these respondents.+ Photocopying the relevant parts of the questionnaire for these

respondents+ Negotiate a contract with the local partner about punching and

translating the open-ended responses.+ Transporting the questionnaires to Murmansk. Follow up the

punching process in Murmansk, having the local partner to send atest sample.

+ Collecting the punched and translated material in Murmansk+ Transforming the material to be used into a format readable by Text

Smart by SPSS inc.+ Performing content analysis of the open-ended responses.+ To prepare a paper and a presentation and participate on the Apat-

ity conference+ Rechecking all analysis, having the paper reviewed by the RRP

group then language “washed”. Final proof reading the paper thatwas printed in the proceeding of the conference.

The main deviation in the project has clearly been the time horizon forexecuting all parts of the project. According to the contract the projectwas planned with a time framework of on year. However as soon as itwas brought to our attention that CERUM, and FRN1, in co-operation


with Kola Science Centre planned a very relevant conference in Apatityin June 1999, we decided that this for all purposes was the very bestsuited opportunity for presenting the result of the project work, eventhough it meant somewhat expanding the duration of the project.

During 1998 the correct respondents and questionnaires had beenidentified, the contract with the local partner finalised and the materialdelivered in Murmansk for translation and punching. Furthermore, thematerial was picked up in Murmansk and the main bulk of analysis hadbeen done. During the spring of 1999 the main work on the paper wasdone and the presentation to be held at the conference: “Nuclear Risks,Environmental and Development Co-operation in The North of Europe”in Apatity in June 19–23, 1999 was prepared. After the conference thepaper draft was reviewed by the RRP group and then submitted to lan-guage washing.

During the autumn of 1999 the proof-reading process was per-formed with excellent co-operation with Peder Axensten.

Where the project objectives reached?

Overall we will conclude that seen in the perspective of the 2,5 manmonths available to the project the main objectives of the project wereachieved. It must be stressed that without the grant from the “NuclearProblems, Risk Perceptions of, and Societal Responses to, Nuclear Waste inthe Barents Region” research program all the 200 kg of original surveyquestionnaires would still have been laying stored in their boxes. Thedetailed in depth content analysis of the radiological concerns made bysome of the 2000 respondents would never have been possible. Thus asa result of the project grant a new database was constructed containingthe about 500 responses out of the total 11500 concerns given; thecontent of which being documented by the appendixes made availablefor the Steering Committee of the research program.

Clearly there where very few respondents giving radiological con-cerns as either general or personal concerns, perhaps just because of thelimited numbers it was of importance to learn more about the details oftheir response. One key research question whether only a very few men-tioning radiological concerns because only special subgroups were espe-cially aware of these issues?

The decision to see the “Nuclear Risks, Environmental and Develop-ment Co-operation in The North of Europe” conference in Apatity inJune 19–23, 1999 as the best suited opportunity to publish the result ofthe project was contributing to extending the time frame for finishingof the project. However, it is our evaluation that the FRN / CERUMconference was a well-chosen opportunity, even if it meant to extendthe duration of the project.

1. FRN: The Swedish Council for Planning and Coordination of Research.

10

Research insights gained

For the more extensive presentation of the result please se Part II, butlet us briefly mention: a) The hypothesis that more urgent and basicneed are at the forefront of the respondents concerns was confirmed.Thus a finding quite congruent with the respondents firstly addressingmore basic needs in a Maslow need hierarchy model, before turning tohigher level needs. b) The hypothesis that the small proportion of radi-ological concerns in the open-ended question could not be explainedby a limited knowledge level of the nuclear installations among thestudied sample population was indirectly confirmed. As those respond-ents that did made radiological concerns seems to have an extensiveknowledge, and there where not find any special attributes of theserespondents indicating a particular knowledge level in this area. Putdifferently only 4% mentioned radiological concerns not because theinformation about these installations is missing among the population,but rather as even more urgent concerns are at the forefront of therespondents’ daily worries.

Spin-off effects of participating in the Research Program

A spin-off result of participating and receiving funding from theCERUM “Nuclear Risk and waste” research program has been theestablishment of a co-operation with the Psychosocial section of theMedical Division of the St. Petersburg Institute of Radiation Hygiene.Twice we have sent joint INTAS proposals, and even though our pro-posals so far have not been successful, the research program participa-tion has nonetheless contributed to closer co-operation with our SUScolleagues.

Another spin off effect of the project grant was the possibility tokeep up the co-operation with the Murmansk Regional Committee ofState Statistics. As they were contracted to perform the punching andtranslation, the current project implied an opportunity to keep the co-operative relationship ongoing on a rather limited scale. This makingfor instance the year 2000 project of making a Russian version of theFafo report 260 more easily accomplished.


Part II: The research results of the project

Introduction to the nuclear threat context at the Kola Peninsula

The grave environmental situation in some Russian parts of the Bar-ents region is one of the more problematic issues uncovered after theend of the Cold War. Although chemical pollution may pose greatrisks, the nuclear problems have particularly attracted attention bothin Russia and in Norway (Savin 1994, Utenriksdepartementet 1994).The military and security problems represent special concerns (Baev1994). Security and co-operation in the northern region is a major for-eign policy goal of the Norwegian government. For decades human,cultural and economic relations across the Norwegian-Soviet borderwere almost non-existent, despite historical traditions of contact(Hansen 1993, Godal 1994). The new political situation opens up formutual cultural exchange, and development of the Barents region callsfor better understanding of each other.

The new knowledge of nuclear waste, reactors and pollution createsconcern both on Russian and on Norwegian side. The health situationand democratic changes probably will be influenced by this, giving aspecial sociological background for behaviour (Hansen 1993, Reitan1994). For decades the population at Kola, as in other arctic regions ofThe Former Soviet Union enjoyed several advantages and benefits com-pared to the general Soviet population. These benefits included wages40–80% higher than in other regions, paid and longer vacations as wellas lower retirement ages. The benefits or so-called “arctic coefficient”was employed because of the constant scarcity of labour in these re-gions. Moving temporarily to Kola implied opportunities for youngambitious people for a better family economy and living standard ingeneral. The mean age of the population was therefore also fairly low(Hansen 1993, Hansen et al 1997). However, living conditions at theKola Peninsula has as in other parts of Russia deteriorated after the col-lapse of the former Soviet Union, also because the Russian Federationeconomy does not allow subsidies to the same extent. In fact it could beargued than a region as the Murmansk Oblast are particularly vulnera-ble because of their large dependency upon transfers from central au-thorities.

Nuclear waste and other nuclear risks at the Kola Peninsula

The Kola Peninsula has the largest density of nuclear reactors on earth:almost one fifth of the world’s reactors are located in this area,although some of them are rather small. In addition to military subma-rines, three nuclear-powered naval surface vessels are in operation and

12

the Murmansk Shipping Company has eight nuclear-powered civilianships. On land, the Kolskaya AES nuclear power plant station with itsfour reactors, two VVER 440/230 and two VVER 440/213. Over a10-year period, the Russians plan to build three new VVER 640 reac-tors, i.e. the same type as is also planned at St Petersburg.

Currently, more than 70 Russian nuclear submarines have beentaken out of service and are lying along the coast of the Kola Peninsulaawaiting decommissioning. Most of the submarines have two reactors.The missiles have been removed but there is still fuel on board about 50of these vessels. Russia plans to cut up 125 submarines by the year2010. As a result of disarmament and the scrapping of nuclear subma-rines, large quantities of plutonium and uranium, both weapons-gradeand less highly enriched, will be stored ashore. The treatment, transportand storage of this material are both an environmental and a safetyproblem.

There are also inherent risks involved in the operational activities ofthe nuclear submarine fleet of the Russian Northern fleet. For instanceas illustrated by the collision just off the Murmansk coast in 1992 be-tween a US and a Russian nuclear submarine. Another example moredirectly affecting the local risk perception was the incident of May 5th

1998 involving an older Delta IV submarine with the following reper-cussions and public reactions in Murmansk City2. And this point beingfurther pinpointed by the recent tragic wreckage of the K-141 Oscar-IIK-1413 nuclear submarine, one of the most modern of the RussianNorthern Fleet.

General overviews of the inventory of radioactive waste and spentnuclear fuel at the Northwest region of Russia has been accomplishedduring the last years due to joint international and Russian efforts (e.g.Engelmann et al., 1995). The Norwegian Radiation Protection Author-ity has been engaged in the registration and evaluation of these prob-lems for several years. The Norwegian Plan of Action was established in1995 and a revised plan for the forthcoming years has been drawn up,aiming at an improvement of nuclear safety and prevention of radioac-tive contamination, mainly in Northwest Russia. For an overview ofongoing safety and environmental projects, please refer to (Utenriksde-partementet, 1997).

2. The exact circumstances of this incident are still somewhat unclear. According tothe "official" Russian version, as given on a special press conference held on Sat-urday May 9th , it was all a part of an exercise. According to a Norwegian militaryHigh Command spokesperson a Delta IV submarines was spotted on May 6th

outside the Rybachiy Peninsula returning to base in surface position with astrange opening at one of the rocket shaft covers. The so far only Russian mediareport of this incident heavily reported in the Telegraf, the explosion reportedlyhappened as two parts of the rocket fuel came in contact with each other. Thisincidence is also reported in Jane’s Defence Weekly. According to the 20 MayJane’s Defence Weekly, U.S. military and intelligence officials said that intercept-ed Russian communications and other information indicated that on May 5th a"Delta"-class SSBN had an emergency involving one of its nuclear missiles.

3. Kursk


The research group and scope of work

The University of Oslo and the Norwegian Radiation ProtectionAuthority has for several years collaborated in a research group onprojects regarding radiation risk perception and communicationtermed Radiation Risk research Project (= RRP). The differentprojects focus on coping aspects of radiological emergencies. The Uni-versity part of the project constitutes of Professor Lars Weisæth at TheDivision of Disaster Psychiatry and Professor Ragnar Waldahl atDepartment of Media and communication.

The main interest has been in emergency preparedness aspects, butwe are also carrying out more psychometric flavoured studies, partlywithin the EU-project RISKPERCOM, Risk Perception and Commu-nication. A specific study on the perception of risk from electromag-netic fields has also been performed (Maerli, 1996).

A major project has been a study of living conditions and radiationrisk perception at Kola (Hansen, Tønnessen, 1998), where also Fafo,Institute of applied Social Science has joined the research group. Thisstudy is carried out by grant from the Norwegian Foreign Ministry andwas completed with a report in 1998. The reference for the contractwith the Foreign Ministry of Norway is RSS-505. Unfortunately, dueto budgetary constraints only general reports on the material were pro-duced, render possible later exhaustive scientific evaluations to be per-formed4. The previous RSS-505 project has two main objectives; tostudy the time trend in living condition in a 5 year perspective afterFafo’s survey of living condition done in 1992 (Hansen, 1993), and tomake an evaluation of the public perception of the environmental situ-ation in the Oblast. Our main intention with the current project pro-posal was too utilise this comprehensive material more thoroughly.

The research perspective of the RRP-group on Radiation Risk Perception

An important “point of departure” for the groups research perspectivewas a survey carried out on the adult Norwegian population by Profes-sor Weisæth in 1986, shortly after the Chernobyl accident. This studyclearly documented the information crises and the insufficiencies inpreparedness measures taken by Norwegian authorities (Weisæth1991). As a follow up and extension the group did a somewhat broadernational survey in 1993 (Tønnessen et al 1995). The perspective of thegroup is emergency preparedness related and aimed at knowledge thatmay be useful in such a context. Nuclear accidents constitute a specialkind of “silent disaster” where the public perception of and confidencein authorities and advises offered are of vital importance. For the pub-lic perception of nuclear threats one major hypothesis is that image ofan invisible, unavailing, inescapable hazard with no or little perceived

4. (This is related to the fact that the proposed budget for the RSS-505 project wascut with about 30%.)

14

control are important in order to understand the often-potent publicreactions to nuclear hazards.

From survey material in Norway there are clear indications that animportant information perspective for the public is “What can I do my-self in order to influence the health consequences in case of an acci-dent” (Tønnessen et al., 1995). The research group tries to investigatehow authorities and others may intervene to try to maximise “positiveoutcome expectancies” (Hytten, 1989), and what kind of role the massmedia may serve as a channel for information in an radiological emer-gency situation (Waldahl, 1995). Without doubt the media plays a veryimportant role as a channel and conveyer of risk information, (Nilssonset al., 1997) and hence questions regarding the use of and trust in themedia is included in the 1997 survey. The proposed project will be anintegrated part of a doctoral thesis that a research fellow within theRRP group is working on.

The Fafo Living conditions study from 1992

In the summer and autumn of 1992, Fafo carried out a living condi-tion survey in selected parts of the Kola Peninsula. The 1992 studycovered the cities of Murmansk and Severomorsk, and the settlementNikel. The sample was a two stage probability sample of the popula-tion of 18 years or older, where the “population” where defined asthose who had the right to vote in the presidential elections in thespring of 1991. The 1992 survey was carried out in co-operationbetween Fafo and the Moscow-based Russian-Norwegian Social Tech-nologies Company (SOTECO). One finding form 1992 with directrelevance for the present project, was that bad environmental condi-tions was mentioned as an important “push-factor” for a desire tomove away from the Murmansk region (p. 28, Hansen 1993).

The 1992 survey is within the RSS-505 project framework a base-line study that makes it possible to study the time trends in the evolu-tion of the conditions and variations in social and economic life, alongdimensions as population, health, education, housing, employment,consumption and income and economic resources. Fafo has broad ex-perience with living condition surveys in the Former Soviet Union,most recently the NORBALT Living Conditions Project, compromis-ing a total of five parallel surveys in the Baltic states of Estonia, Latviaand Lithuania, as well as in the city of St. Petersburg and the Kalinin-grad enclave, this also makes it possible to se the survey results on livingconditions from the Murmansk region in a broader perspective(Hansen 1996).

The function and role of researcher Erik Hansen in the current pro-posal was to participate as an expert adviser to the project given his largeexperience with such projects and his well of knowledge of backgroundinformation in the these areas. Erik Hansen was during the project pe-riod working as a researcher at University College of South Stockholm.


The 1997 survey

The survey was carried out in March, April and May 1997 on selectedparts of the Murmansk Oblast. The areas covered were the cities ofMurmansk, Aptaity, Kandalaksha and the settlement of Nikel. Toenhance the possibilities for time trend evaluations one tried to get thenecessary permissions for carry out the survey also in Severomorsk butunfortunately The presidential decree number 1606 of 26th November1996 again made Severomorsk a closed area an hence it was impossibleto carry out a survey in Severomorsk in 1997. Of course also the sensi-tive content of the survey made serious problems for the implementa-tion of the survey. After initial negotiations and inquiries to severalpossible partners for the execution of the survey and excellent partnerwas found in The Murmansk Regional Committee of State Statistics,represented by Chairman of Committee Viktor F. Kotenko. Chairmanof Committee Viktor F. Kotenko and the Regional Committee of StateStatistics has made an exceptional thorough job with getting the neces-sary permissions and licenses from both central and regional authori-ties for executing the survey. Chief supervisor for the local field organi-sation was Vice-deputy of the Murmansk Regional Committee of StateStatistics Dr. Oleg Gubinsky, with one local supervisor for each of theselected areas. During the summer of 1997 the about 200-kg of ques-tionnaires from the interviews was carried by airfreight to Oslo, andwas punched and evaluated for internal consistence and quality duringthe second half of 1997.

Coverage of environmental concerns in the 1997 survey

The second part of the questionnaires used in 1997 contains openended questions about the respondents worries and concerns, evalua-tion of a long list of 33 different risks, evaluation of general environ-mental situation and questions more specifically aimed at the publicsevaluations of nuclear threats. The questions on more specific nuclearrisks are related to previous research by the research group (Tønnessenet al 1993), and questions used in EUROBAROMETER, and in addi-tion question related to the research in the RISKPERCOM project.The most important aim of the present proposal is to identify thoserespondents giving “radiological” concerns as either a general or a per-sonal concern.

16

Project publication

Public expression of radiological concern at the Kola Peninsula. ByArnfinn Tønnessen Viktor F. Kotenko5 Oleg Gubinsky2

The paper made in the project was published in the “Nuclear Risks, En-vironmental and Development Co-operation in The North of Europe” Pro-ceedings from the conference in Apatity, 1999 edited by Peder Axen-sten and Gösta Weisglass and published in 2000 by Cerum NorthernStudies (Centre for Regional Science), ISBN 91–7191–789–6

Summary of paper

The paper examined the public perception of nuclear hazards at theKola Peninsula by further utilising a 1997 survey data set of 2000interviews from Kandalaksha, Apatity, Murmansk and Pechenga. (The1997 survey was performed within the framework of the RSS-505project “Living conditions and Environmental concerns at the KolaPeninsula”.) The respondents were asked to give three responses abouttheir personal worries, and three responses about concerns theybelieved to the general Russian population to be most worried about.Among 11.500 responses given by the respondents about their con-cerns in a general and a personal context, only four percent of therespondents were found to explicitly express radiological concerns. Asalso reported elsewhere (Hansen and Tønnessen, 1998), the concernsgiven mainly were those articulating the current economical hardshipsendured by the population. The small proportion of radiological con-cerns expressed in the open ended questions are somewhat in contrastto the findings when the respondents are asked specifically aboutnuclear threats in the interview. For instance some one out of sixrespondents answered that discussed these issues very often.

Going in further detail on the radiological concern given, typicallythey were related to: the Kolskaya AES, Military nuclear installations,nuclear waste, and various combinations of these three. Kolskaya AESand Military nuclear installations constitute some six out of ten re-sponses given in the context of personal concerns. Some one out ofthree responses given is mainly focussing on the threat of a radiologicalincident to happen, and nearly all of these have a focused source. Thereare indications that among “the concerned” official information sourcesare less trusted, and also that more information about the nuclear in-stallations is needed.

5. Murmansk Regional Committee of State Statistics.


Introduction

In May – June 1997 a survey of 2000 personal interview where per-formed covering the sampling areas of Pechenga, Murmansk city, Apa-tity and Kandalaksha. Each interview lasted for about one hour andthe content covered mainly aspects of the respondents living condi-tions and their perception of various environmental issues. The mainperspectives of environmental issues covered were radiological emer-gencies, and more specifically the respondents’ expectation for theirown coping behaviour in such a situation. At the start of the environ-mental section of the questionnaire the respondents were asked to give3 responses to each of two questions about worries. The first questionasked about worries to the general population and the other about per-sonal worries. The interviewers wrote down all the six responses givenby the respondents, and afterwards the interviewers tried to categorisethe responses into some 70 predefined coding alternatives. All in allnearly 11.500 responses of concerns were given. Among these somesix- percent of personal concerns, and some 14 percent of the generalconcerns did not fit into any of the predefined coding alternatives.

The respondents that gave either a personal or general concern thatmay indicate a nuclear concern were identified. These questionnaireswere then selected for a special content analysis. For these 86 respond-ents the original questionnaires were consulted, and the original re-sponses as written down by the interviewers were translated to English.The content analysis was then performed on the English translated re-sponses. The aim of the paper is to report in detail about the radiolog-ical issues brought up as either general or personal concerns during the2000 personal interviews. As the group is quite limited the analysis ofproportions will be limited. The focus is more on reporting the re-spondents’ replies in extensive detail as to get some insights on the typeof concerns held by the respondents.

Material and Methods

As mentioned above 86 respondents were identified as replying with anuclear concern either in a personal or general context. When the orig-inal response was studied in further detail it was decided that four ofthe responses did not fully indicate a nuclear concern, thus leaving 82respondents left for further analysis. There were 42 respondents indi-cating a nuclear concern in the general context, and 46 respondentsexpressed a nuclear concern in a personal context. All the 6 respond-ents that replied with two nuclear concerns gave one in the general andone in the personal concern (i.e. not two personal or two general con-cerns).

The respondents were not instructed to give their responses in anyparticular order. The exact instruction given were: “What are the threeissues that people in Your country are most worried about at the present?and for the personal context: “What are the three issues you personally aremost worried about at the present?”. Thus, to analyse and interpret the

18

order of concerns mentioned must be done with some caution. Never-theless is it interesting to note that the main bulk of nuclear concernsare mentioned as the third or second response. Of the 42 responses ofnuclear threats replied as being of general concern only one was amongthe first concern mentioned, while some one out of three general nu-clear concerns were the second response, while the remaining two thirdwere among the third and last general concern mentioned. When itcomes to nuclear threats replied as being of a personal concern, themain share also for this context were found to be that the nuclear con-cern was mentioned last. Some one out of ten responses of nuclearthreats in the personal concern perspective were among the first re-sponses given. Among the responses first given the same issues werebrought up as those that held a pregnant position in the overall re-sponse to the personal context. On the average some seven words wereused to describe the respondents nuclear concern. Without going intoto may language technicalities we will briefly mention that when trans-lated the number of words used increased some 28%, while the averageEnglish word was some 12% shorter than the words in the Russian text,thus the number of characters used in the English text increased not asmuch as the number of words.

Results

The broader picture of worries held by Kola respondents

Before turning to the details of the various nuclear concerns that werereplied as either a worry at the personal or personal context, theresponses will be places in a more general context. As reported else-where (Hansen and Tønnessen, 1998) the not surprisingly totallydominating concern was related to the grave economical difficultiesendured by the population.

The responses given to the question about “What are the three issuesyou personally are most worried about at the present?” are shown in table1.

From the table it is mainly observed that the respondents with radi-ological concerns are more attentive to the economical problems at thegeneral level, and less concerned about economical problems at the per-sonal level. For instance more than twice the proportion in the groupwith radiological concerns mentioned general economical difficulties astheir number one response, than did the rest of the respondents. In ad-dition there is less “other replies”, and also less missing response is ob-served. The latter may be related to the fact that radiological concernsmore typically are among the second or third response given. Thus in-stead of interpreted as a more thoroughly response, it could be seen asan artefact of being a response typically mentioned last.

The very similar proportion of conventional environmental con-cerns among those with radiological concerns and the rest is notewor-thy. It does not seem like the main thrust of radiological concerns re-


sponded is very related to concerns for more conventional environmen-tal problems.

In table 2 the three responses to the question about “What are thethree issues that people in Your country are most worried about at thepresent?” are shown.

From the table one observe the same differences between those re-porting radiological concerns and the rest, as was seen for the personalcontext. Thus there are more frequent reports of general economicaldifficulties and less of personal economical concerns.

One noteworthy difference is observed for the third response givenin the general context and the expression of environmental concerns inthe two groups. For the personal context with the third response therewere slightly more environmental concerns among those with radiolog-ical concerns, but for the third response in the general context there lessthan half the replies of environmental concerns among those that heldradiological concerns. This may perhaps be seen as an indication of anoverlap phenomenon more typical for this general context.

First response Second response Third response Of cases

No rad1. Rad.men.2 No rad. Rad.men.

No rad. Rad.men. No rad. Rad men

Dire financial straits (delayed wages)

56 47 31 21 18 3 77 55

General economical prob-lems

8 18 6 3 4 3 17 23

Problems with health care /illness etc.

6 6 11 13 15 15 31 34

The situation for the elderly (pension etc.)

8 10 8 9 6 1 20 18

Children’s conditions and future

3 3 6 8 10 7 19 19

Government, leadership of the country

2 2 4 5 5 2 11 9

Violence and crime 2 3 7 9 6 2 15 14

Environmental protection/pollution

2 1 6 5 8 10 17 16

Radioactive pollution 0 4 0 20 0 30 0 54

Clean drinking water/food problems

0 0 1 3 3 4 5 7

Other answers 10 5 17 5 19 19 37 25

Missing response 1 0 2 0 6 4 7 4

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 255 2761 No rad. = No radiological concerns mentioned2 Rad.men. = The group with radiological concern (s) mentioned

Table 1 Personal worries. Percentages for those with radiological concerns compared to the rest ofthe respondents.

20

Issues mentioned as a radiological concern

The source of the radiological concern themes brought up by therespondents in the open ended questions may mainly be described as:the Kolskaya AES in Polyarny Zory, Military nuclear installations,nuclear waste, various combinations of these three and “nuclear instal-lations” of a more unspecific character. In addition there of course is aquite large group of concerns held not specified to any particularsource, i.e. a general response like “Problems connected with radioactiv-ity”. The frequency distribution of various issues mentioned is shownin figure 1.

From the figure it is observed that Kolskaya AES and Military nu-clear installations constitute some six out of ten responses given in thecontext of personal concern. Whereas broad radiological concerns (e.g.radioactivity etc.), and plural mentioning of nuclear installations aremore often seen in the context of general concerns given.

Looking into the various concerns, it seems reasonable to distin-guish between concerns more aimed at a possible future radiologicalemergency versus a concern held for a condition that has already oc-curred. Some one out of three responses given is mainly focussing onthe threat of something to happen, and nearly all of these have a fo-cused source. The very central term used by many of the respondents to

First response Second response Third response Of casesNo rad. Rad

men.No rad. Rad

men.Not rad. Rad

men.No rad. Rad

men.Dire financial straits (delayed wages)

51 44 33 16 18 13 74 60

General economical prob-lems

23 35 8 3 5 7 34 45

Problems with health care /illness etc.

1 0 5 6 8 3 13 9

The situation for the elderly (pension etc.)

3 2 8 13 4 7 15 21

Children’s conditions and future

0 0 2 0 4 2 6 2

Government, leadership of the country

11 7 13 15 15 13 36 35

Violence and crime 3 2 12 16 13 6 28 24

Environmental protection/pollution

2 1 9 10 13 6 23 17

Radioactive pollution 0 1 0 19 0 35 0 55

Clean drinking water/food problems

0 0 1 1 2 1 3 2

Other answers 4 6 8 1 11 8 20 14

Missing response 2 0 3 0 7 2 7 2

100 100 100 100 100 100 258 2851 No rad. = No radiological concerns mentioned2 Rad.men = The group with radiological concern (s) mentioned

Table 2 General worries. Percentages.


express the threat perspective is: “Yгроза”. Frequencies of the threat ofincident perspective are very evenly divided between the personal versusthe general questionnaire items. Furthermore, some six out of ten re-sponses specified with Kolskaya AES has a threat of incident perspec-tive, as compared to some four out of ten responses with the same angleon Military nuclear installations. Extensive details about how the vari-ous radiological issues is raised as a concern will be given below, the re-sponses will be presented according to which “source” the concern is re-lated to. Furthermore, the responses within sources will be structuredinto three categories, firstly “the threat of an incident”, secondly con-cern for a current condition, and thirdly a broad other category.

The Kolskaya AES

The Kolskaya AES, is described either directly as Kolskaya AES, or asthe AES in Polyarny Zory. It is noteworthy how specific the mention-ing of either the name, or the location of the Kolskaya AES is.

As mentioned above the Kolskaya AES is mentioned by more re-spondents in a threat perspective, interpreted to imply the threat of afuture radiological emergency. The other main perspective replies isthat of the radioactive pollution that already has taken place or ecolog-ical problems related to the operation of the AES.

The threat of contamination or only the threat from the KolskayaAES is mentioned of eleven respondents. The interpretation is that thisconcern is more about the “catastrophe” potential, i.e. what “mighthappen”. As one respondent expresses it: “I’m concerned about the possi-ble radiation from the Kolskaya AES”. One response directly indicatesthe impact of the Chernobyl accident on the respondents’ evaluation ofthe security of the Kolskaya AES.

Some respondents have concerns interpreted to be related to radio-logical pollution that already have occurred. For instance the reply of:“The radioactive situation in Polyarny Zory”, or “Radiation from the AESon the peninsula”. Among other concern perspectives involving the Kol-skaya AES, it is found the proximity to the AES or deficient informa-

15

15

24

22

15

7

2

38

22

9

11

7

4

7

2

The threat fromthe Kolskaya aes

Military nuclearinstallations

Broad, unspecificradiological concern

Nuclear threats, mil.,civil or “installations”

Waste

Chernobyl related

Other radiologicalconcerns

Nuclear installationsabroad General concern

Personal concern

10% 50%20% 40%30%

Figure 1 Radiological issues held as a general or personal concern, percentages.

22

tion about the AES activities. Three respondents bring up the proxim-ity to the Kolskaya AES, of these two are living in Kandalaksha, i.e.quite close to the Kolskaya AES, whereas one of these are living inPechenga, the sampling area farthest away from the Kolskaya AES. Tworespondents have concerns about informational aspects; they believethat information about security and the condition of the AES is limitedand insufficient. In addition, one respondent has only replied “TheKolskaya AES” without specifying anymore about the context of theconcern.

Military nuclear installations

As with Kolskaya AES the concerns replied about military nuclearinstallation may mainly be divided in three categories; a threat perspec-tive, the perspective of contamination that already has occurred, and athird broad “various” category.

Even though the group size is fairly small it is noteworthy that thethreat category of military nuclear installation is mainly compromisedof male respondents. The standard response of the “threat” category is:“The threat of contamination from military nuclear installations”, or as a57 year old male respondent from Murmansk mentioned as his thirdpersonal concern: “Military nuclear installations, there can be an acci-dent. A 27 year old female respondent from Murmansk broadens theaccident perspective with her first general concern: “Military nuclear in-stallations, the threat of an accident or war”.

It is noteworthy that there seems to be a use of the “plural” form of“installations”, but at the same time none specific mentioning of a cer-tain area, or installation. From the responses given it is note possible totell whether nuclear submarines, naval yards, storage facilities for nu-clear arms or nuclear fuel are the main concern. I.e. it is not possible toestablish what exactly the respondents had in mind when they replied“military nuclear installations”. In the category of contamination thatalready has occurred the responses show some of the same tendencies aswith Kolskaya AES. A typical example is a 44 years old female respond-ent from Murmansk city giving as her third general concern: “Contam-ination of the environment by military nuclear installations”, or as a thirdgeneral concern mentioned by a 32 year old male respondent living inMurmansk: “Problems of environmental contamination with radiationfrom military nuclear installations”.

A quite specific contamination concern is given by a female 50 yearold respondents from Murmansk city, her third personal concern men-tioned was: “Air contamination from military nuclear installations”. Evenmore that with this response, there are other responses where only thewords of pollution or contamination from military objects are men-tioned, thus there is not specified the “nuclear” or radioactive contentof the pollution. Thus, it may also be a question of more conventionalpollution caused by military installations that have been raised as a con-cern.


Among the various responses it is found general mentioning of mil-itary nuclear installation without any more specification of the contentof their concern. It is also found a specific mentioning of nuclear armsin the third general response made by a 62 year old female respondentfrom Murmansk city with the reply of: “Ecology, saturation with nucleararms”. Another specific point being raised is made by a 50 year old fe-male respondent giving as her third personal concern the reply of “Mil-itary nuclear installations are situated near the town”. Thus without spec-ifying the explicit installation in mind, clear indications about theknowledge about their whereabouts are given by such a reply.

Concerns related to nuclear waste

Nuclear waste is mentioned as a concern in quite a few contexts, mostoften as an ecological problem, and also often mentioned togetherwith a non-specific mentioning of “nuclear installation”. The termsused for description are either radioactive/nuclear waste or burialground of nuclear waste/fuel. The only geographically specified con-cern of nuclear waste is related to Novaya Zemlya. A fact that might berelated to the nuclear weapon test site, or the plans for building a largenuclear waste storage facility there.

The term used to describe the waste is both radioactive waste andnuclear waste. When radioactive/nuclear waste is the only nuclear con-cern mentioned, the waste is often described in the context of the prob-lems of burial-grounds. For instance as the third personal concern men-tioned by a female respondent in Murmansk city “Radioactive wastes,their burial-ground and utilisation”.

An example of the ecological perspective is given by a 28 years oldfemale respondent from Murmansk city and her third personal con-cern: “Ecological problems connected with nuclear installations and storageof wastes”. Or as a 26 year old male respondent also from Murmanskcity answered in his third general concern: “Ecology, the threat from nu-clear installations, burial ground of nuclear fuel”. Another more detailedexample is the third general concern mentioned by a 52 year old malerespondent living in Murmansk city: “Ecological problems connectedwith storage, exploitation, burial-ground of nuclear wastes, exploitation ofnuclear installations”.

The replies mentioning both nuclear waste and the nuclear installa-tions, sometimes have them both connected, e.g. “the threat of contam-ination with nuclear waste from any objects utilising atom” where thewaste seems to be portrayed as the major negative end result giving raiseto their concern, or more as two (or more) separate concerns like theone given as a third general concern made by a 76 year old female re-spondents in Murmansk City: “The threat from nuclear installations andnuclear burial-grounds”. In some responses it is even harder to interpretthe relationship between the nuclear installation and nuclear waste inthe replies. For instance with the secondly mentioned general concernmade by a female respondent from Murmansk city: “Contaminationfrom nuclear installations, increase of nuclear waste”. It is not clear then if

24

the contamination is because of the perceived increase in nuclear waste,or if this perceived increase is a separate concern.

General responses without any “specified” source

Some major themes may be deduced from the more generalisedresponses: problems connected with radioactivity, radioactive contami-nation, ecology and the more general and short reply like “radiation”or “radioactivity”. For many of the general replies it is not only impos-sible to establish the “source” of concern, and not possible to tell if theconcerns is related to something that have happen, or something therespondents fear that might happen. Other replies suggest that bothwhat have happened and what may occur is simultaneously held as aconcern e.g. “Problems with radioactive contamination; preventive meas-ures and measures of its elimination are not enough”. Thus a concernboth related to prevention of contamination, and to eliminate contam-ination that is perceived to have occurred.

For some respondents their concerns are related to a perception of anegative “trend” in the radiological situation, for instance: “Situationwith radiation is getting worse”. In a similar manner some respondentshave a concerns with “heightened radiation” or the “high radiation level”.

Consequence focus for the radiological concerns

The only consequence focus found where consequences are specificallybrought up is related to the consequences of the Chernobyl accident,thus there is not a consequence focus related to the nuclear threats inthe region. One example of a Chernobyl consequence focus is arespondent is telling a sad story about a close family member being illbecause of participation in the clean up work after the accident.

With a broad definition of consequences one could say that thementioning of radioactive contamination in an environmental perspec-tive, could be seen as a consequence perspective for the environment,but also for these replies it is noteworthy how “unspoken” the effectsare.

Radiological concerns in en environmental perspective

Some respondents clearly held a concern for the environment as theirmain perspective to radiological problems. As with the more specificsources, it is found both a threat perspective, and a perspective moreon contamination perceived already to have occurred. Thus, replies of“The threat of environmental pollution, radioactivity”, versus a responselike “The ecological situation in relation with radioactivity”. Otherrespondents places their nuclear concerns as a part of their broaderenvironmental concerns, such as “Ecology: radiation, pollution of waterand air”.


Conclusions

The main concern held by the public in the present survey study wasthat of economical difficulties, both given as a personal and a generalconcern. The survey was done in May – June 1997, and there is noreason to believe that the public’s economical hardships have improvedin any way. Quite to the contrary the economical crash of August1998, nearly overnight weakened the publics’ purchasing power exten-sively.

In a recent content analysis of one regional and one Murmansk citylocal newspaper (“Poliarnaya Pravda” and “Vecherny Murmansk”) itwas found that the ratio between environmental information and radi-ation information were some twenty to one (regional) and ten to one(local) (Zykova, 2000). Thus where as nearly every issue contained in-formation on ecological problems broadly some one out of ten issues orless contained radiological information. Quite interestingly the publi-cation ratio of ecological versus radiological problems is a ratio similarto the eight to one ratio of respondents mentioning environmental con-cerns (16%) versus those mentioning radiological concerns (2%) as apersonal concern (p. 177 Hansen & Tønnessen 1998). The radiologi-cal information found in these newspaper were found to be either re-ported work by international organisations (IAEA etc.) or initiatives orwork done by foreign experts in the region. It may be tempting to se thehigh level of trust to foreign experts expressed in the 1997 survey (Fig-ure 15.2 p.236 Hansen & Tønnessen 1998) also as related the visibilityin the local media of foreign experts’ involvement in radiological issuesin the region.

In this paper it was chosen to focus on those 81 respondents that re-sponded with radiological concern as either a personal or general con-cern. It was found that there was a tendency for these concerned re-spondents also to respond to other interview items congruent withtheir open-ended replies. Thus, among those in the concerned group alarger proportion believe think the subject of nuclear accidents is im-portant, furthermore they more often discuss these issues and reportsmore often to be preoccupied on a daily basis. The overall level of in-volvement in the total Kola survey population as indicated by theseclosed end questions6 is high, both compared to the Norwegian publicChernobyl response in 1986 (Weisæth 1991) and to what was found inNorway in 1993 and in 1996 (Tønnessen et al. 1995, Tønnessen et al.1999). Thus, those giving radiological concerns open ended was foundto be even more “involved” than the general survey population.

It is a puzzling difference between the level of concern indicated byresponse to radiological interview questions as compared to small pro-portion that mentioned radiological concerns unprompted. For in-stance in Norway in 1996 some eight percent of the given responses ofpersonal concerns were related to radiological concerns (Tønnessen et

6. I.e. questions explicitly bringing up the issues of the radiological concerns andwith fixed responce alternatives.

26

al 1999) as compared to the similar figure of one percent in the generalKola sample (table 12.1 p. 177 Hansen & Tønnessen 1998).

Typically the concerns raised were related to: the Kolskaya AES,Military nuclear installations, nuclear waste, and various combinationsof these three. Kolskaya AES and Military nuclear installations consti-tute some six out of ten responses given in the context of personal con-cerns. Some one out of three responses given is mainly focussing on thethreat of a radiological incident to happen, and nearly all of these havea focused source.

As the study by Zykova (2000) shows, once each fortnight there is anewspaper article contain radiological information, and in addition theresponses (although few) studied in detail in this paper is clearly veryspecific. Another indication of the availability of information to thepublic may be observed from the quite open coverage and discussionsabout nuclear submarine refuelling techniques found in the local press7

already in 1992.Thus, there seems not to be a feasible explanation forfew radiological responses because of lacking information about theseissues. Radiological concerns are perhaps not mention because otherconcerns are even more pregnant and not because the public is notaware of the problems they are facing in this regard. Furthermore therespondents mentioning radiological concerns, do not seem to exhibitany distinctive patterns in background variables, thus not showing in-dications of belonging to an elite group with access to privilege infor-mation. For instance one of the more extensive and full replies is givenby a 50 year old female living alone8 in Murmansk city “I’m anxiousabout heightened radioactivity in the region because of the great number ofnuclear powered ice-breakers, military nuclear powered submarines and theAES in Polyarnye Zory”. This reply explicitly covering all the three maincategories of nuclear installations at the Peninsula clearly indicated thatmembers of the broad public has a wide and extensive knowledge aboutthe radiological threat issues in their region. As mentioned before it wasalso found among the 81 respondents with radiological concerns thatcombinations were given quite often, thus they who report a concernare aware of more than one possible source of radiological emergency.

There are indications that among “the concerned” official informa-tion sources are less trusted, and also that more information about thenuclear installations is needed. In fact some respondents explicitly ex-presses the lack of information about nuclear installations as their mainconcern. Thus there are important challenges for relevant authoritiesfor making more information about these issues available to the publicalso in order to gain public trust (Waldahl 1995) and thus lay theground for better coping in case of a radiological emergency.

7. Sovjetskij Murman (in Castberg 1992).8. Thus by living alone it is indicated that there is not another household member

that has supplied this respondent with information about radiological issues toheld as a concern.


Acknowledgements

This research was conducted with a research grant from the Risks andNuclear Waste program, sponsored by the Swedish Agency for CivilEmergency Planning (ÖCB).

They 1997 survey was successfully conducted by the local fieldworkpartner: Murmansk Regional Committee of State Statistics. The firstauthor wishes to thank Claire Mays, Institut Symlog de France, for herinvaluable contributions to the manuscript.

None of the persons or institutions mentioned above are responsiblefor factual, conceptual or interpretational errors which may occur inthis presentation: for this, responsibility rests with the first author.

28

References

[1] Baev, P. (1994) Nuclear Weapons in Russian Military Thinking: Strategic Perspectives onthe Barents Region. Pp 41–7 In: Nedrustning og miljø. Nye utfordringer i nord.Aktuelle utenriksspørsmål 1/94. Oslo: Det Kgl. Utenriksdepartement.

[2] Castberg, R. (1992), Næringsstruktur og utenriksøkonomi i Murmansk oblast. (in Nor-wegian) RSN Report number R:002–1992 Lysaker: Fridtjof Nansens Institutt

[3] Engelmann, H.J., Biurrun E., Filbert W., Ziegenhagen J. (1995) Inventory of radioac-tive Waste and Spent Fuel at the Kola Peninsula Region of Northwest Russia. DeutscheGesellschaft zum Bau und Betrieb von Endlagern fŸr Abfallstoffe mbh.

[4] Godal B.T. (1994) Security and Cooperation in the Northern Region. Pp 9–17 In: Ned-rustning og miljø. Nye utfordringer i nord. Aktuelle utenriksspørsmål 1/94. Oslo:Det Kgl. Utenriksdepartement.

[5] Hansen E. (1993) Living conditions on the Kola Peninsula. Oslo, FAFO-SOTECOOslo: Fafo Report 155. ISBN 82–7422–108–7

[6] Hansen E. (1996) Coping with it: St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad Facing Reform. Oslo:Fafo Report 201. ISBN 82–7422–162–1

[7] Hansen, E. Tønnessen, A. (1998). Environment and Living Conditions on the KolaPeninsula. Fafo report 260 ISBN 82–7422–231–8 Oslo: Fafo: Institute for AppliedSocial Sciences

[8] Hytten, K. (1989) Studies on stress and coping: Psychosocial and physical dangers: estab-lishment and manifestations of negative and positive response outcome expectancies. Oslo:University of Oslo.

[9] Reitan JB, Tønnessen A, Waldahl R, (1998). Information strategy and informationproducts in radiation protection. StrålevernRapport 1998:2. Østerås: Statens strålev-ern

[10] Maerli, M. (1996) The Norwegian public’s perception of risk from electromagnetic-fields.Radiation Protection Dosimetry, vol. 68, no. 3&4, Pp-235–238.

[11] Nilsson, . Reitan, J. Tønnessen, A., Waldahl, R. (1997) Ionising radiation and OtherRisk Issues in Norwegian Newspapers Ten Years after Chernobyl. StrålevernRapport¯sterås: Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority

[12] Reitan J.B. (1994) Strålerisiko og helse: nye utfordringer i Nordområdene. Pp 66–74 In:Nedrustning og miljø. Nye utfordringer i nord. Aktuelle utenriksspørsmål 1/94.Oslo: Det Kgl. Utenriksdepartement. (In Norwegian).

[13] Savin J. (1994) Atomarven etter den kalde krigen: det russiske syn på problemet. Pp 29–34 In: Nedrustning og miljø. Nye utfordringer i nord. Aktuelle utenriksspørsmål 1/94. Oslo: Det Kgl. Utenriksdepartement. (In Norwegian).

[14] Tønnessen, Arnfinn, Reitan, Jon B., Strand, Per, Waldahl, Ragnar and Weisæth Lars(1995) Interpretation of radiation risk by the Norwegian population: A national surveyin 1993. In Sundnes (ed.) Biomedical and Psychosocial Consequences of Radiationfrom Man-made Radionuclides in the Biosphere. The Royal Norwegian Society ofSciences and Letters Foundation. The Kongsvoll Symposium 1994 Trondheim:Tapir

[15] Tønnessen A, Reitan JB, Strand P, Waldahl R, Weisæth L (1999). Radiation risk per-ception in Norway ten years after Chernobyl: Effects of commemoration and of living in

References 29

an area especially affected by fallout. StrålevernRapport 1999:8. Østerås: Statensstrålevern

[16] Utenriksdepartementet (1994) Atomvirksomhet og kjemiske våpen i våre nordligenærområder. St.melding nr. 34. Oslo: Det Kgl. Utenriksdepartement.

[17] Utenriksdepartementet (1997) Annex to the Norwegian Plan of Action of NuclearSafety Issues.

[18] Waldahl, R. (1995). Public information strategies. Radiat Prot Dosim 62:107–111

[19] Weisæth, Lars (1991), Psychosocial reactions in Norway to nuclear fallout from theChenobyl disaster. Pp. 53–80 in Couch, S.R. and Kroll-Smith, J.S. (eds) Communi-ties at risk. Collective responses to technological hazards. New York: Peter Lang Publish-ing

[20] Zykova I.A. (2000). Publications on the problems of ecology in the city of Murmansk. inNuclear Risks, Environmental and Development Co-operation in The North of Europe”Axensten, P., Weisglass, G (eds.), Proceedings from the conference in Apatity, 1999.Umeå: Centre for Regional Science – Cerum Northern Studies

30

Part III Data Set Appendixes

Appendix I-1 Raw data – “General concerns responses in Russian”

Compilation made to the Final Report for: “Perception of Nuclear risk at the Kola Peninsula”.

Compilation made for the final report of all three responses of con-cerns given at the level of worries to the General Russian Population.This compilation show all open-ended responses made by all respond-ents that have given any radiological concern either at the general or atthe personal concern level. Firstly the responses are listed below in Rus-sian, then in the appendix I-2 the translated version is given.

Copyright notice, this raw data material have been made available tothe Steering Committee of the CERUM/ÖCB Research Program“Risks and Nuclear waste” in order to document the research madewith the grant to the “Perception of Nuclear risk at the Kola Peninsula”project. For any other use of this material please contact the RRP groupby mailto: [email protected]

Legend:Id. Nr.: = The respondents’ identity number.

Nuclear? “Yes” implies a radiological concern response.

A#11_1 = First response of concern at the general level, 11_2 = second, 11_3 = third response made.

Responses in Bold typeface are of a radiological concern type.

Id. Nr. Variable Nuclear? Response in Russian84 A#11_1 Безработица84 A#11_2 Терроризм84 A#11_3 Выплата пенсий85 A#11_1 Безработица85 A#11_2 Политика страны85 A#11_3 Маленькая пенсия

258 A#11_1 Отношения между Россией и странами СНГ258 A#11_2 Недовольны политикой, проводимой властями258 A#11_3 Расширение НАТО259 A#11_1 Стало хуже жить, экономикой России никто не

занимается


259 A#11_2 Гарантии пенсий в будущем259 A#11_3 Yes Yгроза загрязнения со стороны АЭС в

Полярных Зорях262 A#11_1 Политические проблемы в целом262 A#11_2 Yes Yхудшение радиационной обстановки262 A#11_3 Развал экономики Росии263 A#11_1 Плохое медицинское обслуживание263 A#11_2 Война в Чечне263 A#11_3 Yes Боюсь аварий на военных атомных

установках270 A#11_1 Размер пенсий в будущем270 A#11_2 Рост числа безработных270 A#11_3 Yход за престарелыми; положение пожилых

людей в будущем286 A#11_1 Несвоевременная выплата зарплаты286 A#11_2 Yes Проблемы радиоактивного загрязнения и

недостаточность мер предотвращения такого загрязнения, а также мер борьбы с ним

286 A#11_3 Социальная незащищенность людей любого поколения: и детей, и молодых, и трудоспособного населения, а также пожилых

294 A#11_1 Организованная преступность294 A#11_2 Экология. Загрязненность почвы, воздуха и

воды промышленными предприятиями294 A#11_3 Yes Проблемы загрязнения окружающей среды

радиацией со стороны военных атомных установок

295 A#11_1 Безработица295 A#11_2 Маленькая заработная плата, недостаточная для

нормальной жизни295 A#11_3 Yes Беспокойство за жизнь из-за большой

радиоактивной загрязненности со стороны военных объектов иКольской АЭС

296 A#11_1 Будущее России, нестабильная экономическая ситуация, остановка производства, развал промышленности и сельского хозяйства

296 A#11_2 Yes Yгроза загрязнения атомными отходами с любых объектов, использующих атом

296 A#11_3 Невыплата зарплаты и растущий рост безработицы

314 A#11_1 Неуверенность в завтрашнем дне314 A#11_2 Экологические проблемы. Очень часто

происходят аварии на предприятиях, что приводит к загрязнению воздуха, почвы и воды

314 A#11_3 Напряженная обстановка в России, страшно, что могут произойти конфликты. Народ очень обозлен, бесправен и нищ

316 A#11_1 Безработица316 A#11_2 Задержки с выплатой заработной платы316 A#11_3 Дороговизна вещей и предметов первой

необходимости

Id. Nr. Variable Nuclear? Response in Russian

32

317 A#11_1 Невыплата зарплаты или выплата с длительными задержками

317 A#11_2 Разъединение республик. Раньше люди жили в едином союзе республик, а сейчас из-за распада осложнилось общение людей, особенно родственников

317 A#11_3 Yes Радиоактивное заражение от атомных станций и атомоходов

337 A#11_1 Положение пожилых людей. Маленькая пенсия337 A#11_2 Yes Yгроза заражения со стороны военных337 A#11_3 Воспитание, образование детей, их будущее370 A#11_1 Невыплата заработной платы370 A#11_2 Преступность, деятельность мафии370 A#11_3 Yes Экология, атомные суда в городах области382 A#11_1 Невыплата з/платы, пособий382 A#11_2 Экология: загрязнение воды и воздуха382 A#11_3 Мизерные пенсии445 A#11_1 Экономика России445 A#11_2 Безработица445 A#11_3 Невыплата зарплаты460 A#11_1 Маленькая зарплата у большинства населения и

невыплата ее в срок. Отсюда-тяжелая финансовая ситуация у многих россиян.

460 A#11_2 Благополучие; чтобы люди не болели и не испытывали потрясения нервные. Чтобы не повторились чеченские события и чтобы люди не гибли. Беспокоит медицина, начиная от роддома до морга. В больницах нет лекарств, бинтов.

460 A#11_3 Yes Кольский полуостров- пороховая бочка. Боимся, чтобы не рвануло, как в Чернобыле

485 A#11_1 Невыплата зарплаты и пенсий.485 A#11_2 Алкоголизм массовый485 A#11_3 Союз России с Белоруссией и ткраиной.496 A#11_1 Экономика России496 A#11_2 Yes Yгроза загрязнения со стороны военных

атомных установок496 A#11_3 Yход за престарелыми, выплата пенсий497 A#11_1 Экономика России497 A#11_2 Безработица497 A#11_3 Yes Загрязнение окружающей среды, связанное с

атомными установками499 A#11_1 Финансовые проблемы, связанные с работой499 A#11_2 Экологические проблемы окружающей среды,

связанные с атомными установками499 A#11_3 Yes Проблемы загрязнения581 A#11_1 Невыплата зарплаты581 A#11_2 Выплата пенсий581 A#11_3 Yes Yгроза загрязнений со стороны АЭС в

Полярных Зорях583 A#11_1 Загрязнение воздуха583 A#11_2 Чистые продукты питания



583 A#11_3 Yes Проблемы, связанные с радиоактивностью589 A#11_1 Финансовые проблемы, проблемы с работой589 A#11_2 Положение пожилых людей589 A#11_3 Yes Yгроза загрязнения со стороны АЭС в

Полярных Зорях592 A#11_1 Невыплата зарплаты592 A#11_2 Загрязнение воздуха592 A#11_3 Слишком дорогие продукты питания593 A#11_1 Экономика России593 A#11_2 Проблемы, связанные с положением пожилых

людей593 A#11_3 Yes Проблемы, связанные с радиоактивностью594 A#11_1 Экономика России594 A#11_2 Насилие и преступность594 A#11_3 Положение пожилых людей636 A#11_1 Сокращение рабочих мест636 A#11_2 Рост организованной преступности и борьба с

ней636 A#11_3 Yes Ядерные установки в странах СНГ640 A#11_1 Невыполнение бюджета страны640 A#11_2 Рост преступности640 A#11_3 Yes Загрязнение окружающей среды военными

атомными установками652 A#11_1 Окружающая среда652 A#11_2 Экономика России652 A#11_3 Yправление страной658 A#11_1 Экономика России658 A#11_2 Проблемы пожилых людей, нет заботы со

стороны правительства658 A#11_3 Разгул организованной преступности662 A#11_1 Беспокоят россиян финансовые проблемы и, в

основном, -невыплата вовремя зарплаты, маленькая пенсия, стипендия, небольшие оклады

662 A#11_2 Беспокоит загрязнение воздуха от большого количества машин

662 A#11_3 Yправление страной, приведшее к бедности большинства населения страны

668 A#11_1 Невыплата зарплаты или выплата ее с опозданием. Это приводит к нервозности большинства людей

668 A#11_2 Безработица для молодежи. Молодые люди болтаются без дела, деградируют, хулиганят

668 A#11_3 Продукты питания в магазинах дорогие, особенно необходимые детям фрукты

701 A#11_1 Безработица в стране701 A#11_2 Yправление страной701 A#11_3 Загрязнение воздуха702 A#11_1 Превращение России в страну с разрушенной

экономикой, неплатежеспособность предприятий


34

702 A#11_2 Yчастие российской армии в вооруженных конфликтах, гибель русских юношей в горячих точках

702 A#11_3 Разрушение системы образования, появление социального сиротства, беспризорных детей

715 A#11_1 Выплата зарплаты бюджетникам с опозданием715 A#11_2 Будущая пенсия пенсионерам715 A#11_3 Yвеличение финансирования на охрану

окружающей среды721 A#11_1 Безработица721 A#11_2 Yes Загрязнение от атомных установок,

накопление радиационных отходов721 A#11_3 Финансовые возможности многих уменьшились

сильно722 A#11_1 Внутрення политика, горячие точки, управление

страной, Чечня722 A#11_2 Финансовые проблемы, связанные с очень

низкой оплатой труда722 A#11_3 Yes Экология, угроза с о стороны ядерных

установок, захоронений ядерного топлива723 A#11_1 Будущее детей, условия роста детей и

подростков723 A#11_2 Безработица, работающие получают, в

основном, мало723 A#11_3 Невыплаты и задержки заработной платы,

приходится часто брать взаймы724 A#11_1 Финансовые проблемы724 A#11_2 Внутренняя и внешняя политика724 A#11_3 Экология, охрана окружающей среды752 A#11_1 Безработица. Стоят предприятия, ранее

благополучные. Люди оказываются на улице без работы. Отсюда нищета

752 A#11_2 Конфликт в Чечне. Погибали молодые парни. Ради чего?Кому была выгодна эта война? Стоил ли конфликт таких жертв?

752 A#11_3 Слишком дорогие продукты питания в магазинах. Невозможность покупки многих из них малоимущими семьями. А их большинство

778 A#11_1 Невыплата зарплаты778 A#11_2 Экологические проблемы, загрязнение778 A#11_3 Yes Радиоактивность791 A#11_1 Выплата зарплаты791 A#11_2 Yes Экология, захоронение радиоактивных

отходов, загазованность в городах791 A#11_3 Здоровье детей799 A#11_1 Нужно новое правительство799 A#11_2 Нехватка денег799 A#11_3 Yes Опасность повторения Чернобыля809 A#11_1 Развал экономики России809 A#11_2 Организованная преступность, борьба с ней809 A#11_3 Мирное разрешение конфликта в Чечне



821 A#11_1 Финансовые проблемы, падение уровня жизни в несколько раз

821 A#11_2 Пенсия в будущем, в других регионах не платят месяцами

821 A#11_3 Конфликт в Чечне и отвлечение материальных средств, людские потери

824 A#11_1 Невыплата заработной платы, задержки с выплатой до 3-х месяцев

824 A#11_2 Yes Yгроза от атомных установок и ядерных захоронений

824 A#11_3 Проблемы здравоохранения, нет денег у государства на льготные лекарства

826 A#11_1 Экономика, нестабильность законов826 A#11_2 Насилие, преступность, мафия, коррупция826 A#11_3 Экология, загрязнение со стороны

промышленных предприятий.885 A#11_1 Выживание пожилых людей885 A#11_2 Yes Возможная радиация со стороныКАЭС885 A#11_3 Сомнения в чистоте импортных продуктов887 A#11_1 Проблемы трудоустройства887 A#11_2 Yверенность в получении лечения887 A#11_3 Невозможность хорошо питаться из-за дорогих

продуктов питания888 A#11_1 Нестабильная жизнь в стране888 A#11_2 Мафия, организованная преступность888 A#11_3 Расширение НАтО913 A#11_1 Неуверенность в завтрашнем дне913 A#11_2 Рост преступности913 A#11_3 Безработица924 A#11_1 Экономика России, реформы, падение

производства924 A#11_2 Трудное материальное положение всех924 A#11_3 Нестабильность внутренней политики925 A#11_1 Yes Военные атомные установки, угроза аварии,

войны925 A#11_2 СПуД быстро стал распространяться925 A#11_3 терроризм, теракты стали часто случаться941 A#11_1 Переход к рыночной экономике941 A#11_2 Yes Загрязнение окружающей среды, связанное с

радиоактивностью941 A#11_3 Yправление страной952 A#11_1 Невыплата заработной платы952 A#11_2 Малая пенсия, зарплата; трудное финансовое

положение952 A#11_3 Экология и охрана окружающей среды993 A#11_1 Низкий жизненный уровень большинства

россиян993 A#11_2 Положение пенсионеров. Мизерные пенсии993 A#11_3 Рост преступности на всех уровнях998 A#11_1 Экономика России998 A#11_2 Невыплата зарплаты или выплата с опозданием


36

998 A#11_3 Расширение НАтО1069 A#11_1 Экономике в нашей стране нужны новые люди1069 A#11_2 Малое финансирование экологических проблем1069 A#11_3 Yes Считает, что в стране развивается угроза со

стороны атомных установок1099 A#11_1 Денежные затруднения1099 A#11_2 Пожилые люди, их будущее1099 A#11_3 Экология неблагоприятная, очень загрязнен

воздух1100 A#11_1 Отсутствие денег1100 A#11_2 Yes Высокий уровень радиации1100 A#11_3 Мир в государстве1130 A#11_1 Рыночная экономика1130 A#11_2 Насилие, преступность, безнаказанность1130 A#11_3 Yes Yгроза загрязнения окружающей среды,

радиоактивность1140 A#11_1 Рост цен, высокие цены на продукты питания,

коммунальные услуги, транспорт1140 A#11_2 Невыплата зарплаты1140 A#11_3 Yes Радиоактивное загрязнение1157 A#11_1 Экономика России1157 A#11_2 Невыплата заработной платы1157 A#11_3 Организованная преступность1183 A#11_1 Задержки зарплаты доходят до 3-х месяцев1183 A#11_2 Yes Экология, радиационная опасность от

атомных станций и военных атомных установок

1183 A#11_3 Пенсии по стране не дают подолгу, пенсии не зависят почти от заработка и маленькие

1187 A#11_1 Задержки зарплаты от 3-х до 6 месяцев1187 A#11_2 Выплата пенсий, задержки пенсии1187 A#11_3 Yes Экологические проблемы, связанные с

хранением, эксплуатацией, захоронениями атомных отходов; эксплуатация атомных установок

1189 A#11_1 Войны на окраинах России, большие человеческие жертвы и материальные из-за этого

1189 A#11_2 Проблемы здравоохранения. При очень плохом финансировании забастовки врачей, могут оказать только экстренную помощь

1189 A#11_3 Yes Экология, насыщенность ядерным оружием1232 A#11_1 Рыночная экономика страны1232 A#11_2 Гибнут молодые ребята, никто не отвечает1232 A#11_3 Дорогие продукты по отношению к зарплате1311 A#11_1 Финансовая стуация в стране1311 A#11_2 Насилие и преступность в стране1311 A#11_3 Yes Загрязнение окружающей среды, связанное с

работой АЭС1330 A#11_1 Плохо работающая экономика



1330 A#11_2 Экология, загрязнение; химическое и другие виды загрязнений

1330 A#11_3 Насилие, ограбление, детская преступность и беспризорность

1334 A#11_1 Экономика; при решении ее проблем улучшится и наша жизнь

1334 A#11_2 Проблемы здравохранения (много недоступных лекарств и услуг)

1334 A#11_3 Yes Ядерная насыщенность страны, беспокойство, что риск от ядерных установок, своих и чужих (на ремонте), увеличивается

1534 A#11_1 Yстановить порядок в стране, избрав другого президента

1534 A#11_2 Соединение всех республик в единый союз1534 A#11_3 Yes Радиоактивный контроль над атомными

станциями и базами1616 A#11_1 Катастрофический спад экономики1616 A#11_2 Растущая безработица1616 A#11_3 Задержки в выплате зарплаты1639 A#11_1 Отсутствие денег1639 A#11_2 Безработица1773 A#11_1 Безработица1773 A#11_2 Война в Чечне1773 A#11_3 Yes Yгроза загрязнения со стороны АЭС1781 A#11_1 Безработица1781 A#11_2 Невыплата зарплаты1781 A#11_3 Плохое медицинское обслуживание1810 A#11_1 Экономика России1810 A#11_2 Рост преступности, деятельность мафии1810 A#11_3 Невыплата зарплаты1923 A#11_1 Вопросы оплаты и пенсии1923 A#11_2 Нестабильность в обществе1923 A#11_3 Проблемы здравоохранения1927 A#11_1 Безработица в стране1927 A#11_2 Преступность, насилие. Рост1927 A#11_3 Дороговизна продуктов питания1961 A#11_1 Война в Чечне1961 A#11_2 Yes Многие районы загрязнены после

Чернобыльской аварии1961 A#11_3 Безработица1966 A#11_1 Выплата заработной платы1966 A#11_2 Yes Последствия Чернобыльской аварии1966 A#11_3 Вопросы финансовой политики России


38

Appendix I-2 Raw data – “General concerns, translated responses”

Compilation made to the Final Report for: “Perception of Nuclear risk at the Kola Peninsula”.

Compilation made for the final report of all three responses of con-cerns given at the level of worries to the General Russian Population.All responses made by all respondents that have given a radiologicalconcern either at the general or the personal level. The originalresponses in Russian were shown in Appendix I-1, below is the trans-lated English version given.

Copyright notice, this raw data material have been made available tothe Steering Committee of the CERUM/ÖCB Research Program“Risks and Nuclear waste” in order to document the research made withthe grant to the “Perception of Nuclear risk at the Kola Peninsula”project. For any other use of this material please contact the RRP groupby mailto: [email protected]


Nuclear? “Yes” implies a radiological concern response.



ID. Nr. Variable Nuclear ? Translated response in English84 A#11_1 Unemployment

84 A#11_2 Terrorism

84 A#11_3 Payment of pensions

85 A#11_1 Unemployment

85 A#11_2 The state’s policy

85 A#11_3 Small pension

258 A#11_1 Relations between Russia and CIS (the Common-wealth of Independent States)

258 A#11_2 The respondent is unsatisfied with the policy led by the authorities

258 A#11_3 NATO enlargement

259 A#11_1 It has become worse to live, nobody is concerned with Russia’s economy

259 A#11_2 Guarantees of pensions in the future

259 A#11_3 Yes The threat of contamination from the AES in Polyarnye Zory

262 A#11_1 Political problems in a whole

262 A#11_2 Yes Situation with radiation is getting worse262 A#11_3 Disorganisation of Russia’s economy


263 A#11_1 Poor medical services

263 A#11_2 The war in Chechnya

263 A#11_3 Yes The respondent is afraid of accidents on nuclear installations

270 A#11_1 Rate of pensions in the future

270 A#11_2 Growth of number of unemployed

270 A#11_3 Care for the elderly people, conditions of elderly people in the future

286 A#11_1 Out of time payment of wages

286 A#11_2 Yes Problems with radioactive contamination; pre-ventive measures and measures of its elimination are not enough

286 A#11_3 Social unprotection of all generations, both chil-dren, young people, persons able to work and eld-erly people

294 A#11_1 Organised criminality

294 A#11_2 Ecology; pollution of the soil, air and water from the industrial enterprises

294 A#11_3 Yes Problems of environmental contamination with radiation from military nuclear installations


295 A#11_2 Small wage, not enough for normal life

295 A#11_3 Yes Anxiety about life because of high radioactive contamination from military objects and the Kolskaya AES

296 A#11_1 Russia’s future. Unstable economic situation, stop of production, break-down of industry and agri-culture

296 A#11_2 Yes The threat of contamination with nuclear wastes from any objects utilising atom

296 A#11_3 Non-payment of wages and growing unemploy-ment

314 A#11_1 Uncertainty in the future

314 A#11_2 Ecological problems; accidents on enterprises happen very often, it leads to the air, water and soil pollution

314 A#11_3 Strained situation in Russia; the respondent is afraid that there can be conflicts. People are very angry, deprived of rights and poor


316 A#11_2 Delayed wages

316 A#11_3 Expensiveness of goods and top priorities

317 A#11_1 Wages non-paid or delayed for a long period

317 A#11_2 Separation of republics. Earlier people lived in one union of republics and now because of disin-tegration it has become very difficult for them to communicate with each other, especially for rela-tives

317 A#11_3 Yes Radioactive contamination from nuclear power stations and nuclear powered ice-breakers

337 A#11_1 Situation with the elderly people; small pension.

337 A#11_2 Yes The threat of pollution from military men

ID. Nr. Variable Nuclear ? Translated response in English

40

337 A#11_3 Children’s upbringing and education, their future

370 A#11_1 Non-payment of wages

370 A#11_2 Criminality, Mafia’s activity

370 A#11_3 Yes Ecology, nuclear powered ships in the towns of the region

382 A#11_1 Non-payment of wages and pensions

382 A#11_2 Ecology: radiation, pollution of water and air

382 A#11_3 Small pensions

445 A#11_1 Russia’s economy



460 A#11_1 Small wage rate of most people and its delays; it leads to hard financial situation of most Russians

460 A#11_2 People’s prosperity. They shouldn’t fall ill and suf-fer from fits of nerves. Chechenian events shouldn’t occur any more and people shouldn’t perish. The respondent is anxious about medical care, from maternity hospital to morgue. There are no medicines and bandages at hospitals.

460 A#11_3 Yes Kola Peninsula is a powder keg. Respondent is afraid that there could possibly be such an explo-sion like in Chernobyl.

485 A#11_1 Non- payment of wages and pensions.

485 A#11_2 Mass alcoholism

485 A#11_3 Russia’s union with Bellorussia and the Ukraine


496 A#11_2 Yes The threat of contamination from military nuclear installations.

496 A#11_3 Care for the elderly people, payments of pensions.



497 A#11_3 Yes Environmental pollution in relation with nuclear installations.

499 A#11_1 Financial problems in relation with work.

499 A#11_2 Environmental ecological problems in relation with nuclear installations

499 A#11_3 Yes Problems of pollution581 A#11_1 Non-payment of wages

581 A#11_2 Payment of pensions


583 A#11_1 Air pollution

583 A#11_2 Safe (“clean”) food-stuff

583 A#11_3 Yes Problems connected with radioactivity589 A#11_1 Financial problems, problems with work

589 A#11_2 Situation with the elderly people




592 A#11_3 Too expensive food-stuff




593 A#11_2 Problems with situation of the elderly people

593 A#11_3 Yes Problems connected with radioactivity594 A#11_1 Russia’s economy

594 A#11_2 Violence and criminality

594 A#11_3 Situation with the elderly people

636 A#11_1 Cutting down of working places

636 A#11_2 Growth of organised criminality and struggle against it

636 A#11_3 Yes Nuclear installations in states belonging to CIS (the Commonwealth of Independent States)

640 A#11_1 Unfulfilment of the state budget

640 A#11_2 Growth of criminality

640 A#11_3 Yes Contamination of the environment by military nuclear installations

652 A#11_1 The environment


652 A#11_3 The governing of the country


658 A#11_2 Problems with the elderly people, the government doesn’t care about them

658 A#11_3 Raging of organised criminality

662 A#11_1 Russians are concerned with financial problems, especially delayed wages, small pension and schol-arship, small salaries

662 A#11_2 Air pollution through a lot of automobile trans-port

662 A#11_3 The governing of the state which has led to the poverty of most population

668 A#11_1 Non-payment of wages or delayed wages. It leads to the nervousness of most people

668 A#11_2 Unemployment of young people. They hang about, degrade and behave like hooligans.

668 A#11_3 Food-stuff in shops is very expensive, especially fruits necessary for children

701 A#11_1 Unemployment in the country

701 A#11_2 Governing of the state


702 A#11_1 Transformation of Russia into the country with broken economy, insolvency of enterprises.

702 A#11_2 Participation of Russian army in military con-flicts, death of Russian young men in conflict areas (“hot centres”)

702 A#11_3 Disorganisation of educational system, social orphan ship, neglected children

715 A#11_1 Delayed wages for persons working in budget sphere

715 A#11_2 Future pension

715 A#11_3 Increase of financing for environment


721 A#11_2 Yes Contamination from nuclear installations, increase of nuclear wastes


42

721 A#11_3 Financial possibilities of many people decreased in high degree.

722 A#11_1 Home policy, conflict areas (“hot centres”), gov-erning of the state, Chechnya

722 A#11_2 Financial problems connected with very low level of payment

722 A#11_3 Yes Ecology, the threat from nuclear installations, burial-ground of nuclear fuel

723 A#11_1 Children’s future, conditions for children and youth’s growth.

723 A#11_2 Unemployment; those who work get little for their work in general.

723 A#11_3 Non-payments of wages and delayed wages; often one has to borrow money

724 A#11_1 Financial problems

724 A#11_2 Home and foreign policy

724 A#11_3 Ecology, environmental protection

752 A#11_1 Unemployment. Enterprises, prosperous earlier, don’t function. People are being dismissed; they are out, without job. That leads to poverty.

752 A#11_2 The conflict in Chechnya. Young men perish. What for? Who gained from this war? Did the conflict deserve such victims?

752 A#11_3 Too expensive foodstuffs in the shops. Families with low levels can’t buy many of them. And most families are families of such kind.

778 A#11_1 Non-payment of wages.

778 A#11_2 Ecological problems, pollution.

778 A#11_3 Yes Radioactivity791 A#11_1 Payments of wages

791 A#11_2 Yes Ecology, burial-grounds of nuclear wastes, towns are full of gas.

791 A#11_3 Children’s health

799 A#11_1 New government is necessary

799 A#11_2 The lack of money

799 A#11_3 Yes A danger of a new Chernobyl accident809 A#11_1 Disorganisation of Russia’s economy

809 A#11_2 Organised criminality and struggle against it

809 A#11_3 Peaceful solution of the conflict in Chechnya

821 A#11_1 Financial problems, decrease of living standards few times as much

821 A#11_2 Pension in the future, they don’t get pension for months in other regions

821 A#11_3 The conflict in Chechnya, pulling away of finan-cial resources, human losses.

824 A#11_1 Non-payment of wages, delays with payment for three months.

824 A#11_2 Yes The threat from nuclear installations and nuclear burial-grounds

824 A#11_3 Problems in the health care system, the state has no money for medicines on easy payments terms

826 A#11_1 The economy, instability of laws



826 A#11_2 Violence, criminality, Mafia, corruption

826 A#11_3 Ecology, pollution from industrial enterprises

885 A#11_1 Surviving of the elderly people

885 A#11_2 Yes Possible radiation from the Kolskaya AES885 A#11_3 Doubts in the safety of imported food-stuff

887 A#11_1 Problems with employment

887 A#11_2 Certainty to get medical care

887 A#11_3 Impossibility to use good food-stuff because of high prices for it

888 A#11_1 Unstable life in the state

888 A#11_2 Mafia, organised criminality





924 A#11_1 Russia’s economy, reforms, fall of production

924 A#11_2 Complicated financial conditions for everybody

924 A#11_3 Instability of the home policy

925 A#11_1 Yes Military nuclear installations, the threat of an accident or war

925 A#11_2 AID began to spread rapidly

925 A#11_3 Terrorism, acts of terrorism take place rather often

941 A#11_1 Transition to the market economy

941 A#11_2 Yes Environmental pollution in relation with radio-activity

941 A#11_3 The governing of the state

952 A#11_1 Non-payment of wage

952 A#11_2 Small pension, wages, difficult financial situation

952 A#11_3 Ecology and the environmental protection

993 A#11_1 Low living standards of the most part of Russians

993 A#11_2 Situation with pensioners. Small pensions

993 A#11_3 Growth of criminality on all levels


998 A#11_2 Non-payment of wages or delayed wages


1069 A#11_1 Our country’s economy needs new people

1069 A#11_2 Poor financing of ecological problems

1069 A#11_3 Yes The respondent considers that the threat from nuclear installations is developing in the country

1099 A#11_1 Financial problems

1099 A#11_2 The elderly people, their future

1099 A#11_3 Ecology is unfavourable, the air is too polluted


1100 A#11_2 Yes High radiation level1100 A#11_3 Peace in our state

1130 A#11_1 Market economy

1130 A#11_2 Violence, criminality, nourishment

1130 A#11_3 Yes The threat of environmental pollution, radioac-tivity


44

1140 A#11_1 Growth of prices, high prices for food-stuff, pub-lic utilities, transport


1140 A#11_3 Yes Radioactive contamination1157 A#11_1 Russia’s economy



1183 A#11_1 Delays of wage come up to 3 months

1183 A#11_2 Yes Ecology, radioactive danger from nuclear power stations and military nuclear installations

1183 A#11_3 Pensions are delayed for long in the state; pen-sions don’t depend on the rate of wage, they are too little

1187 A#11_1 Delays of wage from 3 up to 6 months

1187 A#11_2 Payments of pensions and their delays.

1187 A#11_3 Yes Ecological problems connected with storage, exploitation, burial-ground of nuclear wastes, exploitation of nuclear installations

1189 A#11_1 Conflicts in Russian frontier areas, great human victims and material losses because of it

1189 A#11_2 Problems in the health care system. With very poor financing, medical personnel’s strikes they can give only urgent help

1189 A#11_3 Yes Ecology, saturation with nuclear arms1232 A#11_1 Market economy in the country (fall of produc-

tion)

1232 A#11_2 Young men perish and nobody is responsible for it

1232 A#11_3 Expensive food-stuff in comparison with wages

1311 A#11_1 Financial situation in the country

1311 A#11_2 Violence and criminality in the country

1311 A#11_3 Yes The environmental pollution in relation with the AES activity

1330 A#11_1 The economy is functioning badly

1330 A#11_2 Ecology, pollution, chemical and other kinds of pollution

1330 A#11_3 Violence, robbery, children’s criminality and neglected children

1334 A#11_1 The economy; when its problems are solved our life would get better

1334 A#11_2 Problems in the health care system (there are many medicines and medical services which can’t be afforded)

1334 A#11_3 Yes Nuclear saturation of the country, the fear that the risk caused by our and foreign (being in repair) nuclear installations is rising

1534 A#11_1 To establish an order in the country with the elec-tion of another president

1534 A#11_2 Joining of all republics into one union

1534 A#11_3 Yes Radioactivity control over nuclear stations and bases

1616 A#11_1 Disastrous recession of the economy

1616 A#11_2 Growing unemployment



Appendix II-1 Raw data – “Personal concerns responses in Russian”

Compilation made to the Final Report for: “Perception of Nuclear risk at the Kola Peninsula”

Compilation made for the final report of all three responses of con-cerns given at the level of personal worries. This compilation show allopen-ended responses made by all respondents that have given anyradiological concern either at the general or at the personal concernlevel. Firstly the responses are listed below in Russian, then in theappendix II-2 the translated version is given.


1616 A#11_3 Delays in wage payments





1773 A#11_3 Yes The threat of contamination in relation with the AES



1781 A#11_3 Poor medical services


1810 A#11_2 Growth of criminality, Mafia’s activity


1923 A#11_1 Problems with wage and pension.

1923 A#11_2 Instability in the society

1923 A#11_3 Problems in the health care system.

1927 A#11_1 Unemployment in the state

1927 A#11_2 Growth of criminality and violence

1927 A#11_3 High prices for food-stuff


1961 A#11_2 Yes Many regions are contaminated after Chernobyl disaster, people fall ill


1966 A#11_1 Payment of wages

1966 A#11_2 Yes Consequences of the Chernobyl accident1966 A#11_3 Problems with financial policy in Russia


46


Nuclear? This column implies a radiological concern response.



Id. Nr. Variable Nuclear? Responses in Russian84 A#12_1 Личная фтинансовая ситуация84 A#12_2 Yлучшение обслуживания в поликлинике84 A#12_3 Yes Yгроза со стороныКольской АЭС85 A#12_1 Выплата зарплаты с опозданием85 A#12_2 Yes Кольская АЭС85 A#12_3 Личная финансовая ситуация258 A#12_1 Личные финансовые затруднения258 A#12_2 Невыплата зарплаты258 A#12_3 Yes Проблемы, связанные с

радиоактивностью259 A#12_1 Рост безработицы, боюсь потерять работу259 A#12_2 Рост насилия, преступности259 A#12_3 Загрязнение питьевой воды262 A#12_1 Личные финансовые проблемы262 A#12_2 Слишком дорогие продукты питания262 A#12_3 Боюсь заболеть раком263 A#12_1 Личные финансовые проблемы263 A#12_2 Неправильное питание из-за нехватки денег263 A#12_3 Грязная водопроводная вода270 A#12_1 Yes Yгроза со стороны ядерных установок в

других странах270 A#12_2 Отделение ткраины и Белоруссии270 A#12_3 Образование детей286 A#12_1 Плохое финансовое положение из-за

несвоевременной выплаты зарплаты, а также маленький раазмер зарплаты, недостаточный для нормальной жизни

286 A#12_2 Yхудшается здоровье детей, как следствие жизни на севере; беспокоит их будущее

286 A#12_3 Неуверенность в будущем, нестабильная политика правительства в экономике и управлении страной

294 A#12_1 Организованная преступность294 A#12_2 Свое будущее. Возможность иметь хорошую

работу, приличный заработок, обеспечивающий нормальные условия жизни для семьи сейчас и в будущем

294 A#12_3 Будущее детей. Беспокоит дальнейшее получение ребенком образования, трудоустройство, здоровье ребенка


295 A#12_1 Маленькая пенсия, недостаточная для нормального питания, нет возможности купить одежду, обувь и прочее.

295 A#12_2 Дорогое лекарство, дорогое лечение. Нет возможности уделять своему здоровью должного внимания из-за недостатка денег

295 A#12_3 Беспокойство за детей, за внуков, за их будущее. Очень сложно получить бесплатное образование, нет уверенности в трудоустройстве

296 A#12_1 Задержка выплаты зарплаты, что приводит к многочисленным финансовым проблемам, невозможности купить необходимые вещи, обувь, посещать театры, музеи, отдыхать.

296 A#12_2 Yes Опасность радиоактивного заражения вследствие большого количества объектов на территории области, использующих атом (и военных и гражданских)

296 A#12_3 Беспокойство за жизнь детей, их будущее, трудности в получении бесплатного образования, проблемы с трудоустройством в дальнейшем

314 A#12_1 Очень беспокоит личное здоровье, страшно от мысли, что могу заболеть, а так как живу одна, то никто не поможет и нет телефона вызвать врача

314 A#12_2 Фочется уехать, но нет средств для переезда и для обустройства на новом месте

314 A#12_3 Yes Беспокоит повышенная радиоактивность нашего края из-за большого числа атомоходов, военных атомных лодок и АЭС в Полярных Зорях

316 A#12_1 Проблема отдыха летом. Нет денег, чтобы летом съездить на юг или в центр России и отдохнуть

316 A#12_2 Yes Вызывает опасение угроза радиоактив-ного заражения со стороны АЭС в Полярных Зорях и со стороны военных атомных установок

316 A#12_3 Нет возможности покупать модные молодежные вещи из-за их дороговизны

317 A#12_1 Задержки с выплатой зарплаты, а также маленькие зарплаты, недостаточные для обеспечения нормальных условий жизни, достаточного питания

317 A#12_2 Очень беспокоит и неприятна ситуация весной, когда тает снег и вся земля усеяна фекалиями собак, невозможно идти по улице, не испачкав ноги, детям играть

317 A#12_3 Нет денег, чтобы летом выехать на юг или в среднюю полосу России, и это несмотря на то, то все взрослые члены семьи работают

337 A#12_1 Экономика России337 A#12_2 Положение дел в армии, военные конфликты

Id. Nr. Variable Nuclear? Responses in Russian

48

337 A#12_3 Будущее детей370 A#12_1 Задержки выплаты заработной платы370 A#12_2 Экология. Рядом -северная промзона370 A#12_3 Воспитание детей, их будущее382 A#12_1 Проблемы с деньгами, их, как правило, не

хватает382 A#12_2 Yes Повышенная радиация382 A#12_3 Р445 A#12_1 Невыплата зарплаты445 A#12_2 Будущее образование дочери445 A#12_3 Yes Экологическая обстановка, связанная с

радиоактивностью460 A#12_1 Я-редактор газеты. Люди не получают

зарплату 2.5 месяца. Приходят ко мне, а я не могу ничем им помочь. тли газета умрет или будет жить. Мы-за то, чтобы жила. Я большую часть жизни провожу на работе, и все, что связано с работой, меня больше всего беспокоит.

460 A#12_2 Я -человек неравнодушный. Волнует все. Сложная личная финансовая ситуация, так как тоже не получаю зарплату около трех месяцев.

460 A#12_3 ВолнуетКольский залив. Сколько там брошеных судов! Залив загрязнен. Лет 30 назад было намного все чище. теперь все загадили. Лес вырубают

485 A#12_1 Плохая работа коммунальных служб485 A#12_2 Дорогие продукты, дорогие билеты на поезд,

нет в продаже дешевой рыбы485 A#12_3 Yes Радиоактивные отходы, их захоронение и

переработка496 A#12_1 Проблемы здравоохранения496 A#12_2 Организованная преступность, д

еятельность мафии496 A#12_3 Политика/ управление страной497 A#12_1 Yсловия роста детей и подростков497 A#12_2 Слишком дорогие продукты питания497 A#12_3 Проблемы чистых продуктов499 A#12_1 Загрязнение воздуха499 A#12_2 Yes Yгроза загрязнения со стороны военных

атомных установок499 A#12_3 Безработица581 A#12_1 Yсловия роста детей581 A#12_2 Горячие точки России581 A#12_3 Проблемы, связанные с загрязнением среды583 A#12_1 Yes Yгроза загрязнения АЭС в Полярных

Зорях583 A#12_2 Проблемы чистых продуктов583 A#12_3 Загрязнение воздуха589 A#12_1 Невыплата зарплаты589 A#12_2 Вера в будущее, условия роста детей



589 A#12_3 Загрязнение воздуха592 A#12_1 Экономика России; нет уверенности в

завтрашнем дне592 A#12_2 Yes Yгроза загрязнения со стороны АЭС в

Полярных Зорях592 A#12_3 Yсловия роста детей, нет денег на

образование593 A#12_1 Экономика России, обнищание основной

массы людей593 A#12_2 Загрязнение воздуха593 A#12_3 Проблемы здравоохранения. Боюсь

заболеть, нет денег на лечение594 A#12_1 Yes Экономика России, полный развал сферы

производства594 A#12_2 Проблемы чистых продуктов594 A#12_3 Охрана окружающей среды; никто ни за что

не отвечает636 A#12_1 Задержка выплаты зарплаты636 A#12_2 Yes Ограничена информация о

состоянииКольской АЭС636 A#12_3 Медленный переход к рыночной экономике640 A#12_1 Небезопасность на улицах вечером640 A#12_2 Yes Загрязнение окружающей среды

военными атомными установками640 A#12_3 Плохая собираемость налогов652 A#12_1 Маленькая пенсия652 A#12_2 Yвеличение пенсии в будущем652 A#12_3 Проблемы здравоохранения658 A#12_1 Маленькие пенсии, приходится работать658 A#12_2 Yes Yгроза атомных электростанций, боюсь

радиоактивности658 A#12_3 Yсловия роста детей, на что их учить, если

нет денег662 A#12_1 Беспокоят проблемы со здоровьем, мучает

аллергия, нарушена нервная система662 A#12_2 Беспокоит положение пожилых людей и

маленькая пенсия662 A#12_3 Yes Вызывает беспокойство загрязнение

воздуха со стороны военных атомных установок

668 A#12_1 Задолженность по зарплате 3 месяца. Детей кормить и одевать трудно. Про развлечения-театр, ресторан Р и не вспоминаем

668 A#12_2 Yes Беспокоит угроза загрязнения со стороны военных атомных установок. Беспокоимся за их надежность

668 A#12_3 Беспокоит здоровье детей. Экология плохая, питание однобокое. Где же быть детям здоровыми?

701 A#12_1 Несвоевременная выплата заработной платы701 A#12_2 Безработица в области701 A#12_3 Yes Проблемы с атомными установками


50

702 A#12_1 Отсутствие средств к существованию из-за несвоевременной выплаты заработной платы

702 A#12_2 Страх за жизнь детей, боязнь отпустить на улицу гулять из-за большого количества преступлений в городе

702 A#12_3 Yes Волнует безопасностьКольской АЭС в связи с событиям, происшедшими на Чернобыльской АЭС

715 A#12_1 Yes Радиоактивная обстановка в Полярных Зорях

715 A#12_2 Низкий уровень обслуживания населения в поликлиниках

715 A#12_3 Вредные добавки в продуктах721 A#12_1 Слишком дорогие продукты, на другое денег

не остается721 A#12_2 Положение пожилых людей и выплата

пенсий в будущем721 A#12_3 Конфликт в Чечне и другие горячие точки722 A#12_1 Yсловия роста детей и подростков,

невозможность обеспечить достойное существование им

722 A#12_2 Фотел бы повысить свой образовательный уровень, неудовлетворен работой

722 A#12_3 Выплата зарплаты с опозданием, не получал денег два месяца

723 A#12_1 Yes Военные ядерные установки, ледоколы атомные, плавучие ядерные могильники

723 A#12_2 Выплата пенсий в будущем, увеличение пенсий

723 A#12_3 Конфликт в Чечне, горячие точки на окраинах России

724 A#12_1 Личные финансовые проблемы724 A#12_2 Будущее детей и подростков, условия их

роста724 A#12_3 Yes Экология, радиация со стороны АЭС на

полуострове752 A#12_1 Безработица. Я не работаю уже больше года.

Здоровые не могут найти работу, а у меня есть проблемы со здоровьем.

752 A#12_2 Личная финансовая ситуация. Я не работаю. Мама на пенсии. Работает только брат. Жить очень тяжело.

752 A#12_3 Yes Мой брат служил около Чернобыля. Сейчас находится на учете у врача. температура все время повышенная. Плохо себя чувствует. Что такое атомная авария, мы знаем не понаслышке.

778 A#12_1 Здоровье778 A#12_2 Невыплата зарплаты778 A#12_3 Yсловия роста детей791 A#12_1 Несвоевременная выплата заработной платы791 A#12_2 Высокие цены на продукты питания791 A#12_3 Будущее детей



799 A#12_1 Задержки выплаты пенсий родителям799 A#12_2 Личные финансовые трудности799 A#12_3 Yes Мало информации о безопасности

станции в Полярных Зорях809 A#12_1 Выплаты пенсий в будущем809 A#12_2 Yes Загрязнение со стороны военных

объектов809 A#12_3 Плохое медицинское обслуживание821 A#12_1 Беспокойство по поводу работы для дочери,

платной учебы821 A#12_2 Проблемы здравоохранения, плохое

финансирование, при отсутствии страхового полиса Р только экстренная помощь

821 A#12_3 Yes Ядерные захоронения на Новой Земле824 A#12_1 Yход за престарелыми, слишком мала

пенсия824 A#12_2 Надо инвалиду много лекарств, положено

льготное лекарство, но денег государство не выделяет, дети не могут помочь

824 A#12_3 Выплата пенсии в будущем, ее увеличение826 A#12_1 Переход к рыночной экономике.

Нестабильное законодательство может привести к развалу семейного дела

826 A#12_2 Проблемы здравоохранения, сложно попасть к специалисту на прием, их мало

826 A#12_3 Yes Экологические проблемы, связанные с радиационными установками и хранение отходов

885 A#12_1 Боязнь потерять работу885 A#12_2 Страх заболеть раком885 A#12_3 Рэкет887 A#12_1 Боязнь не найти работу887 A#12_2 Дорогие медикаменты887 A#12_3 Yes Yгроза загрязнений КАЭС888 A#12_1 Желание быть востребованным888 A#12_2 Yes Загрязнение от военных объектов888 A#12_3 Будущее детей913 A#12_1 Неуверенность в завтрашнем дне913 A#12_2 Рост преступности913 A#12_3 Загрязнение окружающей среды924 A#12_1 Личная финансовая ситуация924 A#12_2 Здравоохранение низкого уровня, плохо

лечат, нет оборудования924 A#12_3 Yes Военные атомные установки, может

случиться авария925 A#12_1 СПYД в Мурманске тоже опасен925 A#12_2 Yменьшение озонового слоя925 A#12_3 Преступность на улице возросла941 A#12_1 Выплата зарплаты вовремя941 A#12_2 Нет денег, чтобы съездить в отпуск941 A#12_3 Здоровье дочери. Резко падает зрение


52

952 A#12_1 Личная финансовая ситуация952 A#12_2 Дороговизна товаров, продуктов952 A#12_3 Yes Военные атомные установки близко к

городу расположены993 A#12_1 Низкая оплата труда моряков993 A#12_2 Yвеличение количества беспризорных детей993 A#12_3 Проблемы захоронения радиоактивных

отходов998 A#12_1 Личная финансовая ситуация998 A#12_2 Выплата пенсий в будущем998 A#12_3 Yes Повторение Чернобыльской аварии1069 A#12_1 Побывала в статусе безработной, боится

потерять снова рабочее место1069 A#12_2 Боится, что в будущем сын попадет служить

в любую горячую точку страны1069 A#12_3 Считает, что мало времени уделяет

проблемам экологии1099 A#12_1 Заработная плата1099 A#12_2 Будущее поколение1099 A#12_3 Yes Радиация1100 A#12_1 Нехватка денег1100 A#12_2 Безработица, нет работы у дочери1100 A#12_3 Получение жилья в другом регионе1130 A#12_1 Будущее детей1130 A#12_2 Дорогие продукты питания1130 A#12_3 Боязнь, что в случае болезни нечем будет

заплатить за лечение1140 A#12_1 Отсутствие денег1140 A#12_2 Платное образование1140 A#12_3 Здоровье, платные медицинские услуги1157 A#12_1 Yвеличение заработной платы1157 A#12_2 Работа, чтобы нравилась1157 A#12_3 Yes Атомные военные установки вызывают

угрозу1183 A#12_1 Маленькая пенсия. Опасается, что и у нас на

севере могут задержать1183 A#12_2 Преступность, мафия, преступникам платят

налоги1183 A#12_3 Готовится в отпуск в среднюю полосу, потом

приедут дети и внуки1187 A#12_1 Невыплата заработной платы за 8 месяцев,

получил за 1 год работы только отпускные1187 A#12_2 Маленькая пенсия (работает на пенсии),

которая не зависит от заработка1187 A#12_3 Экология и охрана окружающей среды1189 A#12_1 Очень плохое здоровье, перенесла несколько

операций, могла быть группа инвалидности1189 A#12_2 Пенсия в будущем, пенсия очень маленькая,

будет ли платиться вовремя



1189 A#12_3 Сын не имеет работы полгода, дочь Р инвалид, беспокойство о получении образования внучкой

1232 A#12_1 Низкий размер заработной платы1232 A#12_2 Загрязнение окружающей среды1232 A#12_3 Сложно поднять детей на ноги (отдых,

обучение)1311 A#12_1 Фотелось бы найти работу1311 A#12_2 Преступность на улицах города1311 A#12_3 Проблема качества здравоохранения1330 A#12_1 Невыплата зарплаты в течение 3-х месяцев у

мужа1330 A#12_2 Yes Yгроза с АЭС в Полярных Зорях1330 A#12_3 Загрязнение и плохой воздух1334 A#12_1 Задержка пенсий на три недели, опасается,

что могут задержать и на несколько месяцев, как в других регионах

1334 A#12_2 Дорогие продукты питания, на пенсию можно купить только продукты, больше ничего

1334 A#12_3 Недостаток средств, при очень напряженной ситуации с пенсией в резерве-сухари

1534 A#12_1 Правление в городе, не дают денег1534 A#12_2 Детей не во что одеть и обуть1534 A#12_3 Загрязнение окружающей среды1616 A#12_1 Экономические и финансовые проблемы

северян1616 A#12_2 Yes БлизостьКольской АЭС1616 A#12_3 Бесплатная медицинская помощь и

бесплатное образование1639 A#12_1 Отсутствие денег1639 A#12_2 Трудно устроиться на работу1639 A#12_3 Yes Близость атомной электростанции1773 A#12_1 Проблемы, связанные с положением

пожилых людей1773 A#12_2 Проблемы здравоохранения1773 A#12_3 Проблемы чистой воды1781 A#12_1 Транспорт плохо ходит1781 A#12_2 Неудовлетворительная медицинская помощь1781 A#12_3 Yes Yгроза загрязнения со стороны АЭС1810 A#12_1 Выплата пенсии в будущем1810 A#12_2 Экологические проблемы (загрязнение

воздуха, воды)1810 A#12_3 Yes Проблемы, связанные с

радиоактивностью.1923 A#12_1 Вопросы работы и пенсий в перспективе1923 A#12_2 Проблемы здоровья в связи с окружаюшей

средой1923 A#12_3 Yes Близость АЭС и захоронение отходов1927 A#12_1 Безработица в стране


54

Appendix II-2 Raw data – “Personal concerns translated responses”

Compilation made to the Final Report for: “Perception of Nuclear risk at the Kola Peninsula”

Compilation made for the final report of all three responses of con-cerns given at the level of personal worries. All responses made by allrespondents that have given a radiological concern either at the generalor the personal level. The original responses in Russian were shown inAppendix II-1, and the translated responses are listed below.


1927 A#12_2 Yes Yгроза и загрязнение окружаюшей среды с АЭС

1927 A#12_3 Преступность, мафия1961 A#12_1 Боюсь, что зять потеряет работу1961 A#12_2 Не хватает денег1961 A#12_3 Дети живут в плохом климате, уехать нет

денег1966 A#12_1 Задержка выплаты зарплаты, д авно не

получаю деньги1966 A#12_2 Боюсь потерять работу, безработица



Nuclear? This column implies a radiological concern response.



Id. Nr. Variable Nuclear? Translated responses84 A#12_1 Personal financial situation

84 A#12_2 The improvement of services in out-patient clinic

84 A#12_3 Yes The threat from the Kolskaya AES85 A#12_1 Delayed wages

85 A#12_2 Yes The Kolskaya AES

85 A#12_3 Personal financial situation

258 A#12_1 Personal financial problems


258 A#12_3 Yes Problems connected with radioactivity


259 A#12_1 Growth of unemployment, the respondent is afraid to lose the job

259 A#12_2 Growth of violence, criminality

259 A#12_3 Pollution of drinking water


262 A#12_2 Food-stuff is too expensive

262 A#12_3 The respondent is afraid to get cancer


263 A#12_2 Improper nourishment caused by the lack of money

263 A#12_3 Unhealthy drinking water

270 A#12_1 Yes The threat from nuclear installations in other countries

270 A#12_2 Separation of the Ukraine and Byelorussia

270 A#12_3 Children’s education

286 A#12_1 Poor financial situation caused by delayed wages, small rate of wages, not enough for normal living

286 A#12_2 Children’s health is getting worse through the liv-ing in the North; anxiety about their future

286 A#12_3 Uncertainty in the future, unstable policy of the government in the economy and ruling of the country


294 A#12_2 The respondent’s future; possibility to have good work, decent wages which would provide normal living conditions for the family now and in the future

294 A#12_3 Children’s future, the respondent is anxious about getting future education by the child. Employ-ment and health of the child

295 A#12_1 Small pension, not enough for normal nourish-ment, there is no possibility to buy clothes, foot-wear and etc.

295 A#12_2 Expensive medicine, expensive treatment, there is no possibility to pay proper attention to one’s health because of the lack of money

295 A#12_3 Anxiety about children and grandchildren, their future. It’s very difficult to get education free of charge, one can’t be sure in employment

296 A#12_1 Delayed wages lead to many financial problems, impossibility to buy necessary things, foot-wear, visit theatres, museums, get rest

296 A#12_2 Yes Danger of radioactive contamination through great number of objects in region (both military and civil) which utilise atom

296 A#12_3 Anxiety about children’s life, their future; prob-lems with getting free education, problems with employment in the future

314 A#12_1 The respondent is very anxious about her health, she is afraid even to imagine falling ill. As she lives alone nobody would help her and she has no tele-phone to call a doctor

Id. Nr. Variable Nuclear? Translated responses

56

314 A#12_2 The respondent would like to go away but she has no finances to remove and settle at a new place

314 A#12_3 Yes The respondent is anxious about heightened radioactivity in the region because of great number of nuclear powered ice-breakers, mili-tary nuclear powered submarines and the AES in Polyarnye Zory

316 A#12_1 Problem with summer holiday, there is no money to go to the south or middle Russia and get rest

316 A#12_2 Yes The threat of radioactive contamination from the AES in Polyarnye Zory and military nuclear installations

316 A#12_3 It’s impossible to buy fashionable things for youths as they are expensive

317 A#12_1 Delayed wages and small rate of wage not enough to secure normal living conditions, proper nour-ishment.

317 A#12_2 The respondent is very anxious about unpleasant situation in spring when snow melts and all the ground is covered with dogs’ excrements; it’s impossible to walk without making feet dirty and for children to play out.

317 A#12_3 The respondent has no money to go to the south or to the middle Russia in the summer and that is in spite of the fact that all adults in the family work


337 A#12_2 Situation in the army, military conflicts

337 A#12_3 Children’s future


370 A#12_2 Ecology; northern industrial area is near

370 A#12_3 Children’s upbringing, their future

382 A#12_1 Problems with money; as rule it is not enough

382 A#12_2 Yes Heightened radiation382 A#12_3 –


445 A#12_2 Daughter’s future education

445 A#12_3 Yes Ecological situation in relation with radioactivity460 A#12_1 I’m (the respondent) is an editor of the paper.

People don’t get wage for 2,5 months. They come to me but I can’t help them. Will the paper die or survive? We are for surviving. I spend most part of my life at my work and I’m mostly anxious about the things connected with my work.

460 A#12_2 I’m not indifferent person. Everything concerns me.My personal financial situation is complicated as I haven’t get my wage also for about three months

460 A#12_3 Kola bay causes anxiety. There are a lot of aban-doned ships there. The bay is polluted. It was much cleaner some 30 years ago. And now they’ve made everything dirty. The forest is being cut down.



485 A#12_1 Bad work of communal services

485 A#12_2 Expensive food-stuff, expensive railway tickets, cheap fish is out of sale

485 A#12_3 Yes Radioactive wastes, their burial-ground and uti-lisation

496 A#12_1 Problems in the health care system

496 A#12_2 Organised criminality, Mafia’s activity

496 A#12_3 Politics; governing of the state.

497 A#12_1 Conditions for children’s and youth’s growth

497 A#12_2 Too expensive food-stuff

497 A#12_3 Problems with safe (“clean”) food


499 A#12_2 Yes The threat of contamination from military nuclear installations


581 A#12_1 Conditions for children’s growth

581 A#12_2 “Hot centres” (conflict areas) in Russia

581 A#12_3 Problems with environmental pollution


583 A#12_2 Problems with safe (“clean”) food-stuff



589 A#12_2 Faith in the future, conditions for children’s growth.


592 A#12_1 Russia’s economy, one can’t be sure in the future.


592 A#12_3 Conditions for children’s growth, there is no money for their education

593 A#12_1 Russia’s economy, destitution of most people


593 A#12_3 Problems in the health care system, the respond-ent is afraid to fall ill, there is no finances for the treatment

594 A#12_1 Yes Russia’s economy, complete disorganisation of production

594 A#12_2 Problems with safe (“clean”) food-stuff

594 A#12_3 Environmental protection, nobody is responsible for anything


636 A#12_2 Yes Information on condition of the Kolskaya AES is limited

636 A#12_3 Slow transition to the market economy

640 A#12_1 It’s not safe to be out in the evening

640 A#12_2 Yes Contamination of the environment by military nuclear installations

640 A#12_3 The taxes are being collected badly

652 A#12_1 Small pension

652 A#12_2 The increase of pension in the future


58


658 A#12_1 Small pensions, the respondent has to work

658 A#12_2 Yes The threat from nuclear power stations; the respondent is afraid of radioactivity

658 A#12_3 Conditions for children’s growth, how to educate them if there is no money.

662 A#12_1 Problems with respondent’s health, sufferings from allergy, nervous system is broken

662 A#12_2 Situation with the elderly people and small pen-sion

662 A#12_3 Yes Air contamination from military nuclear instal-lations

668 A#12_1 Wage delayed for three months. It is very difficult to feed and dress children. As to entertainment: theatre, restaurant- we even don’t recall them

668 A#12_2 Yes The threat of contamination from military nuclear installations. We are anxious about their safety.

668 A#12_3 Children’s health. Ecology is bad, nourishment is one -sided. How could children be healthy?


701 A#12_2 Unemployment in Murmansk region

701 A#12_3 Yes Problems with nuclear installations702 A#12_1 The lack of money for living because of delayed

wages

702 A#12_2 Fear for children’s life, dread to let them go for a walk because of a lot of crimes in the town

702 A#12_3 Yes Security of the Kolskaya AES in relation with accidents taking place at the Chernobyl AES

715 A#12_1 Yes Radioactive situation in Polyarnye Zory715 A#12_2 Low level of services in out -patient clinics

715 A#12_3 Harmful substances in food

721 A#12_1 Too expensive food-stuff, there is no money for other things

721 A#12_2 Situation with the elderly people, payment of pensions in the future

721 A#12_3 The conflict in Chechnya and other conflict areas (“hot centres”)

722 A#12_1 Conditions for children and youth’s growth, impossibility to provide their proper existence.

722 A#12_2 The respondent would like to rise his educational level, he is unsatisfied with his job

722 A#12_3 Delayed wages, he hasn’t got money for two months

723 A#12_1 Yes Military nuclear installations, nuclear powered ice-breakers, floating nuclear sepulchres

723 A#12_2 Payment of pensions in the future, increase of pensions

723 A#12_3 The conflict in Chechnya, “hot centres” in fron-tier areas of Russia




724 A#12_2 Children’s and youth’s future, conditions for their growth

724 A#12_3 Yes Ecology, radiation from the AES on the penin-sula

752 A#12_1 Unemployment. I (the respondent) haven’t work for more than a year. Strong people can’t find work and I have some problems with my health.

752 A#12_2 Personal financial situation. I don’t work. My mother is a pensioner. Only my brother works. It is very hard to live.

752 A#12_3 Yes My brother served in the army near Chernobyl. Now a doctor is observing him. His temperature is heightened all the time. He feels sick. We know not by hearsay what nuclear accident is.

778 A#12_1 Health


778 A#12_3 Conditions for children’s growth


791 A#12_2 High prices for food-stuff


799 A#12_1 Delayed pensions for the parents


799 A#12_3 Yes Information about security of the power-station in Polyarnye Zory is not enough

809 A#12_1 Payment of pensions in the future

809 A#12_2 Yes Contamination from military objects809 A#12_3 Poor medical services

821 A#12_1 Anxiety about work for the daughter, played edu-cation

821 A#12_2 Problems in the health care system, poor financ-ing; without insurance policy you can get only urgent help.

821 A#12_3 Yes Nuclear burial-grounds on Novaya Zemlya.824 A#12_1 Care for the elderly people, the pension is too

small

824 A#12_2 Disabled person needs many medicines, he has the right for the medicines on easy payment terms but the state doesn’t give money for that and chil-dren can’t help.

824 A#12_3 Payment of pensions in the future, their increase

826 A#12_1 Transition to the market economy, unstable laws can lead to break-down of the family business

826 A#12_2 Problems in the health care system, it’s very diffi-cult to attend a specialised doctor, they are not enough

826 A#12_3 Yes Ecological problems connected with nuclear installations and storage of wastes

885 A#12_1 Dread to lose the job

885 A#12_2 Fear to get cancer

885 A#12_3 Racket

887 A#12_1 Dread not to find a job

887 A#12_2 Expensive medicines


60

887 A#12_3 Yes The threat of contamination from the Kolskaya AES

888 A#12_1 Wish to be useful, necessary

888 A#12_2 Yes Pollution from military objects888 A#12_3 Children’s future



913 A#12_3 Environmental pollution


924 A#12_2 The health care system is of low level, people are treated badly, there is no medical equipment

924 A#12_3 Yes Military nuclear installations, there can be an accident

925 A#12_1 AID in Murmansk is also dangerous

925 A#12_2 The lessening of the ozone layer

925 A#12_3 Street criminality has grown

941 A#12_1 Payment of wages in time

941 A#12_2 There is no money to go somewhere for a holiday

941 A#12_3 Daughter’s health, her sight is falling down rap-idly


952 A#12_2 Expensive goods and food-stuff

952 A#12_3 Yes Military nuclear installations are situated near the town

993 A#12_1 Low wages of seamen

993 A#12_2 Growth of number of neglected children

993 A#12_3 Problems with burial-ground of nuclear wastes


998 A#12_2 Payment of pension in the future

998 A#12_3 Yes The recurrence of Chernobyl accident1069 A#12_1 The respondent used to be unemployed, she’s

afraid to lose job once again

1069 A#12_2 The respondent is afraid for her son to be sent as a military man to any place of conflict (“hot cen-tre”) in the future

1069 A#12_3 The environment problems are of little concern

1099 A#12_1 Wages

1099 A#12_2 Future generation

1099 A#12_3 Yes Radiation1100 A#12_1 The shortage of money

1100 A#12_2 Unemployment, the respondent’s daughter has no job

1100 A#12_3 Getting dwelling in the other region


1130 A#12_2 Expensive food-stuff

1130 A#12_3 Fear that there will be no money to pay for the treatment in the case of illness


1140 A#12_2 Paid education

1140 A#12_3 Health, paid medical services

1157 A#12_1 The increase of wages



1157 A#12_2 The job to be liked

1157 A#12_3 Yes The threat from military nuclear installations1183 A#12_1 Small pension. Fear that here, at the north, it’s

also can be delayed

1183 A#12_2 Criminality, Mafia, criminals are paid taxes to

1183 A#12_3 Respondent is preparing to go for a holiday to middle Russia. Children and grandchildren will come afterwards

1187 A#12_1 Non-payments of wages for 8 months, the respondent got only holiday pay for one working year

1187 A#12_2 Small pension, which doesn’t depend on the rate of wage (the respondent works and gets pension)

1187 A#12_3 Ecology and environmental protection

1189 A#12_1 Very poor state of health, the respondent has some operations, she might be officially invalid

1189 A#12_2 Pension in the future, pension is very small, whether or not it will be paid in time

1189 A#12_3 The son has no job for half a year, the daughter is a disabled person, anxiety for getting an education by her granddaughter

1232 A#12_1 Low rate of wage.

1232 A#12_2 Environment pollution

1232 A#12_3 It’s difficult to grow children (their rest, educa-tion)

1311 A#12_1 The respondent would like to find a job

1311 A#12_2 Street assault

1311 A#12_3 Problems with the quality of the health care sys-tem

1330 A#12_1 Non-payments of wages for 3 months at the work of the respondent’s husband.

1330 A#12_2 Yes The threat from the AES in Polaner Zory1330 A#12_3 Pollution and unhealthy air

1334 A#12_1 Pension delayed for three weeks, the respondent is anxious that delays can be longer as in other regions

1334 A#12_2 Expensive food-stuff, pension is enough only for food-stuff and nothing more

1334 A#12_3 The lack of finances, taking into account very complicated situation with the pension, the only reserve is dried bread

1534 A#12_1 Administration in the town, they don’t give money

1534 A#12_2 There is nothing for children to dress and put on feet

1534 A#12_3 The environmental pollution

1616 A#12_1 Economic and financial problems of northern population

1616 A#12_2 Yes Proximity to the Kolskaya AES1616 A#12_3 Medical care and education free of charge


1639 A#12_2 It’s difficult to be employed


62

1639 A#12_3 Yes Proximity to the nuclear power station1773 A#12_1 Problems connected with the situation of the eld-

erly people


1773 A#12_3 Problems with clean drinking water

1781 A#12_1 Problems with the urban transport (“transport goes badly”)

1781 A#12_2 Unsatisfactory medical care

1781 A#12_3 Yes The threat of contamination from the Kolskaya AES

1810 A#12_1 Payments of pension in the future

1810 A#12_2 Ecological problems (air and water pollution)

1810 A#12_3 Yes Problems with radioactivity, nuclear installations1923 A#12_1 Problems with jobs and pensions in the future

1923 A#12_2 Problems with the health in relation with the environment

1923 A#12_3 Yes Proximity to the AES and burial-ground of wastes

1927 A#12_1 Unemployment in the state

1927 A#12_2 Yes The threat of environmental contamination from the AES

1927 A#12_3 Criminality, Mafia

1961 A#12_1 I’m afraid for my son-in law to lose his job

1961 A#12_2 The shortage of money

1961 A#12_3 Children live in bad climate conditions, there is no money to get away

1966 A#12_1 Delayed wages, I (the respondent) haven’t got money for a long time

1966 A#12_2 I’m (the respondent) afraid to lose my job. Unem-ployment



Northern Studies Working Papers

1 Andreev, Oleg A. and Olsson, Mats-Olov (1992). Environmentalism in Russia’sNorth-West.

2 Svensson, Bo (1994). Opportunity or Illusion? Prospects for Foreign Direct Invest-ment in North-West Russia.

3 Andreev Oleg A. and Olsson Mats-Olov (1994). Regional Self-government in Rus-sia - The Situation in the County of Murmansk.

4 Bröms, Peter (1994). Changing Stands? The negotiations of an International Envi-ronmental Security Regime in Barents Euro-Artic Region.

5 Eriksson, Johan (1994). Security in the Barents Region: Interpretations and Implica-tions of the Norwegian Barents Initiative.

6 Svensson, Bo (1994). Barentsregionen, dess regionala byggstenar och den transre-gionala utmaningen.

7 Bröms, Peter (1995). Living on the Edge: “The Russian Problem” of the BarentsRegion’s Security Problematique.

8 Svensson, Bo (1995). The Political Economy of East-West Transnational Regionali-zation.

9 Olofsson, Ebba (1995). Samer utan samiska rättigheter och icke-samer med samiskarättigheter - en fråga om definition.

10 Monsma, Mark (1995). Winds of Change Within the Barents Organization: AnInstitutional Analysis of Transnational Regionalizations in the North.

11 Nilsson, Per Ola (1996). Republiken Karelen. En översikt över dess ekonomiska ochpolitiska förhållanden.

12 Masegosa Carrillo, José Luis (1998). Regional Security Building in Europe. The Bar-ents Euro-Artic Region.

13 Gidlund, Janerik; Wiberg, Ulf and Gunnarsson, Malin (1998). Knowledge basedstrategies for Sustainable Development and Civic Security. A North-Swedish Initia-tive in the Northern Dimension.

14 Masegosa Carrillo José Luis (1999). The County of Västerbotten and its RecentMembership in the Barents Euro-Artic Region. Fact-Finding Report.

15 Hallström, Marie-Louise (1999). Risks and Nuclear Waste. Nuclear problems, riskperceptions of, and societal responses to, nuclear waste in the Barents region.

16 Axensten, Peder (2001). Modelling and Visualizing Short Term Impact of a NuclearAccident on Transportation Flows.

17 Hedkvist, Fred (2001). Great Expectations. Russian Attitudes to the Barents RegionCo-operation.

18 Tønnesen, Arnfinn (2001). Perception of Nuclear Risk at the Kola Peninsula.

19 Namjatov, Aleksey (2001). Modern Level of Radioactivity Contamination and RiskAssessment in the Coastal Waters of the Barents Sea.

20 Arkhanguelskaia, V. Guenrietta and Zykova, A. Irina (2001). Social ScientificNuclear Waste Risk Assessment in the Barents Region.

21 Morozov, Sergey and Naumov, Andrey (2001). Assessment of Potential Risk forKola’s Population from Radiological Impact of Accident on Spent Nuclear Fuel Facili-ties.

83

22 Lundström, Christoffer (2001). Simulering av radioaktiv beläggning vid utsläpp påKolahalvön.

23 Baklanov, A.; Bergman, R.; Lundström, C. and Thaning, L. (2001). Modelling ofEpisodes of Atmospheric Transport and Deposition from Hypothetical Nuclear Acci-dents on the Kola Peninsula.

24 Mahura, Alexander; Andres, Robert; Jaffe, Daniel (2001). Atmospheric TransportPatterns from the Kola Nuclear Reactors.

25 Hedkvist, Fred; Weissglas, Gösta (2001). Regionalisation in North-Western Europe:Spatial Planning or Building a Frame for Development Cooperation. The Case of theBarents Region.

84

cerum, Centre for Regional ScienceUmeå University, se-90187 Umeå

Phone +46-90-786.6079, Fax [email protected]

www.umu.se/cerumissn 1400-1969

The Centre for Regional Science, cerum, initiates and accomplishesresearch on regional development, carries out multidisciplinary re-search, and distributes the results to various public organizations.One major area of research is the sustainable development in the arc-tic and sub-arctic political, socio-economic and cultural systems.Studies are often conducted in collaboration with Northern Studiesresearch institutes in other countries.

The Working Papers in the Northern Studies series are interim re-ports presenting work in progress and papers that have been submit-ted for publication elsewhere. These reports have received only lim-ited review and are primarily used for in-house circulation.

perception of nuclear risk at the kola...

Documents