Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1589823 WHAT COMES TO MIND WHEN YOU HEAR THE WORDS "NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY"? A STUDY OF 10,000 IMAGES Prepared by: Paul Slovic, Mark Layman, and James H. Flynn Decision Research November, 1990 Prepared for: Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects Yucca Mountain Socioeconomic Project Phase IV-B. Tasks 8.5 and 8.6 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1589823 Summary Attempts by the federal government and the nuclear industry to develop sites for disposal of high-level and low-level radioactive wastes have been stymied by public and political opposition The record of strenuous protest against nuclear waste repositories, as well as the findings of numerous public opinion surveys, make it clear that public opposition is widespread and deeply felt. It is also clear that there is an immense gap between the perceptions of the public and the views of technical experts and nuclear-industry officials. Given the seriousness of nuclear waste as a public issue, it is surprising that there have been only a few attempts to understand the deeper meaning of nuclear fears and opposition to nuclear waste disposal sites, and to provide some insight into the nature and pervasiveness of people's concerns. One step toward a deeper understanding would be to define the origins of these concerns, the emotions and images that underlie them, and their tractability or stability over time. We focus, in this study, on the imagery associated with a nuclear waste repository. The idea that images and perceptions influence people's attitudes and behaviors has a long history, going back to the origins of western civilization. More recently, a number of psychologists have held that images are organized and structured in much the same ways as perceptions, beliefs and attitudes. Images are often accompanied by affect and these affect- laden images have been found to have important behavioral consequences. In earlier research, we used the "method of continued associations" to document the relationship between word-association images and important economic behaviors. The results showed that cities and states had diverse positive and negative images that persisted over time, and that these images were predictive of people's stated preferences for vacation, Summary - What Comes to Mind / ii retirement and business sites. Image quality was also found to be related to past and future vacation visits. These findings have documented scientifically what manufacturers, entertainers, politicians, advertisers, and public relations specialists have presumed for a long time--images and perceptions exert powerful effects upon human behavior. In the present study, we recorded 10,000 word-association images from more than 3,300 respondents to four surveys during the period between April, 1988 and January 1, 1990. Following the general method outlined by Szalay and Deese for collecting "continued associations" image data were collected from these respondents based upon the stimulus term "underground nuclear waste repository."1 Images were collected from a Nevada State sample, including oversamples for Nye, Lincoln and Esmeralda Counties, from the Phoenix metropolitan area, from Southern California and from a national sample. Response rates were high (72 percent to 84 percent) in each survey. Each of the 10,000 images was assigned to one of thirteen general or superordinate categories, which expressed the dominant theme of the response. All but one superordinate categories contained subordinate categories. All in all there were 92 distinct categories. The two dominant superordinate categories, (1) Negative Consequences and (2) Negative Concepts accounted for more than 56 percent of the total number of images. Many of the smaller categories and subcategories were also quite negative in tone. The five leading subordinate categories, Dangerous/Toxic, Death/Sickness, Environmental Damage, Bad, and Scary, accounted for more than 42% of the total number of images. 1 The stimulus phrase for one study was, "underground nuclear waste storage facility." Summary - What Comes to Mind / iii Positive imagery was indeed rare. Category XII, Positive, accounted for only one percent of the images (97 images out of 10,000). Other generally positive categories such as Necessary, Employment, and Money /Income combined for only 2.5 percent of the images. Jones et al. (1984) have attempted to characterize the key dimensions of stigma, a concept that has been applied to places with adverse environmental characteristics. Two of their major defining characteristics of stigma are peril and negative aesthetic qualities (ugliness, repulsion). These qualities dominate the repository images. The results are similar for each of the separate survey samples. Close examination of the categories by sample shows that (a) there are differences in some image frequencies from one sample to another, but (b) these differences are quite small and do not change the interpretations in any important way. The negativity of repository images is remarkably consistent across people of different ages, incomes, education levels, and political persuasions. Women were slightly more likely to rate their images as negative than were men; people aged 65 or older were somewhat more likely to rate their images as positive, as were people who reported their political orientation as very conservative. None of these differences were large. The information in these image data appears to go well beyond what was obvious or expected on the basis of previous research or the record of public opposition to nuclear waste facilities. These images demonstrate an aversion so remarkably strong that to call it "negative" or a "dislike" hardly does it justice. What these images reveal are pervasive qualities of dread, revulsion, and anger; the raw materials of stigmatization and political opposition. Images pertaining to potential benefits, necessity, and scientific or technical Summary - What Comes to Mind / iv progress are simply overwhelmed by the negative responses. Concerns by repository proponents that a nuclear waste facility might be adversely perceived if labeled a 11dump" clearly misjudge the nature of public images; dumpsite imagery would appear almost positive in comparison to the more prevalent responses. Nuclear waste exists and must be dealt with. This analysis of 10,000 images shows that a majority of the American public is repulsed by the concept of a nuclear waste repository. The perceptions and emotions associated with a repository are psychologically, politically, socially, and economically important. In particular, the mechanisms of the human mind make it quite possible that places that become repositories for nuclear waste will also become stigmatized through associations with that dread substance. Decisions regarding the siting and management of nuclear waste must be sensitive to these perceptions and emotions and to the lack of trust that underlies them. WHAT COMES TO MIND WHEN YOU HEAR THE WORDS "NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY"? A STUDY OF 10,000 IMAGES "Words are the images of things."--Simonides, 500 B.C. 1.0 Introduction This paper is about the images and perceptions associated with a nuclear-waste repository in the minds of the American public. It is no longer news that the public perceives radioactive wastes as exceedingly dangerous. More than a decade of strenuous public opposition to government plans to site disposal facilities for both high-level and low- level wastes make this clear, as do numerous public opinion surveys (Flynn, et al., 1990; Kraft & Dunlap, in press; Kunreuther, Desvousges, & Slovic, 1988; Nealey & Hebert, 1983). It is also clear that there is an immense gap between the perceptions of the public and the views of technical experts and nuclear-industry officials.1 1 The following comments, from three prominent nuclear experts, appear typical of the industry and expert viewpoint on nuclear waste disposal. "Several years ago ... I talked with Sir John Hill, ... chairman of the United Kingdom's Atomic Energy Authority. 'I've never come across any industry where the public perception of the problems is so totally different from the problems as seen by those of us in the industry ... ,' Hill told me. In Hill's view, the problem of radioactive waste disposal was, in a technical sense, comparatively easy." Luther Carter (1987, p. 9) "Nuclear wastes can be sequestered with essentially no chance of any member of the public receiving a non-stochastic dose of radiation. . . . Why then is the waste problem the Achilles' heel of nuclear energy? ... Why is the public's perception of the nuclear waste issue at such odds with the experts' perception?" Alvin Weinberg (1989, pp. 1-2) "The fourth major reason for public misunderstanding of nuclear power is a grossly unjustified fear of the hazards from radioactive waste.... Often called an 'unsolved problem,' many consider it to be the Achilles' heel of nuclear power. Seven states now have laws prohibiting construction of nuclear power plants until the waste disposal issue is settled. On the other hand there is general agreement among those scientists involved with waste management that radioactive waste disposal is a rather trivial technical problem. Having it as one of my principal research specialties ... , I am firmly convinced that What Comes to Mind / 2 Despite the fact that we already know a great deal about public perceptions in this area, we have two important reasons to learn more, hence this study. First, most of our knowledge comes from rather general questions ( e.g., "How great is the risk of a nuclear- waste repository compared with the risks of X, Y, and Z?"). With some notable exceptions (see, e.g., Erikson, 1990: Lifton, 1967; and Weart, 1988), there have been few attempts to penetrate the surface veneer of nuclear fear and provide insight into the nature and pervasiveness of people's concerns, the origins of these concerns, the emotions that underlie them, and their likely stability. Second, research has documented scientifically what manufacturers, entertainers, politicians, and their advertisers and public-relations specialists have presumed for a long time--images and perceptions exert powerful effects upon human behavior. Recent surveys of residents in one geographic locale, Phoenix, Arizona, have demonstrated remarkably negative imagery associated with the concept of an "underground nuclear waste storage facility" (Mountain West, 1989; Slovic et al., 1989). The nuclear weapons test site located near Yucca Mountain was found to have caused a modest amount of nuclear imagery to be associated with the state of Nevada in the minds of Phoenix residents. People who associated nuclear imagery with Nevada also tended to express much lower preference for Nevada as a place to vacation. These and other findings have led a review panel to conclude: "The greatest potential socioeconomic difficulty of the proposed repository [at Yucca Mountain] stems from the intense negative imagery associated by the this radioactive waste from nuclear power operations represents less of a health hazard than the waste from any other large technological industry." B. L. Cohen (1983, p. 119) What Comes to Mind / 3 vulnerability of the Nevada economy to changes in its public image. Because of the high profile nature of the whole nuclear waste disposal program, the potential exists for Nevada to become associated with this negative imagery to the detriment of its attempts to attract tourists, conventions, migrants, and new industry to the state." (Technical Review Committee, 1990, p. 4) In light of the potential for repository images to infiltrate the images of Las Vegas, other Nevada cities, and the State of Nevada itself, the present study was conducted to determine the precise nature of these images among people throughout the United States, including Nevada. 2.0 Method 2.1 The Method of Continued Associations Our approach employs word associations to evoke the imagery, knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and affective states associated with the concept of a nuclear-waste repository. The potential for word associations to reveal the mental content of a person's subjective experience was recognized by Plato and has a long history in psychology, going back to Galton (1880), Wundt (1883), and Freud (1924). More recently, Szalay and Deese (1978) have employed the method of continued associations to assess people's subjective representative systems for a wide range of concepts. This method requires the subject to make repeated associations to the same stimulus, for example, war: soldier war: fight war: killing war: fear war: enemy war: etc. What Comes to Mind / 4 Szalay and Deese argue that this association technique is an easy and efficient way to determine the contents and representational systems of human minds without requiring those contents to be expressed in the full discursive structure of language. In fact, we may reveal ourselves through associations in ways we might find difficult to do if we were required to spell out the full propositions behind these associations through answers to questions. Szalay and Deese further contend that responses produced by the method of continued associations are not erratic and whimsical, but are stable and relate clearly and naturally to a person's experiences. They are organized and structured in much the same way as perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes. A related view is provided by Fiske, Fratto, and Pavelchak (1983), who describe an image as a "cognitive representation, a conception, or an idea, potentially containing both concrete and abstract impressions; ... a mental picture, but not necessarily visual" (p.42). Fiske et al. studied citizens' images of nuclear war, noting that such images could hardly be created except through experiences with the media, books, films, articles, and discussion. Cognitive images are often accompanied by affect and such affect-laden images have been found to have important behavioral consequences. Prejudicial images give rise to discrimination (Hamilton, 1981). Images of politicians affect voting behavior (Campbell, Converse, Miller, & Stoke, 1960). Images of nuclear war affect an individual's level of antinuclear political activity (Fiske, Pratto, & Pavelchak, 1983). In a series of recent studies, we have employed the method of continued associations to document the relationship between word-association images, risk, preferences, and What Comes to Mind / 5 economically important behaviors. Slovic et al. (1989, 1990) demonstrated that cities and states had diverse positive and negative images that were quite stable within an individual over a 16-18 month time period. They showed that the degree of positive and negative affective content across a person's set of images for each stimulus city or stimulus state could accurately predict a person's expressed preferences among these places for future vacation sites, places to retire, or places to locate new businesses. Image quality was also found to be related to past and future vacations in a place. Kunreuther and Easterling (1990) have observed similar relationships between people's images of a city and the likelihood that they would attend a convention in that city. 2.2 Survey Desi~ns and Details Word associations stimulated by mention of a nuclear-waste repository were elicited from more than 3300 persons in four telephone surveys conducted between April, 1988 and January, 1990. Details of these surveys are provided in Table 1. In addition to a National survey, data were collected from three other populations of special interest: residents of Nevada because of that state's selection as the site of the proposed national repository; Phoenix and Southern California because these are the two major areas from which tourists and economic development in Nevada emanate. The Nevada survey consisted of a sample representative of the entire state and additional samples from Nye County, in which the Nuclear Test Site and the proposed repository site are located, from Lincoln County, which borders Nye County and would contain a major transportation corridor through which the What Comes to Mind / 6 Table 1 Image Surveys Sample Response Survey and Location Dates Size Rate(%) Phoenix 4/13 - 6/8/88 802 72 National 10/21 - 12/7 /89 825 77 Southern California 12/6/89 - 1/1/90 801 77 NEVADA Statewide 9/25 - 10/15/89 500 74 Nye County 9/25 - 10/15/89 204 74 Lincoln County 9/25 - 10/15/89 101 84 Esmeralda County 9/25 - 10/15/89 101 77 Nevada Total 9/25 - 10/15/89 906 77 Note: The repository stimulus was "underground nuclear waste storage facility" for the Phoenix study and "underground nuclear waste repository" for the National, Southern California, and Nevada surveys. wastes would travel on its final approach to Yucca Mountain, and from Esmeralda County, another transport corridor a bit farther from the site. Response rates were high (72% - 84%) in all of the surveys. What Comes to Mind / 7 The images were elicited using a version of the method of continued associations adapted for a telephone interview. The first task in the Phoenix, Southern California, and National surveys was always word association to either a set of four cities or four states. In the Cities survey, the elicitation interview proceeded as follows: "My first question involves word association. For example, when I mention the word baseball, you might think of the World Series, Reggie Jackson, summertime, or even hot dogs. Today, I am interested in the first SIX thoughts or images that come to mind when you hear the name of a PIA.CE. Think about for a minute. When you think about -----[CITY] , what is the first thought or image that comes to mind? ------[CITY] What is the next thought or image you have when I say _____ ? [CITY] Your next thought or image? [CITY] What is another thought or image you have about ?" -----[CITY] This continued until six associations were produced or the respondent drew a blank. Then the procedure was repeated for the next city. Following the elicitation of images, respondents were asked to rate each image they had produced on a scale ranging from very positive (which was later coded by us as +2), somewhat positive ( + 1), neutral (0), somewhat negative (-1), or very negative (-2). Respondents were then asked to rank the four cities/states according to their attractiveness as vacation sites. Additional questions assessed the extent of previous visits or living experiences in each of the cities or states. Next, up to six images were elicited to What Comes to Mind / 8 the stimulus 11underground nuclear waste storage facility" (Phoenix survey) and "underground nuclear waste repository" (Southern California and National surveys). Following the elicitation of repository associations, respondents rated each association they gave on the same very positive to very negative scale used with the city or state associations. Phoenix survey also asked respondents to produce images to the stimulus phrase "nuclear test site." The Southern California and National survey included a variety of other questions comparing perceptions of radioactive waste with other hazards and eliciting judgments about the impacts that a nearby repository might have on local communities. Each of these surveys concluded with a set of questions about the persons's education, income, and other demographic characteristics. The Nevada surveys were structured slightly differently. The interview opened with a series of general questions about community satisfaction and perceptions of the seriousness of various environmental problems, including radioactive wastes. respondents were introduced to the word-association task and asked to produce associations to the word "Reno." They were then asked to associate to the words "underground nuclear waste repository" and, when they were finished, to rate the affective quality of each association on the positive to negative scale. The remainder of the survey contained specific questions about nuclear-waste repositories and questions to elicit background information about the respondent, much as in the other surveys. The present report describes only the analysis of the repository images. Analyses of the other material in these surveys is presented in F1ynn, Slavic, Mertz, & Toma (1990) and in Slavic, Layman, & Flynn (1990). What Comes to Mind/ 9 3.0 Results 3.1 Analysis of the Combined Samples The 3,334 respondents in the National, Phoenix, California, and Nevada surveys produced a combined total of exactly 10,000 word-association images to the repository stimulus. We examined the content of these associations and developed a classification scheme to assign them to categories. This judgmental analysis resulted in 13 general or superordinate categories, one of which was a miscellaneous category. All but one superordinate category contained subordinate categories--in one case there were 17 subordinate categories that were judged to fit the theme of the major category. All in all, there were 92 distinct categories. Many of these contained multiple associations, judged to have similar meanings. For example, the subcategory labeled Dangerous/Toxic, within the superordinate category labeled Negative Consequences, included the terms danger, dangerous, unsafe, disaster, hazardous, poison, etc. The 13 superordinate categories and their 92 subcategories contained 9439 word- association images (94.4% of the total). Some 561 associations were left uncategorized (5.6% of the total). Table 2 presents the 13 superordinate categories in order of their combined frequencies across all four samples. The one exception to this ordering is the relatively large miscellaneous category, which is presented last. The subordinate categories are also shown, ordered by frequency within their superordinate category. Table 3 presents the same categorization as Table 1 but also includes the totals from the four separate surveys. What Comes to Mind / 10 Table 2 NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY IMAGE HIERARCHY ACROSS FOUR SAMPLES There are 10,000 images across the National, Phoenix, California and Nevada Samples, 9439 of which have been categorized; 561 images have not been categorized. A superordinate structure has been created. Both the superordinate categories and the subordinate categories within them are arranged according to decreasing number of images. The hierarchy ends with a miscellaneous set of subordinate categories that do not fit into the superordinate structure. CAT PER- NO. FRO CENT SUBORDINATE CATEGORY SUPERORDINATE CATEGORY a 1683 16.83 Dangerous / Toxic I. NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES b 783 7.83 Death / Sickness I. NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES C 692 6.92 Environmental Damage I. NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES d 216 2.16 Leakage I. NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES e 133 1.33 Destruction I. NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES f 18 0.18 Pain and Suffering I. NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES g 7 0.07 Uninhabitable I. NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES h 6 0.06 Local Repository Area Consequences I. NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES 8 0.08 Negative - Other I. NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES TOTAL 3546 35.46 a 681 6.81 Bad / Negative II. NEGATIVE CONCEPTS b 401 4.01 Scary II. NEGATIVE CONCEPTS C 296 2.96 Unnecessary / Opposed II. NEGATIVE CONCEPTS d 273 2.73 Not Near Me II. NEGATIVE CONCEPTS e 126 1.26 War / Annihilation II. NEGATIVE CONCEPTS f 41 0.41 Societally Unpopular II. NEGATIVE CONCEPTS g 40 0.40 Crime and Corruption II. NEGATIVE CONCEPTS h 39 0.39 Decay / Slime / Smell II. NEGATIVE CONCEPTS i 37 0.37 Darkness/ Emptyness II. NEGATIVE CONCEPTS j 32 0.32 Negative Toward Decision Makers and Process II. NEGATIVE CONCEPTS k 24 0.24 Commands to Not Build or to Eliminate Them II. NEGATIVE CONCEPTS 1 19 0.19 Wrong or Bad Solution II. NEGATIVE CONCEPTS m 15 0.15 No Nuclear, Stop Producing II. NEGATIVE CONCEPTS n 14 0.14 Unjust II. NEGATIVE CONCEPTS 0 10 0.10 Violence II. NEGATIVE CONCEPTS p 5 0.05 Prohibited II. NEGATIVE CONCEPTS q 15 0.15 Negative - Other II. NEGATIVE CONCEPTS TOTAL 2068 20.68 a 245 2.45 Non-Nevada Locations III. LOCATIONS b 243 2.43 Storage Location / Containers III. LOCATIONS C 237 2.37 Desert / Barren III. LOCATIONS (Table continues) What Comes to Mind / 11 Table 2, continued CAT PER- NO. FRO CENT SUBORDINATE CATEGORY SUPERORDINATE CATEGORY d 227 2.27 Nevada/ Las Vegas III. LOCATIONS e 215 2.15 Waste/ Garbage/ Dumps III. WCATIONS f 107 1.07 Isolated III. WCATIONS g (,6 0.(,6 Facilities and Their Construction III. WCATIONS h 30 0.30 Bury It III. WCATIONS i 20 0.20 Locations - Other III. WCATIONS TOTAL 1390 13.90 a 336 3.36 Radiation / Nuclear IV. RADIATION, PHYSICAL STATES b 55 0.55 Chemicals & Physical States (Liquids, Gases) IV. RADIATION, PHYSICAL STATES C 33 0.33 Fire/ Hot IV. RADIATION, PHYSICAL STATES TOTAL 424 4.24 a 228 2.28 Safe and Secure V. SAFETY, SECURITY b 44 0.44 Facilities Security V. SAFETY, SECURITY C 32 0.32 Control, Containment and Cleanup V. SAFETY, SECURITY d 27 0.27 Caution V. SAFETY, SECURITY TOTAL 331 3.31 a 119 1.19 Problems VI. CONCERNS b 58 0.58 Questions VI. CONCERNS 25 0.25 Health VI. CONCERNS d 19 0.19 Unsolvable VI. CONCERNS e 18 0.18 Family VI. CONCERNS f 14 0.14 Uncontrolled VI. CONCERNS g 13 0.13 Controversy VI. CONCERNS h 11 0.11 Unpredictable VI. CONCERNS 8 0.08 Mistakes VI. CONCERNS 7 0.07 Serious VI. CONCERNS k 5 0.05 Skeptical VI. CONCERNS 1 14 0.14 Concerns - Other VI. CONCERNS TOTAL 311 3.11 a 125 1.25 Government / Industry VII. SOCIETAL INSTITUTIONS b 106 1.06 Military/ Weapons VII. SOCIETAL INSTITUTIONS 42 0.42 Science, Technology, Research and Progress VII. SOCIETAL INSTITUTIONS d 31 0.31 Political Process VII. SOCIETAL INSTITUTIONS TOTAL 304 3.04 a 124 1.24 Natural Environment VIII. ECOLOGY b 25 0.25 Food and Water Supply VIII. ECOLOGY C 9 0.09 Climate VIII. ECOLOGY TOTAL 158 1.58 a 156 1.56 Necessary IX. NECESSARY TOTAL 156 1.56 (Table continues) What Comes to Mind / 12 Table 2, continued CAT PER- NO. FRO CENT SUBORDINATE CATEGORY SUPERORDINATE CATEGORY a 58 0.58 Cost X. ECONOMICS b 57 0.57 Employment X. ECONOMICS 29 0.29 Money / Income X. ECONOMICS d 5 0.05 Economics - Other X. ECONOMICS TOTAL 149 1.49 a 57 0.57 Uninformed XI. INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE b 39 0.39 Unsure / Unknown XI. INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE 24 0.24 Curiosity,and Knowledge XI. INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE d 9 0.09 Media XI.INFORMATION,KNOWLEDGE e 2 0.02 Information, Knowledge - Other XI. INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE TOTAL 131 1.31 a 59 0.59 Positive, Unconcerned XII. POSIDVE b 25 0.25 Effective XII. POSIDVE 9 0.09 Improved Environment XII. POSIDVE d 3 0.03 Feasible XII. POSIDVE e 1 0.01 Positive - Other XII.POSIDVE TOTAL 97 0.97 a 85 0.85 Future / Long Lasting XIII. MISCELLANEOUS b 65 0.65 Energy / Power XIII. MISCELLANEOUS 38 0.38 Transportation XIII. MISCELLANEOUS d 31 0.31 Find Alternatives XIII. MISCELLANEOUS e 29 0.29 Natural Disasters (Potential or Actual) XIII. MISCELLANEOUS 22 0.22 Population XIII. MISCELLANEOUS g 21 0.21 Degree of Distance XIII. MISCELLANEOUS h 20 0.20 Neutral / Apathetic / Mixed Feelings XIII. MISCELLANEOUS i 14 0.14 Supervision / Responsibility XIII. MISCELLANEOUS j 12 0.12 Public Figures XIII. MISCELLANEOUS k 11 0.11 Fiction XIII. MISCELLANEOUS 9 0.09 Problem Avoidance XIII. MISCELLANEOUS m 8 0.08 Inevitability XIII. MISCELLANEOUS n 5 0.05 Faith XIII. MISCELLANEOUS 0 4 0.04 0.1(. If ... XIII. MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL 374 3.74 What Comes to Mind / 13 Table 3 NUCLEAR WASTE IMAGE HIERARCHY -- TOTALS FOR FOUR SURVEYS NUMBER OF IMAGES PERCENT COMB NEV NAT CAL PHX COMB NEV NAT CAL PHX I. NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES a Dangerous / Toxic 1683 499 393 403 388 16.83 20.38 16.21 16.15 14.74 b Death / Sickness 783 205 183 190 205 7.83 8.37 155 7.61 7.79 C Environmental Damage 692 166 199 187 140 6.92 6.78 8.21 7.49 5.32 d Leakage 216 90 44 41 41 2.16 3.68 1.82 1.64 156 e Destruction 133 30 46 25 32 1.33 1.23 1.90 1.00 1.22 f Pain and Suffering 18 4 6 4 4 0.18 0.16 0.25 0.16 0.15 g Uninhabitable 7 1 2 3 1 O.o7 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.04 h Local Repository Area Consequences 6 0 4 2 0 0.06 0.00 0.17 0.08 0.00 Negative Consequences - Other 8 0 4 4 0 0.08 0.00 0.17 0.16 0.00 TOTAL 3546 995 881 859 811 35.46 40.65 36.34 34.42 30.81 II. NEGATIVE CONCEPTS a Bad / Negative 681 126 159 200 196 6.81 5.15 656 8.01 7.45 b Scary 401 93 107 100 102 4.01 3.80 4.41 4.01 3.88 C Unnecessary/ Opposed 296 74 66 68 88 2.96 3.02 2.72 2.72 3.34 d Not Near Me 273 33 79 90 71 2.73 1.35 3.26 3.61 2.70 e War / Annihilation 126 11 27 28 59 1.26 0.45 1.11 1.12 2.24 f Societally Unpopular 41 8 17 6 10 0.41 0.33 0.70 0.24 0.38 g Crime and Corruption 40 8 8 14 10 0.40 0.33 0.33 056 0.38 h Decay / Slime / Smell 39 13 6 6 14 0.39 053 0.25 0.24 053 Darkness / Emptyness 37 4 9 12 12 0.37 0.16 0.37 0.48 0.46 j Negative Toward Decision Makers and Process 32 8 10 10 4 0.32 0.33 0.41 0.40 0.15 k Commands to Not Build or to Eliminate Them 24 5 8 7 4 0.24 0.20 0.33 0.28 0.15 I Wrong or Bad Solution 19 6 5 3 5 0.19 0.25 0.21 0.12 0.19 m No Nuclear, Stop Producing 15 1 6 6 2 0.15 0.04 0.25 0.24 0.08 n Unjust 14 3 5 4 2 0.14 0.12 0.21 0.16 0.08 o Violence 10 5 1 2 2 0.10 0.20 0.04 0.08 0.08 p Prohibited 5 3 0 2 0 0.05 0.12 0.00 0.08 0.00 q Negative - Other 15 1 5 5 4 0.15 0.04 0.21 0.20 0.15 TOTAL 2068 402 518 563 585 20.68 16.42 21.37 2256 22.23 III. LOCATIONS a Non-Nevada Locations 245 6 60 78 100 2.45 0.25 2.48 3.13 3.80 b Storage Location / Containers 243 71 66 57 49 2.43 2.90 2.72 2.28 1.86 C Desert / Barren 237 31 67 64 75 2.37 1.27 2.76 256 2.85 d Nevada / Las Vegas 227 44 39 45 99 2.27 1.80 1.61 1.80 3.76 e Waste/ Garbage/ Dumps 215 50 38 50 77 2.15 2.04 157 2.00 2.93 f Isolated 107 13 32 32 30 1.07 053 1.32 1.28 1.14 g Facilities and Their Construction 66 24 15 19 8 0.66 0.98 0.62 0.76 0.30 h Bury It 30 13 6 11 0 0.30 053 0.25 0.44 0.00 Locations - Other 20 0 9 7 4 0.20 0.00 0.37 0.28 0.15 TOTAL 1390 252 332 363 442 13.90 10.29 13.70 1454 16.79 (Table continues) What Comes to Mind / 14 Table 3, continued NUMBER OF IMAGES PERCENT COMB NEV NAT CAL PHX COMB NEV NAT CAL PHX IV. RADIATION, PHYSICAL STATES a Radiation / Nuclear 336 74 51 63 148 3.36 3.02 2.10 2.52 5.62 b Chemicals & Physical States (Liquids, Gases) 55 18 15 13 9 0.55 0.74 0.62 0.52 0.34 c Fire/ Hot 33 3 8 9 13 0.33 0.12 0.33 0.36 0.49 424 95 74 85 170 4.24 3.88 3.05 3.41 6.46 V. SAFEIY, SECURfIY a Safe and Secure 228 102 48 47 31 2.28 4.17 1.98 1.88 1.18 b Facilities Security 44 2 10 25 7 0.44 0.08 0.41 1.00 0.27 C Control, Containment and Oeanup 32 11 10 8 3 0.32 0.45 0.41 0.32 0.11 d Caution 27 13 7 2 5 0.27 0.53 0.29 0.08 0.19 TOTAL 331 128 75 82 46 3.31 5.23 3.09 3.29 1.75 VI. CONCERNS a Problems 119 22 32 26 39 1.19 0.90 1.32 1.04 1.48 b Questions 58 1 23 18 16 0.58 0.04 0.95 0.72 0.61 C Health 25 14 5 4 2 0.25 0.57 0.21 0.16 0.08 d Unsolvable 19 1 5 12 1 0.19 0.04 0.21 0.48 0.04 e Family 18 6 3 5 4 0.18 0.25 0.12 0.20 0.15 f Uncontrolled 14 5 2 3 4 0.14 0.20 0.08 0.12 0.15 g Controversy 13 5 3 4 1 0.13 0.20 0.12 0.16 0.04 h Unpredictable 11 2 3 3 3 0.11 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.11 Mistakes 8 1 3 3 1 0.08 0.04 0.12 0.12 0.04 j Serious 7 2 0 2 3 O.o7 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.11 k Skeptical 5 2 1 2 0 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.00 Concerns - Other 14 8 2 3 1 0.14 0.33 0.08 0.12 0.04 TOTAL 311 69 82 85 75 3.11 2.82 3.38 3.41 2.85 VII. SOCIETAL INSIITUTIONS a Government / Industry 125 27 25 26 47 1.25 1.10 1.03 1.04 1.79 b Military/ Weapons 106 16 23 10 57 1.06 0.65 0.95 0.40 2.17 c Science, Technology, Research and Progress 42 8 8 17 9 0.42 0.33 0.33 0.68 0.34 d Political Process 31 12 8 3 8 0.31 0.49 0.33 0.12 0.30 TOTAL 304 63 64 56 121 3.04 2.57 2.64 2.24 4.60 VIIl. ECOLOGY a Natural Environment 124 46 28 22 28 1.24 1.88 1.16 0.88 1.06 b Food and Water Supply 25 5 9 7 4 0.25 0.20 0.37 0.28 0.15 c Oimate 9 3 2 2 2 0.09 0.12 0.08 0.08 0.08 TOTAL 158 54 39 31 34 1.58 2.21 1.61 1.24 1.29 IX. NECESSARY a Necessary 156 40 36 46 34 1.56 1.63 1.49 1.84 1.29 156 40 36 46 34 1.56 1.63 1.49 1.84 1.29 X. ECONOMICS a Cost 58 11 20 8 19 0.58 0.45 0.83 0.32 0.72 b Employment 57 44 4 5 4 0.57 1.80 0.17 0.20 0.15 C Money / Income 29 14 2 6 7 0.29 0.57 0.08 0.24 0.27 d Economics - Other 5 5 0 0 0 0.05 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 149 74 26 19 30 1.49 3.02 1.07 0.76 1.14 (Table continues) What Comes to Mind / 15 Table 3, continued NUMBER OF IMAGES PERCENT COMB NEV NAT CAL PHX COMB NEV NAT CAL PHX XI. INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE a Uninformed 57 7 11 15 24 057 0.29 0.45 0.60 0.91 b Unsure / Unknown 39 15 5 7 12 0.39 0.61 0.21 0.28 0.46 C Curiosity, Interest and Knowledge 24 8 2 7 7 0.24 0.33 0.08 0.28 0.27 d Media 9 1 1 3 4 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.12 0.15 e Information, Knowledge - Other 2 2 0 0 0 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 131 33 19 32 47 1.31 1.35 0.78 1.28 1.79 XII. POSITIVE a Positive, Unconcerned 59 18 11 15 15 059 0.74 0.45 0.60 057 b Effective 25 5 9 10 1 0.25 0.20 0.37 0.40 0.04 C Improved Environment 9 4 2 2 1 0.09 0.16 0.08 0.08 0.04 d Feasible 3 1 2 0 0 O.Q3 0.04 0.08 0.00 0.00 e Positive - Other 1 0 1 0 0 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 97 28 25 27 17 0.97 1.14 1.03 1.08 0.65 XIII. MISCELLANEOUS a Future / Long Lasting 85 17 24 32 11 0.85 0.69 0.99 1.28 0.42 b Energy / Power 65 2 11 16 36 0.65 0.08 0.45 0.64 1.37 c Transportation 38 29 4 2 3 0.38 1.18 0.17 0.08 0.11 d Find Alternatives 31 3 11 11 6 0.31 0.12 0.45 0.44 0.23 e Natural Disasters (Potential or Actual) 29 16 6 6 1 0.29 0.65 0.25 0.24 0.04 f Population 22 6 7 7 2 0.22 0.25 0.29 0.28 0.08 g Degree of Distance 21 17 2 2 1 0.21 0.69 0.08 0.08 0.04 h Neutral / Apathetic / Mixed Feelings 20 1 3 5 11 0.20 0.04 0.12 0.20 0.42 Supervision / Responsibility 14 5 7 1 1 0.14 0.20 0.29 0.04 0.04 j Public Figures 12 0 3 3 6 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.23 k Fiction 11 0 2 6 3 0.11 0.00 0.08 0.24 0.11 I Problem Avoidance 9 0 2 3 4 0.09 0.00 0.08 0.12 0.15 m Inevitability 8 3 3 1 1 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.04 0.04 n Faith 5 1 3 0 1 0.05 0.04 0.12 0.00 0.04 o O.K. If ... 4 0 1 3 0 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.00 TOTAL 374 100 89 98 87 3.74 4.08 3.67 3.93 3.31 TOTAL NUMBER OF ITEMS CATEGORIZED 9439 2333 2260 2346 2499 NUMBER OF UNCATEGORIZED ITEMS 561 115 164 150 133 TOTAL NUMBER OF ITEMS 10000 2448 2424 2496 2632 PERCENT OF ITEMS CATEGORIZED 94.39 95.30 93.23 93.99 94.95 What Comes to Mind/ 16 Table 4 presents the combined and individual survey results for the 92 subordinate categories, unconstrained by their superordinate categories, ordered by overall frequency in the combined total. A complete listing of all 10,000 images, including those that were not categorized, is presented in the Appendix. These various tables contain a great amount of information about the nature of people's images of a nuclear-waste repository. The most obvious and most important finding is the extreme negative quality of these images. The three most frequent single associations were dangerous (n = 539), danger (n = 378), and death (n = 306). The dominant subordinate category, Dangerous/Toxic, contained almost 17% of the total number of images. The five leading subordinate categories Dangerous/Toxic 16.83% Death/Sickness Environmental Damage Bad/Negative Scary were thoroughly negative in affective quality and accounted for more than 42% of the total number of images. The two dominant superordinate categories, Negative Consequences and Negative Concepts accounted for more than 56% of the total number of images. Many of the smaller categories and subcategories were also quite negative in tone. Positive imagery was indeed rare. Category XII, Positive, accounted for only 1 % of the images. Other generally positive concepts, Necessary (Category IX), employment What Comes to Mind / 17 Table 4 SUBORDINATE CATEGORIES ORDERED BY DECREASING FREQUENCY NUMBER OF IMAGES PERCENT COMB NEV NAT CAL PHX COMB NEV NAT CAL PHX I. a Dangerous / Toxic 1683 499 393 403 388 16.83 20.38 16.21 16.15 14.74 I. b Death / Sickness 783 205 183 190 205 7.83 8.37 755 7.61 7.79 I. C Environmental Damage 692 166 199 187 140 6.92 6.78 8.21 7.49 5.32 II. a Bad / Negative 681 126 159 200 196 6.81 5.15 656 8.01 7.45 II. b Scary 401 93 107 100 102 4.01 3.80 4.41 4.01 3.88 IV. a Radiation / Nuclear 336 74 51 63 148 3.36 3.02 2.10 252 5.62 II. c Unnecessary/ Opposed 296 74 66 68 88 2.96 3.02 2.72 2.72 3.34 II. d Not Near Me 273 33 79 90 71 2.73 1.35 3.26 3.61 2.70 III. a Non-Nevada Locations 245 6 60 78 100 2.45 0.25 2.48 3.13 3.80 III. b Storage Location / Containers 243 71 66 57 49 2.43 2.90 2.72 2.28 1.86 III. c Desert / Barren 237 31 67 64 75 2.37 1.27 2.76 256 2.85 V. a Safe and Secure 228 102 48 47 31 2.28 4.17 1.98 1.88 1.18 III. d Nevada/ Las Vegas 227 44 39 45 99 2.27 1.80 1.61 1.80 3.76 I. d Leakage 216 90 44 41 41 2.16 3.68 1.82 1.64 156 III. e Waste / Garbage / Dumps 215 50 38 50 77 2.15 2.04 157 2.00 2.93 IX. a Necessary 156 40 36 46 34 156 1.63 1.49 1.84 1.29 I. e Destruction 133 30 46 25 32 1.33 1.23 1.90 1.00 1.22 II. e War / Annihilation 126 11 27 28 59 1.26 0.45 1.11 1.12 2.24 VII. a Government / Industry 125 27 25 26 47 1.25 1.10 1.03 1.04 1.79 VIII. a Natural Environment 124 46 28 22 28 1.24 1.88 1.16 0.88 1.06 VI. a Problems 119 22 32 26 39 1.19 0.90 1.32 1.04 1.48 III. f Isolated 107 13 32 32 30 1.07 053 1.32 1.28 1.14 VII. b Military/ Weapons 106 16 23 10 57 1.06 0.65 0.95 0.40 2.17 XIII. a Future / Long Lasting 85 17 24 32 11 0.85 0.69 0.99 1.28 0.42 III. g Facilities and Their Construction 66 24 15 19 8 0.66 0.98 0.62 0.76 0.30 XIII. b Energy / Power 65 2 11 16 36 0.65 0.08 0.45 0.64 1.37 XII. a Positive, Unconcerned 59 18 11 15 15 059 0.74 0.45 0.60 057 VI. b Questions 58 1 23 18 16 058 0.04 0.95 0.72 0.61 X. a Cost 58 11 20 8 19 058 0.45 0.83 0.32 0.72 XI. a Uninformed 57 7 11 15 24 057 0.29 0.45 0.60 0.91 X. b Employment 57 44 4 5 4 057 1.80 0.17 0.20 0.15 IV. b Chemicals & Physical States (Liquids, Gases) 55 18 15 13 9 055 0.74 0.62 052 0.34 V. b Facilities Security 44 2 10 25 7 0.44 0.08 0.41 1.00 0.27 VII. c Science, Technology, Research and Progress 42 8 8 17 9 0.42 0.33 0.33 0.68 0.34 II. f Societally Unpopular 41 8 17 6 10 0.41 0.33 0.70 0.24 0.38 II. g Crime and Corruption 40 8 8 14 10 0.40 0.33 0.33 0.56 0.38 II. h Decay / Slime / Smell 39 13 6 6 14 0.39 053 0.25 0.25 053 XI. b Unsure/ Unknown 39 15 5 7 12 0.39 0.61 0.21 0.28 0.46 XIII. c Transportation 38 29 4 2 3 0.38 1.18 0.17 0.08 0.11 n. Darkness / Emptyness 37 4 9 12 12 0.37 0.16 0.37 0.48 0.46 IV. C Fire/ Hot 33 3 8 9 13 0.33 0.12 0.33 0.36 0.49 V. C Control, Containment and Cleanup 32 11 10 8 3 0.32 0.45 0.41 0.32 0.11 II. j Negative Toward Decision Makers and Process 32 8 10 10 4 0.32 0.33 0.41 0.40 0.15 VII. d Political Process 31 12 8 3 8 0.31 0.49 0.33 0.12 0.30 XID. d Find Alternatives 31 3 11 11 6 0.31 0.12 0.45 0.44 0.23 III. h Bury It 30 13 6 11 0 0.30 053 0.25 0.44 0.00 XID. e Natural Disasters (Potential or Actual) 29 16 6 6 1 0.29 0.65 0.25 0.24 0.04 (Table continues) What Comes to Mind / 18 Table 4, continued NUMBER OF IMAGES PERCENT COMB NEV NAT CAL PHX COMB NEV NAT CAL PHX X. c Money / Income 29 14 2 6 7 0.29 057 0.08 0.24 0.27 V. d Caution 27 13 7 2 5 0.27 053 0.29 0.08 0.19 VI. c Health 25 14 5 4 2 0.25 057 0.21 0.16 0.08 VIII. b Food and Water Supply 25 5 9 7 4 0.25 0.20 0.37 0.28 0.15 XII. b Effective 25 5 9 10 1 0.25 0.20 0.37 0.40 0.04 II. k Commands to Not Build or to Eliminate Them 24 5 8 7 4 0.24 0.20 0.33 0.28 0.15 XI. c Curiosity, Interest and Knowledge 24 8 2 7 7 0.24 0.33 0.08 0.28 0.27 XIII. f Population 22 6 7 7 2 0.22 0.25 0.29 0.28 0.08 XIII. g Degree of Distance 21 17 2 2 1 0.21 0.69 0.08 0.08 0.04 III. i Locations - Other 20 0 9 7 4 0.20 0.00 0.37 0.28 0.15 XIII. h Neutral / Apathetic / Mixed Feelings 20 1 3 5 11 0.20 0.04 0.12 0.20 0.42 VI. d Unsolvable 19 1 5 12 1 0.19 0.04 0.21 0.48 0.04 II. 1 Wrong or Bad Solution 19 6 5 3 5 0.19 0.25 0.21 0.12 0.19 VI. e Family 18 6 3 5 4 0.18 0.25 0.12 0.20 0.15 I. f Pain and Suffering 18 4 6 4 4 0.18 0.16 0.25 0.16 0.15 II. q Negative - Other 15 1 5 5 4 0.15 0.04 0.21 0.20 0.15 II. m Nuclear, Stop Producing 15 1 6 6 2 0.15 0.04 0.25 0.24 0.08 VI. f Uncontrolled 14 5 2 3 4 0.14 0.20 0.08 0.12 0.15 II. n Unjust 14 3 5 4 2 0.14 0.12 0.21 0.16 0.08 XIII. i Supervision/ Responsibility 14 5 7 1 1 0.14 0.20 0.29 0.04 0.04 VI. 1 Concerns - Other 14 8 2 3 1 0.14 0.33 0.08 0.12 0.04 VI. g Controversy 13 5 3 4 1 0.13 0.20 0.12 0.16 0.04 XIII. j Public Figures 12 0 3 3 6 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.23 XIII. k Fiction 11 0 2 6 3 0.11 0.00 0.08 0.24 0.11 VI. h Unpredictable 11 2 3 3 3 0.11 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.11 II. o Violence 10 5 1 2 2 0.10 0.20 0.04 0.08 0.08 XII. c Improved Environment 9 4 2 2 1 0.09 0.16 0.08 0.08 0.04 XI. d Media 9 1 1 3 4 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.12 0.15 VIII. c Qimate 9 3 2 2 2 0.09 0.12 0.08 0.08 0.08 XIII. I Problem Avoidance 9 0 2 3 4 0.09 0.00 0.08 0.12 0.15 I. i Negative Consequences - Other 8 0 4 4 0 0.08 0.00 0.17 0.16 0.00 XIII. m Inevitability 8 3 3 1 1 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.04 0.04 VI. i Mistakes 8 1 3 3 1 0.08 0.04 0.12 0.12 0.04 VI. j Serious 7 2 0 2 3 O.o7 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.11 I. g Uninhabitable 7 1 2 3 1 O.o7 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.04 I. h Local Repository Area Consequences 6 0 4 2 0 0.06 0.00 0.17 0.08 0.00 X. d Economics - Other 5 5 0 0 0 0.05 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 II. p Prohibited 5 3 0 2 0 0.05 0.12 0.00 0.08 0.00 XIII. n Faith 5 1 3 0 1 0.05 0.04 0.12 0.00 0.04 VI. k Skeptical 5 2 1 2 0 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.00 XIII. o O.K. If... 4 0 1 3 0 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.00 XII. d Feasible 3 1 2 0 0 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.00 0.00 XI. e Information, Knowledge - Other 2 2 0 0 0 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 XII. e Positive - Other 1 0 1 0 0 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 What Comes to Mind / 19 (Category Xb), and money/income (Category Xe) combined to total only 2.5% of the images. Other noteworthy features of the combined data are: • There were 227 associations to Nevada or places in Nevada (Category Ille). Of these 155 were Nevada, 21 were Las Vegas, 29 were Yucca Mountain, and the rest were other cities or place names. There were also 36 mentions of New Mexico, the state in which the WIPP storage facility is located. • There were 232 associations pertaining to war, annihilation, weapons, and things military (Categories Ile and Vllb ). • There were surprisingly few (85) associations relating to the long duration of storage necessary for nuclear wastes or the transfer of risk and responsibilities to future generations (Xllla). • There were surprisingly few (38) transportation images (XIIIc). • The famous NIMBY position (not in my backyard) was expressed in 273 images (Category lid). • Nuclear-waste repositories are sometimes referred to derisively as "dumps." Although dump imagery was definitely present, it was infrequent ( 40 associations). • Studies of risk perception have found that people perceive the risks of nuclear reactors and nuclear wastes as highly unknown, uncontrollable, inequitable, and of a dread quality. There were definite signs of these qualities in the images. For example, although the word "dread" was never mentioned specifically, many of the responses categorized as scary (lib) reflect this quality (e.g., fear, horror, What Comes to Mind / 20 apprehension, terror). There were 39 associations in the category labeled unsure/unknown, and only 14 labeled uncontrolled. Inequity or unfairness was mentioned only a few times. • Lack of trust in DOE or other governmental agents is a common finding in studies of public perceptions of nuclear-waste management. Given the obvious importance of distrust, it appears surprisingly infrequently in the image set (mostly in Category Ilj, Negative Toward Decision Makers and Process, and Categories m and Vii, dealing with mistakes). A number of images in the Bad/Negative category also seem to reflect lack of trust. • Jones et al. (1984) have attempted to characterize the key dimensions of stigma. Two of their major defining characteristics of stigma are peril and negative aesthetic qualities (ugliness, repulsion). These qualities dominate the repository images. Peril is pervasive throughout Categories I and II and elsewhere and negative aesthetics form the bulk of the subordinate categories bad/negative (Ila) and Decay, Slime, Smell (Ilh). 3.2 Analyses of Individual Surveys Is the picture derived from all 10,000 images similar for each of the separate survey samples? Close examination of Tables 2 and 3 shows that a) there are differences in some image frequencies from one sample to another but b) these differences are quite small and do not change the interpretations in any important ways. The basic similarity across samples is evident from the totals for the two most dominant and most negative categories, I and II. Although the Nevada respondents had the What Comes to Mind / 21 highest percentage of images in Category I, they were lowest on Category II. Combining totals for the two categories gives a very uniform picture, ranging from a high of 61.9% in the National survey to a low of 55.9% in the Phoenix survey. To the extent that there were sample differences, Nevada seemed to stand apart from the other three samples. Nevadans expressed relatively more imagery with regard to leakage (Category Id), safety and security (Va), economics (Category X as a whole and employment and money/income images in particular), transportation (Xlllc), and degree of distance (Xlllg). · Nevadans had relatively less imagery regarding bad/negative things (Ila), not near me (lid), war and annihilation (Ile), non-Nevada locations (Illa), desert, and barrenness (file), isolation (IIIf), questions (Vlb), and energy and power (Xlllb). Phoenix residents also had a number of small imagery idiosyncrasies. They had relatively more images about Nevada and Las Vegas (illd), waste, garbage, and dumps (Ille), radiation and nuclear (Na), Government and industry (Vila), military and weapons (Vllb ), and energy and power (XIIIg). They were lower with regard to dangerous and toxic (Ia), environmental damage (le), and safety and security (Va). The National sample stood out only with regard to having more imagery about destruction (le) and less about waste, garbage, and dumps. The California sample stood out with regard to having more imagery about facilities' security (Vb). Part of the small deviance exhibited by the Nevada sample may be attributable to the fact that we have included data for the Nye, Lincoln, and Esmeralda County samples in the statewide total. These counties often differed from the statewide sample, hence their inclusion biases the statewide total somewhat. This can be seen from Table 4, which lists What Comes to Mind / 22 specific images that are disproportionately higher in the state sample ( above the line) and disproportionately higher in the counties (below the line). The state sample tends to be higher on the negative images for Categories I and II. The counties have relatively more imagery dealing with transportation, location (i.e., the word "location"), management, ugliness, economy, and necessity. Note that the counties are not always similar either. Lincoln County residents expressed considerably more imagery related to transportation than did residents of Esmeralda County. Nye County had relatively more imagery regarding management, economy, and necessity and less imagery regarding death. 3.3 Demo"raphic Variables We have not yet completed a full analysis of the relationship between demographic variables and imagery. However, we have examined the relationships between demographic variables and a person's self-rating of the positive or negative affective value of his or her repository images. Table 6 presents these data for the first image given by the respondent in the California and National surveys.2 Examination of these data shows that demographic effects were present but were rarely large. The negativity of repository images is remarkably consistent across people of different ages, incomes, education levels, and political persuasions. There was a slight tendency for more women than men to rate their images as negative and for more men to rate their images as positive. People aged 65 years or 2 Each of these surveys had two subsamples depending on whether respondents provided images for cities or states. Each subsample had 400 or more respondents. Data in Table 6 are partitioned by subsamples. What Comes to Mind / 23 older were a bit more likely to rate their images as positive, as were people who reported their political orientation as very conservative. 4.0 Discussion 4.1 What Have We Learned? What have we learned by asking more than 3500 people to perform the rather odd task of free-associating to the concept of a nuclear waste repository? Some would answer: the obvious--that people don't like nuclear waste. 11What did you expect?" We believe these images demonstrate an aversion so remarkably strong that to call it "negative" or a "dislike" hardly does it justice. What these images reveal are pervasive qualities of dread, revulsion, and anger; the raw materials of stigmatization and political opposition. To us, these findings were not so obvious, prior to the studies. Nuclear waste is a by-product of an impressive technology capable of producing massive amounts of energy. Should there not be some representation of energy and its benefits--electricity, light, heat, employment, health, progress, the good life--scattered among the images? We observed almost none. Second, we did not ask people to reflect on nuclear waste. We asked them about a storage facility (Phoenix survey) and a repositmy (other surveys). One might expect, following the predominant view of experts in this field, to find a substantial number of repository images reflecting the qualities "necessary" and "safe" (see footnote 1). We observed almost none. What Comes to Mind / 24 Table 5 Repository Images in Four Nevada Samples Esmeralda Word/Image Total Number Statewide Nye County Lincoln County County Base Rate 2476 60.0 19.7 10. 10.2 (100%) Cancer 34 82.4 11.8 2.9 2.9 Tragedy 17 82.4 5.9 11.8 0.0 Future Generations 30 76.7 10.0 3.3 10.0 Health 64 75.0 10.9 6.3 7.8 Chemicals 43 74.4 18.6 0.0 7.0 Death 118 72.9 7.6 6.8 12.7 Contamination 58 70.7 15.5 3.4 10.3 Negative 80 70.0 13.8 8.8 7.5 Water 49 67.3 14.3 10.2 8.2 Radioactivity 70 65.7 22.9 10.0 1.4 Danger 321 65.4 15.6 9.7 9.3 Contaminant 106 65.1 22.6 5.7 6.6 Pollution 96 64.6 17.7 8.3 9.4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Controversial 67 53.7 19.4 16.4 10.4 Transportation 29 51.7 17.2 24.1 6.9 Safety 149 49.0 26.8 10.1 14.1 Location 55 47.3 16.4 18.2 18.2 Management 32 43.8 37.5 9.4 9.4 Ugly 54 38.9 25.9 18.5 16.7 Economy 77 36.4 35.1 11.7 16.9 Necessary 70 28.6 34.3 18.6 18.6 Note: Cell entries are percentages, which sum to 100 in each row. Entries above the line reflect specific images for which the state proportion is higher than its overall baseline (60%). Entries below the line reflect images for which the state proportion is lower than its baseline ( and the county proportions are generally higher than their overall baseline). What Comes to Mind / 25 Table 6 Repository Evaluations in Four Surveys: Demographic Effects California - Cities Suivcx California - States Suivcx FEELINGS ABOVI' llfE FlRST llfOUGlfl' OR IMAGE lliAT COMES 10 MIND FEEUNGS ABOUTllfE FlRST llfOUGlfl' OR IMAGE lliAT COMES 10 MIND ABOUT AN UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR WAS'Tc REPOSITORY ABOUT AN UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY Tabula- COL• 129 VERY SMWHJ' NEU- SMWHJ' VERY DON'f Tabwa- COL• 129 VERY SMWHJ' NEU- SMWlfl' VERY DONT ted\Nl ~Gro!:!I!! POSTIV POSTIV TRAL NEGTIV NEG11V KNOW ted(N! ~Gro!:!i!! ~~ TRAL NEGTIV NEG11V KNOW 372 ENTIRE SAMPLE 13* 11* II* 13* $.5* 2* 379 EN'llRE SAMPLE 11* 6'l!t 11* 12* 39* l* 112 Mamrced 16 19 u 16 33 2 31 Divorced 11 • 13 s 63 0 8 ~ 0 13 13 13 63 0 7 ~ u 0 0 29 S7 0 29 u 10 17 10 .. 0 23 13 4 9 4 61 9 0 l{,oj No-Scboo:f 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.fd t/o ~ll.!,1 0 0 0 0 0 0 s Camplld Ondo 20 0 40 20 20 0 3 ·~lrd OfoOI . 0 0 0 (if 33 0 22 Camplld (]:Mid '). U u s 5 u 5S 9 2S Cbmµ,11<1 CIM II 12 a 12 12 .. a 93 111st, SCIIDol ·Q ~ IS 13 9 II 52 I 75 Hi&)'a~l Onoi 16 7 9 9 S7 I 131 S01ii,CcGo~W- 11 10 8 IS .53 2 us SJl(10 • ~.m IS 8 10 15 SI 0 SI 1Sll - ~.:!I'» 10 2 12 18 S9 0 2J6 . ~,m • 4 0 1:1 62 4 29 w;.s;m • $8,l.ll9') 14 0 17 7 S9 3 34 fJ:,J edO.U 6 9 IS 1S so 6 31 1MJm a!ld Om-· s 11 II • 63 3 171 Male 14 8 II 16 47 4 175 Male 13 9 15 11 so 201 Female 11 9 s 11 62 1 204 Female a 3 7 13 (if ISO llepublican 11 II 13 12 .53 0 160 Rq,ublian 10 6 9 II 63 I 117 Dcllleral 12 0 12 IS S4 a 23 Very Lb,ra1 4 4 17 4 6S 4 91 So..-b.l!Li:>eral • 2 a 21 S9 2 8S So!DftlhalU>cral 7 4 13 a (if I Its Middl< of tbc R..i 14 13 a 6 S8 I 133 Middl< of the R..i II s II 12 S9 I 100 SwlwConKrva!iw 16 12 9 10 SI 2 102 Swhat ConKrnliw 12 10 10 10 58 I 28 Very Comerva1iw II • 7 32 43 4 22 Very Comervative 23 s s 36 r1 s Row pcra,ntap IUlD acroa to I~. Row pcra,ntap ,um acroa to I~. National - Cities Suivc:z: National - States Suivc:z: FEEIJNGS ABOl!r llfE FlRSf llfOUGlfl' OR IMAGE lliAT COMES 10 MIND FEELINGS ABOUT llfE ARST THOUGlfl' OR IMAGE 1liA T COMES 10 MIND AB0l!r AN UNDERQRO!,!ND NUCLEAR W~ REPOSITORY AB0l!r AN UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY Tabula- COL• 129 VERY SMWlfl' NEU- SMWHJ' VERY DON'f Tabula- COL• 129 VERY SMWHT NEU- SMWlfl' VERY DON'f led(Nl ~Gro!:!i!! POSTIV POSTIV TRAL NFGTIV NEGTIV KNOW led(Nl ~Groue! POS'l1V ~ TRAL NFGTIV NFGTIV KNOW 395 ENTIRE SAMPLE 20* 9* 9* "' SK 4* 3'l\) El'mRE SAMPLE 14* 6'l!t I°" 11* 39* 2* 229 Married 19 7 10 10 50 4 217 Married 13 a 9 11 S6 2 4 I..Mna u Married 50 0 0 0 50 0 3 Living u M&!Ti«I 0 0 0 0 100 0 96 New,r B«n Mamrocd 14 0 3 3 77 3 6 ~ 17 33 0 0 so 0 s ~ 20 0 20 0 60 0 30 27 17 17 3 30 7 22 23 9 14 s so 0 I ll..cl :lt@l.:l''.a 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 ~!JQ~nf.a 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 23 IS 0 0 46 1S 8 2S 0 0 0 63 13 31 =ll!dG~~ll 29 a II 8 42 3 31 Co=G~'li,U 10 3 10 6 71 0 120 :t ~booJ G8:"" 21 13 a s 49 s 99 H"' $dio;JI C. rod IS • • 9 S8 2 103 18 II 10 9 .. s 97 Somt~J!'&tuc IS I s 10 66 2 82 ~Uo!~uradu;iU 17 2 13 12 55 0 91 Cotlqc: (,~,:a.:~ II 12 IS 9 S2 I 31 l"miJndltll<- Dqr 18 II 3 13 5S 0 42 l'IIC~IWtDt,St 12 7 14 14 S2 0 347 While 19 10 9 a so 4 328 While 14 6 10 10 S8 I 28 Bladt 29 7 7 7 so 0 17 Bladt 0 0 6 0 &2 12 8 Asian 2S 13 13 13 31 0 4 Aoian 2S 0 2S 0 so 0 4 American Indian so 0 0 2S 2S 0 2 American Indian 0 0 0 0 100 0 7 Hi,puic 29 0 0 0 S1 14 IS Hispanic 7 13 13 13 S3 0 .. 18 - 24 Yean Oki 21 2 10 8 S4 4 S4 18 · 24 Yean Oki 15 4 7 7 63 4 114 2S - 34 Yean Old 13 !I II 9 61 2 93 ~ - 34 Yean Old II 6 9 IS S8 I 88 35-44 Yean Old II 16 7 II S3 I 78 35 · U Years Old 15 s 10 9 S9 1 5S 4S. S4 Yean Oki 31 s 9 II 36 7 .53 4S • S4 Years Old II a 6 II 62 2 31 5S - 64 Yean Old 24 13 II 3 4S s 31 5S • 64 Yean Old 21 a 8 s 5S 3 S2 65 Y ean or Older 35 IS 6 4 35 6 S2 6S Years or Older 12 10 19 4 56 0 17 ~l~lS..000 18 12 6 6 .53 6 7 1.-ll!WI~ 14 14 0 14 !17 0 40 S $.tlYJ • $14,M 28 I& 13 s 35 3 40 r~-mm IS s a 3 '10 0 67 s.t,.G(II) • Ut,s.» 22 12 3 9 46 7 66 n -n•m II 3 II 9 64 3 71 S2:S.0001 · ·S1>1.m· 17 7 4 10 61 I 60 l21,MI .• $3,ll'W 13 3 13 IS S2 3 M W'.OOO·l4P~' 14 10 II 10 S4 2 74 W,tllll • S49,w9 16 7 s s 65 I 36 tiS0,00> . $61,M 28 6 14 11 42 0 33 ~.QOO - ll,,I~ II 6 12 II 4S 0 23 V6..co:J - tsam, 22 9 17 9 43 0 23 ~ -,S,!M~ • 17 9 9 61 0 16 IOQ~ 31 0 13 0 S6 0 2S ~.0:0 IJld Oviit :M 12 12 • .. 0 lfi1 Male 22 1 11 II 46 3 172 Male 13 • 13 12 .53 I 228 Female II II 7 6 .53 4 198 Female 14 s 7 a 6S 3 131 Republican :116 14 II • 40 2 126 Republican 17 4 10 12 !17 0 134 Dcmoc:ra1 17 10 • 10 SI 4 116 Democrat II I I 10 61 2 49 lndependelll 14 2 12 I 61 2 55 Independent II 13 13 7 5S 2 27 Very U>eral II 7 4 II !16 II 20 Very U>cral 25 0 s s 65 0 74 Sonww!w~ral IS II II s S7 I n Somcwbal Uleral 10 II 4 II S6 I 130 Middl< of 1he R..i 17 II • 9 S2 4 131 Middle at the R..i 17 • 9 1 SI 2 113 $wllat CoDKrvalM 311 6 12 10 .. 3 107 Sw1w eo ......... ,.,. 10 3 16 10 '9 2 34 v,ry Conaervai;.e 31 IS 6 6 35 0 21 Very ConaeMlliw 14 14 10 s S2 s Raw ~mental!! tum Kr011 to t~. Row f!!rccnt1e tum KTON to Jc:,oir.. What Comes to Mind / 26 It appears that the repository has acquired the imagery of nuclear waste, through some process of transference--guilt by association. Will cities and states through which nuclear waste is transported and locations in which it is stored (or nearby) acquire these images as well? The transference is so natural, so powerful, that one state official involved in nuclear safety, upon hearing of our imagery results, indignantly accused us of having biased our respondents by calling the facility a "nuclear-waste repository." Evidence that the quality of repository imagery has not been heretofore appreciated comes from exhortations by nuclear power proponents to please not use the term "dump" when referring to the repository, because of the obvious connotations or imagery this word conveys (see, e.g., Carter, 1987; p. 416). Not only is dump or garbage imagery relatively infrequent in the observed responses, such images would appear almost positive in comparison to the more prevalent responses. 4.2 How Did It Get This Way? Imagery so strong and so impervious to influence from technical experts must have very potent origins. Weart's scholarly analysis of images shows that nuclear fears are deeply rooted in our social and cultural consciousness. He argues persuasively that modern thinking about nuclear energy employs beliefs and symbols that have been associated for centuries with the concept of transmutation--the passage through destruction to rebirth. In the early decades of the 20th century, transmutation images became centered on radioactivity, which was associated with uncanny rays that brought hideous death or miraculous new life; with mad scientists and their ambiguous monsters'; with cosmic secrets of life and death; ... and with weapons great enough to destroy the world ... " [Weart, p.42]. What Comes to Mind / 27 But Weart's concept of transmutation has a duality that is hardly evident in the imagery we observed. Why has the evil overwhelmed the good? The answer undoubtedly involves the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which linked the dread images to reality. The sprouting of nuclear energy in the aftermath of the atomic bombing has led Smith (1988) to observe: Nuclear energy was conceived in secrecy, born in war, and first revealed to the world in horror. No matter how much proponents try to separate the peaceful from the weapons atom, the connection is firmly embedded in the minds of the public. [Smith, p.62] Research on nuclear imagery supports Smith's assertions. A study by Slovic, Lichtenstein, & Fischhoff (1979) found that, even before the accident at Three Mile Island (TMI), people expected nuclear-reactor accidents to lead to disasters of immense proportions. When asked to describe the consequences of a "typical reactor accident," people's scenarios were found to resemble scenarios of the aftermath of nuclear war. Replication of these studies after the TMI event found even more extreme "images of disaster."3 Fiske, Pratto, & Pavelchak (1983) studied public images of nuclear war using a method similar to that employed in the present study. Their results were remarkably similar to our repository images. The dominant themes of nuclear war were physical destruction (long-term, short-term, and immediate), death, injury, weapons, politics, hell, oblivion, nothingness, pain, contamination, radiation, end of civilization, and genetic damage. 3 The fact that the earliest technical risk assessments for nuclear power plants portrayed ''worst-case scenarios" of tens of thousands of deaths and devastation over geographic areas the size of Pennsylvania (Ford, 1977) likely contributed to such extreme images. These early projections received enormous publicity, as in the movie The China Syndrome. What Comes to Mind / 28 Dominant emotional images included fear, terror, worry, and sadness, with anger, hate, helplessness, and peace mentioned somewhat less frequently. Much like images of a nuclear-waste repository, images of nuclear war were quite consensual and, for the most part, similar across persons differing in sex, race, political orientation, and education. Additional evidence of the nuclear war- nuclear weapons-nuclear waste linkage comes from our the data of the present study. Respondents in the original Phoenix survey were asked, near the end of the interview, to free associate to the stimulus "nuclear test site." At the time of this writing we have not yet categorized these images in as precise a manner as we have categorized the repository images. However, it is clear that there is considerable overlap in content across the two image domains. The images "danger" and "dangerous" together occurred in 9.2% of the associations to the repository stimulus, compared to only 6.3% of the associations to the test site stimulus. The word "death11 was given in 3.6% of the test site responses compared with 3.1 % of the repository responses. Not surprisingly, there was much more imagery concerning bombs, war, and things military in association with the test site, although these were frequent responses to the repository stimulus as well. The shared imagery of nuclear weapons, nuclear power, and nuclear waste may explain some of the surprising results that have come from surveys that have examined perceived risks for these various forms of nuclear hazards. A nuclear waste repository is judged to pose risks at least as great as a nuclear power plant or a nuclear weapons test site (Kunreuther, Desvousges, & Slavic, 1988). If asked to indicate the closest distance a facility could be built from one's home before one would want to move to another place or actively What Comes to Mind / 29 protest, people are more averse to being near a nuclear waste repository than any other kind of facility studied, including a nuclear power plant (Flynn et al., 1990). Further insights into the special quality of nuclear fear are provided by Erikson (1990), who draws attention to the broad, emerging theme of toxicity, both radioactive and chemical, that characterizes a ''whole new species of trouble" associated with modem technological disasters. Erikson describes the special dread quality of technological accidents that expose people to radiation and chemicals in ways that "contaminate rather than merely damage; pollute, befoul, and taint rather than just create wreckage; penetrate human tissue indirectly rather than wound the surface by assaults of a more straightforward kind" (Erikson, p. 120). Erikson argues that these disasters have a malevolence that even the authors of Revelations would have found hard to imagine. Unlike natural disasters, they are unbounded. Unlike conventional disaster plots, they have no end. "Invisible contaminants remain a part of the surroundings--absorbed into the grain of the landscape, the tissues of the body and, worst of all, into the genetic material of the survivors. An 'all clear' is never sounded. The book of accounts is never closed" (p. 121). 4.3 Will It Change? Unlike automobile accidents or natural disasters, to which people become accustomed and blase, Erikson argues that radioactivity and other toxic substances are naturally loathsome, insidious horrors, which are unique in their capacity to induce a lasting sense of dread. Toxic emergencies, he says, 11nourish dread" (p. 121). There are other reasons to doubt that the images associated with nuclear waste repositories will soon change, even if there are no emergencies to nourish them For one, What Comes to Mind / 30 there is an important cultural and educational institution that implants the images of radioactivity, transmutation, and evil into the minds of people at a particularly impressionable time of their lives--the comic book. Hendee (1990) describes an army of supervillians stalking the pages of Marvel Comics, all of whom owe their special capacities for evil to exposure to radiation. They include: • Gargoyle, a Soviet scientific genius disfigured grotesquely in a nuclear weapons accident that also enhanced his intelligence. Quicksand, a woman whose body has been converted entirely to a sand-like substance which she can shape at will as a result of exposure to a nuclear accident. • Sunfire, a Japanese mutant with psychokinetic power to ionize matter as a result of being born to an invalid mother exposed years earlier to nuclear radiation in Hiroshima. H there is a bright side to this phenomenon, it may be that there is a similar array of superheroes as well, who owe their capacities to encounters with radiation ( e.g., Spiderman, bitten by a radioactive spider; and Texas Twister, a cowboy with superhuman ability to generate tornadoes as a result of accidental exposure to radioactivity during a tornado that stuck a radioactive waste storage facility in the Panhandle of Texas.: Most recently, a propitious encounter with nuclear waste has created the famous "teenage mutant Ninja turtles." For those who have outgrown comics, the daily news media provide another form of experience that nourishes fears of nuclear-waste repositories. Most significant is the continuing story of decades of mishandling of wastes at the nation's military reactor sites, which has resulted in widespread leakage and contamination, projected to require more than What Comes to Mind / 31 $100 billion for cleanup. In the background are smaller events, such as the recent announcement that the Russian republic has ordered a freeze on new atomic energy projects because the government cannot process and store radioactive wastes properly (Register- Guard, 1990). 4.4 Conclusion Nuclear waste exists and must be dealt with. Our analysis of 10,000 images shows that the great majority of the American public fears and loathes the concept of a nuclear- waste repository. The perceptions and emotions associated with a repository are psychologically, politically, socially, and economically important. In particular, the mechanisms of the human mind make it quite possible that places that become repositories for nuclear waste will also become stigmatized through associations with that dread substance. Decisions regarding the siting and management of nuclear waste storage facilities must be sensitive to these perceptions and emotions. Erikson (1990) puts it well: The one thing we cannot afford to assume as we consider how to deal with this new species of trouble is that the fear it evokes is either a passing whim or a fear that can be cooled by the calculations of experts. This dread has its own reasons; it must be respected" (p. 126). What Comes to Mind / 32 5.0 References Campbell, A, Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. NY: Wiley. Carter, L. J. (1987). Nuclear imperatives and public trust. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, Inc. Cohen, B. L (1983). Before it's too late: A scientist's case for nuclear energy. New York: Plenum. Erikson, K. (1990). Toxic reckoning: Business faces a new kind of fear. Harvard Business Review, (Jan. - Feb.), 118-126. Fiske, S. T., Pratto, F., & Pavelchak, M. A (1983). Citizens' images of nuclear war: Contents and consequences. Journal of Social Issues, 39, 41-65. Ford, D. F. (1977). The history of federal nuclear safety assessment: From WASH 740 through the Reactor Safety Study. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists. Flynn, J. H., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K, & Toma, J. (1990). Evaluations of Yucca Mountain. Technical Report: Carson City, Nevada. Nuclear Waste Project Office. Freud, S. (1924). Collected papers. London: Hogarth. Freeze of N-projects ordered. (1990, June 28). Register-Guard; Eugene, Oregon; p. 2. Galton, F. (1880). Psychometric experiments. Brain, 2, 149-162. Hamilton, D. L (1981). Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. What Comes to Mind / 33 Hendee, W.R. (1990, February). Te"or and dread in the perception of radiation. Paper presented at the 23rd mid-year meeting of the Health Physics Society, Atlantic City, NJ. Kraft, M., & Dunlap, R. (In press). The public and nuclear waste: Socio-political dimensions of repository siting. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Kunreuther, H., & Easterling, D. (1990). Imagery and convention decision making. Paper in preparation. Kunreuther, H., Desvousges, W. H., & Slovic, P. (1988). Nevada's predicament: Public perceptions of risk from the proposed nuclear waste repository. Environment, 30(8), 16-20, 30-33. Lifton, R. J. (1967). Death in life. New York: Basic Books. Mountain West Study Team. (1989). An interim report on the state of Nevada socioeconomic studies. Carson City, Nevada: Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office. Report NWPO-SE-024-89, June. Nealey, S. M., & Herbert, J. A (1983). Public attitudes toward radioactive wastes. In C. A. Walker, L. C. Gould, & E. J. Woodhouse (Eds.), Too hot to handle: Social and policy issues in the management of radioactive wastes (pp. 94-111 ). New Haven: Yale University Press. Slovic, P., Layman, M., & Flynn, J. H. (1990). Images of a place and vacation preferences: Report of the 1989 surveys. Technical Report: Carson City, Nevada. Nuclear Waste Project Office. What Comes to Mind / 34 Slovic, P., Layman, M., Kraus, N., Chalmers, J., Gesell, G., & Flynn, J. (1989). Perceived risk, stigma, and potential economic impacts of a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Eugene, Oregon: Decision Research Report 89-3. Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1979). Images of disaster: Perception and acceptance of risks from nuclear power. In G. Goodman & W. Rowe (Eds.), Energy ri.sk management (pp. 223-245). London: Academic Press. Smith, K. R. (1988). Perception of risks associated with nuclear power. Energy Environment Monitor, 4(1), 61-70. Szalay, L.B., & Deese, J. (1978). Subjective meaning and culture: An assessment through word associations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Technical Review Committee. (1990). Interim statement on the Yucca Mountain socioeconomic project. Carson City, Nevada: Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office. Weart, S. R. (1988). Nuclear fear: A history of images. Cambridge: Howard University Press. Weinberg, A. M. (1989). Public perceptions of hazardous technologies and democratic political institutions. Paper presented at Waste Management '89, Tucson, Arizona. Wundt, W. (1883). Uber psychologische methoden. Philosophische Studien, 1, 1-38. APPENDIX: Complete Listing of Repository Images a. Dangerous / Toxic 539 DANGEROUS 378 DANGER 86 UNSAFE 84 DISASl'ER 67 HAZARDOUS 45 POISON 42 TOXIC 39 DEADLY 38 HARMFUL 31 EXPLOSION 27 ACCIDENT 23 HAZARD 18 THREE MILE ISLAND 14 TOXIC WASl'E 12 VERY DANGEROUS 11 ACCIDENTS 11 EXPLOSIONS 10 POISONOUS 8 EXPLOSIVE 7 CHERNOBYL 7 LIFE THREATENING 6 DAMAGE 6 THREATENING S CORROSION S LETIIAL S MELTDOWN S NOTSAFE 4 DAMAGING 4 DISASl'ROUS 4 RISK 3 BOOM 3 DANGERS 3 EXPLOSIVES 3 HARM 3 KABOOM 3 NUCLEAR EXPLOSION 3 POSSIBLE DANGER 3 RISKY 2 DANGER ZONES 2 EXPLODE 2 HAZARDS 2 NUCLEAR ACCIDENT 2 NUCLEAR DISASl'ER 2 PEOPLE GETTING HURT 2 POTENTIAL DANGER 2 POTENTIAL DISASl'ER 2 POTENTIAL HAZARD I. NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES 2 POl1lNTIALL Y DANGEROUS 2 RUIN 2 SKUU AND CROSSBONES 2 THREATENED 2 TICKING TIME BOMB 2 TIMEBOMB 2 TRAGEDY I A VERY BAD EXPLOSION I ALWAYSADANGER BIG ACCIDENT TODAY BIG BANG BLOWUP I BLOW-UP BLOW-UPS BOMB GOING OFF UNDERGROUND BOOMS I CAN BE UNSAFE I CATASl'ROPHE I CATASJ'ROPHIC DANGEROUS EXPERIMENT DANGEROUS FOR CHILDREN DANGEROUS GROUND WATER I DANGEROUSPROPOSITION DANGEROUS TO HA VE IT NEAR US DANGEROUS TO KIDS DANGEROUS, EXTREMELY I DISASl'ER IF ANYTIIING GOES WRONG I DISASl'ROUS EARTH IN DANGER ENDANGER A LCYf OF PEOPLE'S LIVES ERODED CONTAINERS EXPOSING PEOPLE FUTURE HAZARD FUTURE TRAGEDY GREAT HAZARD HARM TO CHILDREN HARM TO COUNTRY HARMFUL FOR HUMAN AND PLANT UFE HARMING THE EARTH HARMS PEOPLE HAZARD TO PEOPLE HAZARD TO THE PEOPLE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL HOW DANGEROUS IT IS INJURIES ITS DANGEROUS UFE STOPPING I MAJOR CATASl'ROPHE I MASSIVE TOXIC POISONING I MELTDOWN MENACE NO GOOD FOR PEOPLE NOT VERY SAFE NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS PERMANENT POISON I POISONING I SAFETY HAZARD I SIGNS SAYING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS I SLUDGE, TOXINS SOMETHING GOING BOOM THREAT OF BEING POISONED TIME BOMB SITUATION TOO RISKY TOXIC LIQUIDS I TOXIC WASl'ES TOXICITY TOXICS TREMENDOUS DANGER UNSECURE VERY HARMFUL VERY HAZARDOUS VERY THREATENING I WHOLE GROUND IS GOING TO BLOW UP TOTAL Frequency for Category: 1683 (16.83%) b. Death / Sickness 306 DEATII 120 CANCER 42 SICKNESS 39 UNHEAL1HY 31 DISEASE 22 Ill.NESS 13 HEALTII HAZARD 12 BIRTII DBFECI'S 12 DISEASES 9 DEATIIS 8 DYING 7 SICK 6 HEALTII PROBLEMS 6 SICK PEOPLE s BAD FOR HEALTII s BURIAL s KIWNG s MUTATIONS s NOUFB 4 DEAD 4 DEFORMffiBS 4 LEUKEMIA 4 MUTANTS 3 HAIR FAWNG OUT 3 HEALTII HAZARDS 3 PEOPLE GBTilNG SICK 2 BADHEALTII 2 CANCER CAUSING 2 DEAD PEOPLE 2 DEFORMED CHILDREN 2 HAZARDOUS TO HEALTII 2 HEALTII RISKS 2 INFECTION 2 LESIONS 2 MUTATION 2 Nor HEAL1HY 2 PEOPLE DYING 2 POOR HEALTII I. NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES 1 BABIES BEING BORN MUTATEI> 1 BABIES WITII TIIRBB HEADS 1 BAD FOR HEALTII, LB'IHAL 1 BAD HEAL1H PROBLEMS 1 BIR1H DBFECfS FROM LONG EXPOSURE 1 CANCEROUS 1 CAUSE CANCER 1 CAUSES CANCER 1 CHILDREN AND DEATII 1 CHILDREN, DYING 1 DANGER TO HEALTII 1 DANGEROUSCANCER 1 DANGEROUS TO HEALTII 1 DEADKIDS 1 DEAD STIJFF 1 DEAD TIIINGS 1 DEADTRBES 1 DEA1H AND SICKNESS 1 DEATIILY 1 DEFORMED 1 DEFORMED KIDS 1 DEFORMffiES IN BABIES 1 DEFORMITY 1 DEGENERATIVE 1 DES'IROYING OUR HEALTII 1 DEl1lRIORATING HEALTII 1 DIE 1 DISEASE CAUSER 1 DISF1GURBMENT 1 FATAL 1 FATALmES 1 GENETIC DAMAGE 1 GENETIC DBFECI'S 1 GRAVES 1 HAIRLOSS 1 HAZARD FOR HEALTII 1 HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTII TOTAL Frequency for Category: 783 (7.83%) APPENDIX - Page 2 1 HEALTII PROBLEM 1 HEAL1H RISK 1 HIGH CANCER RISK 1 ILL-HEALTII 1 INCREASED DISEASE 1 IT'S Nor GOOD FOR YOU 1 KILL HUMAN BEINGS 1 KILLER 1 KIWNG ALL OF US 1 KIWNG PEOPLE 1 KIWNGUS 1 KILLS 1 LB'IHAL DEATII 1 LIFELESS 1 MANY SIDE EFFECI'S AND DISEASE 1 MODERATE HEALTII PROBLEM 1 MORE DEATII 1 NERVOUS DISORDER 1 NO UFB FORMS 1 NorUVE 1 PEOPLE COULD BECOME INFECl'ED 1 PEOPLE LOSING TIIEIR HAIR 1 PEOPLE SICK 1 PEOPLE'S HEALTII 1 PREMATURE DEATII 1 RADIATION CANCER 1 RESPIRATORY PROBLEMS 1 RETARDED KIDS 1 RorTING FLESH 1 SHORT HEAL1H 1 SHORTUFB 1 SKIN DISEASE 1 SLOW DEATII 1 STERILITY 1 TERRIBLE FOR HEALTII 1 TERRIBLE SICKNESS 1 TIIREATENING TO UFB 1 UNHEAL1HY CONDffiONS c. Environmental Damage Z76 POLLUTION 134 CONTAMINATION 20 WATER POLLUTION 13 WATER CONTAMINATION 10 POLLUTION, WATER 8 CONTAMINATED WATER 7 LOVECANAL 4 BADWATER 4 EROSION 3 BAD ENVIRONMENT 3 BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT 3 CONTAMINATION, WATER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD 3 POLLUfED 3 POLLUTING WATER 3 POLLUTION OF WATER 3 POLLUTION. AIR 3 WATER,BAD 2 BAD FOR NATURE 2 BADSOIL 2 CONTAMINATED 2 CONTAMINATING 2 CONTAMINATION OF THE GROUND 2 CONTAMINATION OF WATER 2 DES'IROYING NATURE 2 DIRTY WATER 2 ENVIRONMENTALDES'IRUCTION 2 ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION 2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS 2 ENVIRONMENTALLY UNSAFE 2 FORM OF POLLUTION 2 GROUND POLLUTION 2 GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION 2 HARMFUL TO ENVIRONMENT 2 lAND POLLUTION 2 POLLUfED WATER 2 POLLUTION IN THE WATER ACIDRAIN AFFECr THE STREAMS ALL THE lAND WOULD BE NO GOOD ANIMALS DYING BADAIR BAD DRINKING WATER BAD ENVIRONMENTAL BAD FOR WATER BAD POLLUTION BIG POLLUTION ISSUE BRINE MIGRATION CONTAMINATE GROUND WATER CONTAMINATE THE WATER LEVEL I CONTAMINATED AREA CONTAMINATED MINERALS CONTAMINATED SOIL CONTAMINATES CONTAMINATES AIR CONTAMINATES THE WATER CONTAMINATING THE WATER SUPPLY CONTAMINATING WATER CONTAMINATION OF ALL SORTS CONTAMINATION OF FOODS CONTAMINATION OF THE SOIL CONTAMINATION, GROUND I COULD CONTAMINATE WATER I. NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES I DAMAGE TO OUR WATER SUPPLY I DAMAGE, WATER 1 DAMAGING THE WATER I DAMAGING TO ECOLOGY I DAMAGING TO ENVIRONMENT I DAMAGING TO WATER TABLE 1 DANGER TO ANIMALS 1 DANGEROUS TO WATER 1 DEAD ANIMALS 1 DEADFISH I DEAD FLOWERS I DEAD PIANTS I DEAD RABBITS 1 DEA1H, PIANTS 1 DECAYING PIANTS I DES'IROYING BEAUTIFUL SIGHTS 1 DES'IROYING ENVIRONMENT I DES'IROYING OUR ENVIRONMENT 1 DES'IRUCTION AND DAMAGE TO 1HE ECO-SYSTEM I DES'IRUCTION OF ENVIRONMENT I DES'IRUCTION OF NATURE I DES'IRUCTIVE TO WATER SUPPLY I DIRECT POLLUTION I DISPLACEMENT OF THE NATURAL HABITAT I DOWNFALL OF ENVIRONMENT I DYING ANIMALS 1 DYING PIANTS 1 EAR1HQUAKE OPENING WATER TABLE 1 ENDANGERS ANIMALS 1 ENDANGERS FLORA I ENVIRONMENT, BAD I ENVIRONMENT, POOR I ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE I ENVIRONMENTAL DEVASTATION I ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER I EROSION OF 1HE ENVIRONMENT I EVENTUAL GROUND CONTAMINATION I FISHDYING I FOOD CONTAMINATED I FOOD CONTAMINATION I FORFSl'S BEING DES'IROYED 1 FUTURECONTAMINATION I GROUND EROSION 1 HARMFUL TO 1HE ENVIRONMENT 1 HAZARD TO SEA LIFE I HIGH POl'ENTIAL FOR CONTAMINATION I HOPE 1HEY DON'f POLLUTE THE WATER 1 I DON'f KNOW HOW IT CAN NOT POLLUTE 1 INFILTRATE WATER SUPPLY 1 IT WILL GET IN OUR WATER AND FOOD I KILL PLANT LIFE I KILL WILDLIFE 1 KIWNG ANIMALS I KIWNG PIANTS I KIWNG WILDLIFE I LARGE DEAD PATCH LAND I LEACHING I LIQUID THAT WILL CONTAMINATE WATER I MAJOR POLLUTION MESSING UP 1HE CROPS MIGHT DAMAGE UNDERGROUND WATER MUTANT PLANTS I NATURE IN DANGER APPENDIX - Page 3 1 NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT I NON-ECOLOGICAL I NOT GOOD FOR THIS PLANET I POISON 1HE AIR I POISON 1HE GROUND I POISON UNDERGROUND 1 POISON WATER I POISONING WATER I POLLUTE SURFACE PLANTS I POLLUfED WATER TABLES I POLLUTES THE GROUND I POLLUTING 1 POLLUTING AIR 1 POLLUTING GROUND WATER I POLLUTING GROUND, WATER,AND PEOPLE I POLLUTING OF WATER I POLLUTING SOIL I POLLUTING 1HE LAND I POLLUTING THE WATER SUPPLY I POLLUTION AIR I POLLUTION IN 1HE EARTH 1 POLLUTION OF H20-WATER 1 POLLUTION OF SOIL I POLLUTION OF 1HE AREA I POLLUTION OFTHEATMOSPHERE I POLLUTION OF THE EARTH I POLLUTION WATER I POLLUTION, GROUND I POLLUTION, UNDERGROUND STREAMS I POLLUTION, UNDERGROUND WATER I POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION I RESOURCE POLLUTION I RISK THE ENVIRONMENT 1 RUINED ECOLOGY 1 RUINING THE SOIL 1 RUINING WATER I SILENT KILLERS (WATER) I SMOG I SOIL(BAD) I SOIL DAMAGE I SPOILED LAND I TERRIBLE FOR WHOLE ENVIRONMENT I TOXIC POLLUTION I TOXIC WASTE SURFACING I TREES DYING I UNDERGROUND POLLUTION I UNDERGROUND WATER CONTAMINATION I UNHEALTHY ATMOSPHERE I UNSAFE FOR ENVIRONMENT 1 UNSAFE, ANIMALS I WAKE POLLUTION 1 WATER (BAD) I WATER INFECl'ED I WATER SUPPLY CONTAMINATION I WATER SUPPLY POLLUTED I WATER SYSTEMS SPREAD I WATER, DIRTY I WHAT IT WILL DO TO 1HE ENVIRONMENT I WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE WATER I WILL IT AFFECr THE ATMOSPHERE I WOULD POLLUTE THE WATER I WRECKING THE ENVIRONMENT TOTAL Frequency for Category: 692 (6.92%) d. Leakage 106 LEAKAGE 24 SEEPAGE 13 LEAKS 9 SPIUAGE 7 LEAK 6 SPILLS 3 LEAKING 3 LEAKY BARRELS 2 LEAKING BARRELS 1 BARRELS DETERIORATE & WASTE SEEPS our 1 BREAKING our OF GROUND 1 CHECK FOR LEAKAGE 1 COMESUP 1 COMING our OF GROUND 1 COMING TO SURFACE 1 COUID IT BE SEALED SO NOTHING ESCAPES 1 ERUPTS 111ROUGH EAR111 1 EYENTIJALL Y LEAK I. NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES 1 GET INTO WATER SUPPLIES 1 GEI'S INTO WATER 1 GETI1NG INTO 111E WATER & FUCKING US UP 1 GETI1NG INTO WATER 1 GROUND LEAKAGE 1 IT WOUID LEAK 1 IT'S GOING TO SEEP our 1 LEAK INTO WATER SUPPLY 1 LEAKAGE DANGER 1 LEAKAGE IN AQUIFERS 1 LEAKAGE INTO GROUND WATER 1 LEAKAGEINTOWATERSUPPLY 1 LEAKAGE, SEEPAGE 1 LEAKAGE, WASTE 1 LEAKAGE, WATER 1 LEAKING CONTAINERS 1 LEAKING INTO WATER 1 LEAKING SEWAGE APPENDIX - Page 4 I POISON OF WATER LEAKAGE 1 POSSIBILITY FOR LEAKS I POSSIBLE LEAKAGE 1 SEEP INTO WATER I SEEPAGE COMING our 1 SEEPAGE INTO WATER 1 SEEPAGE INTO WATER TABLE 1 SEEPAGE,ATMOSPHERE 1 SEEPING 111ROUGH 1 SPILL 1 SPIUAGE, CHEMICALS 1 111INGS COMING UP our OF 1118 GROUND 1 WASTEWJLLESCAPEANDGETINTOGROUND I WATER, LEAKAGE I WILL IT EVER COME UP 1 WOUID SCATTER WJ1H FLOOD TOTAL Frequency for Category: 216 (2.16%) e. Destruction 90 DESIRUcnON 18 DESIRUCI1VE 7 DEVASfATION 4 DESIROY f. Pain and Suffering SPAIN S SUFFERING 4 PAINFUL g. Uninhabitable 1 NOPEOPLE 1 NO VEGETATION 1 NOWATER 4 DETRIMENTAL 3 DESIROYING 2 LARGE SCALE DESIRUcnON 1 DELAYED DESIRUcnON I DESIROYS SO MUCH I DESIROYS 1118 GROUND I DESIRUcnON OF 1118 LANDSCAPE 1 DEVASfATING TOTAL Frequency for Category: 133 (1.33%) 1 A LOf OF PAIN 1 AGONY 1 MISERY I PEOPLE SUFFERING TOTAL Frequency for Category: 18 (0.18%) 1 NOTHING CAN GROW 1 NOTHING LEFf 1 UN-LIVABLE 1 YOU CAN'T LIVE 1HERE TOTAL Frequency for Category: 7 (0.07%) h. Local Repository Area Consequences 1 AREA THAT CAN NEVER BE USED AGAIN 1 KIUJNG 111E AREA OFF 1 LOCAL DAMAGE 1 NO FOOD PRODUCTS FROM THAT AREA 1 UNBUIIDABLE LAND 1 UNUSABLE LAND TOTAL Frequency for Category: 6 (0.06%) 1. Negative Consequences - Other 1 CONTAMINATED CLOIHING 1 HUMAN LIVES WASTED 1 MIGHT CAUSE ANOTHER EAR111QUAKE 1 NO FRESH FOODS I NO MORE SUNSHINE 1 NO PLACE SAFE 1 STERILE FARM ANIMALS I TOXIC MurANTS TOTAL Frequency for Category: 8 (0.08%) a. Bad / Negative 88 BAD 4S NEGATIVE 39 TERRIBLE 33 STUPID 2S DIRTY 18 UGLY 17 NorGOOD 17 UNDESIRABLE 15 DISGUsnNG 14 DON'T LIKE IT 13 GROSS 11 DUMB 9 STIJPIDI'IY 9 YUCK 8 DISLIKE 7 ANGER 7 BADNEWS 7 MESS 7 UNPLEASANT 7 VERY NEGATIVE 6 CRAZY 6 RIDICULOUS S AWFUL S F!Lffl S NAS'IY 4 DEPRESSING 4 DISGUST 4 DON'T CARE FOR IT 4 DON'fLIKE 4 HIDEOUS 4 I DON'T LIKE IT 4 NOGOOD 4 SAD 4 UNCLEAN 3 BULLSHIT 3 EVIL 3 HELL 3 IT'S BAD 3 JUNK 3 MESSY 3 SHIT 3 SICKENING 3 UNCOMFORTABLE 3 UNDESIREABLE 2 ABOMINATION 2 ANGRY PEOPLE 2 DESPAIR 2 DISTASTE 2 FRUSTRATION 2 I DON'T LIKE fflE IDEA 2 IHATEIT 2 INSANE 2 INSANITY 2 NorHAPPY 2 Nor PLEASANT 2 NorRIGHT 2 Nor VERY GOOD 2 PAfflETIC 2 REPULSIVE 2 UNATTRACTIVE 2 UNCMLIZED 2 UNEmICAL 2 UNFORTUNATE 2 UNHAPPY 2 UNINTELUGENT 2 UNSIGHTLY 1 A HELL 1 AMESS 1 ABHORRENCE 1 ANGRY 1 ASININE 1 BADBADBAD II. NEGATIVE 1 BADFEEUNG 1 BAD FEEUNGS 1 BAD FOR OLD PEOPLE 1 BAD FOR PEOPLE 1 BAD FOR PEOPLE WHO LIVE fflERE 1 BAD FOR PUBLIC 1 BAD FOR SOCIETY 1 BAD FOR US 1 BAD FOR WORKERS 1 BAD GROUND AND DIRT 1 BADPIACE 1 BAD SITUATION 1 BADSTIJFF 1 BAD11IING 1 BAD11IINGS 1 BAD fflOUGHTS 1 BAD, POTENTIALLY 1 BADNESS 1 BARBARIC 1 BIG FUCKING CROCK OF SHIT 1 BULLSHIT 1 CA-CA 1 CRUD 1 DEFINITELY NEGATIVE 1 DEPRESSION I DEI'RJMENTAL TO EVERYBODY 1 DEVASTATINGTOME 1 DISAPPOINTING 1 DISGRACEFUL 1 DISSATISFACTION 1 DOESN'T LOOK RIGHT 1 DOESN'T SOUND GOOD 1 DON'T LIKE THAT STIJFF 1 DRAG 1 DREADFUL 1 EVERYTHING NEGATIVE 1 IDITREMELY NEGATIVE 1 EYESORE 1 FILTHY 1 FOOLISH 1 GOOD FOR NOfHING 1 GOOEY 1 GRUESOME 1 HATEIT HATEfflEM HATRED HOPELESS HOPELESS SITUATION 1 HOPELESSNESS 1 HURT IMAGE OF THE AREA I HURTFUL I IDON'fLIKE I I DON'T LIKE NUCLEAR I IGETANGRY 1 1 HATE ma moumrr OF IT I I WOULDN'T LIKE IT I ICKY I IDIOflC I IU.OOICAL 1 IMMORAL I INTOLERABLE 1 IRRITATING I IT'SA PITY I IT'S NEGATIVE I IT'S TERRIBLE I IT'S UNEmICAL AND STUPID I KIND OF IRKSOME 1 LAME I MAKES ME MAD I MAN IRRESPONSIBLE TO HIMSELF I MAN'S STIJPIDITY I MESSY, DIRTY APPENDIX - Page 5 1 NEGATIVE ATTITUDE 1 NEGATIVE FEEUNGS I NEGATIVE IN GENERAL 1 NEGATIVE THINGS 1 NEGATIVE fflOUGHTS I NOVALUE I NONSENSE 1 Nor DESIRABLE 1 Nor GOOD FEEUNGS 1 Nor HIGHLY FOND OF IT I NorMUCH I Nor THRILLED I Nor TOO GOOD 1 Nor TOO CRAZY ABOUT IT 1 Nor TOO SMART 1 Nor VERY GOOD IMAGE 1 Nor VERY NICE I Nor VERY POSITIVE I NOfHING GOOD I NUISANCE I OBJECTIONABLE I OUCH 1 PITEOUS I POOR 1 PREPOSTEROUS 1 PRE'ITY BAD I PRETTY LAME 1 REPELLING I REPUGNANT 1 REPULSED I REPULSION I RESENTFUL 1 ROTI'EN I SADNESS I SATANisnc I SCUM I SHITTY I SICK STIJFF 1 SLOPPY 1 SOMEmING BAD I SOMEmING NEGATIVE 1 SOMEmING Nor GOOD 1 SORROW I SORROWFUL I SORRY I STIJPID TO HAVE I STIJPIDITY, SHORT-TERM I TERRIBLE THING TO DO I TERRIBLE WHAT OUR WORLD HAS CREATED I TERRIBLE, DON'T LIKE IT I fflEY'RE ALL NEGATIVE I 1UfALLY BAD SITUATION I 1UfALLY NEGATIVE I 1UfALLY NEGATIVE REVULSION I TURNS YOU OFF I UCK I UNENJOYABLE I UNGODLY I UNHAPPY PEOPLE 1 UNPLEASANTFUL I UNPLEASANTNESS 1 UNSANITARY 1 UNSATISFACTORY I VERYBAD I VERY BAD 11IING I VERY POOR fflOUGHTS I VUWAR I WILL Nor LIKE IT 1 WORSE I YUCK! TOTAL Frequency for Category: 681 (6.81%) b. Scary 107 SCARY 77 FEAR 35 FRIGHfENING 26 HORRIBLE IS SCARED 11 CONCERN 8 HORROR 7 AFRAID 6 FEARFUL 6 PANIC 6 WORRY S CONCERNED S TERROR S WORRIED 4 APPREHENSION 4 FRIGHfENED 4 NERVOUS 4 SCARESME 3 INSECURE 3 TERRIFYING 2 ANXIE'IY 2 FRIGHT 2 GENERAL CONCERN 2 HORRIFYING 2 NIGHTMARE c. Unnecessary / Opposed 41 UNNECESSARY 20 UNWANTED 16 NO 13 WRONG 11 BADIDEA 9 WASI'EFUL 8 WASI'E OF MONEY 7 USELESS 6 UNACCEPfABLE 6 WASI'E OF LAND S AGAINSTIT S AVOID S DON'f WANT IT S Nor A GOOD IDEA S Nor NECESSARY 4 AGAINST 4 DON'fWANT 3 DON'f NEED IT 3 GFI' RID OF IT 3 NEEDLESS 3 OPPOSED 3 OPPOSmON 3 SHOULDN'f BE 2 DON'f AGREE 2 I AM AGAINST IT 2 I DON'f WANT IT 2 NEVER 2 NorFORIT 2 Nor IN FAVOR OF IT 2 NorNEEDED 2 SHOULD BE BANNED 2 SHOULDN'f BE THERE 2 SHOULDN'f DO IT 2 SHOULDN'f EXIST 2 SHOULDN'f HA VE IT 2 UNNEEDED 2 UNPROVEN 2 WASTED LAND 2 WE DON'f NEED IT II. NEGATIVE 2 UNEASY 1 A UITLE FRIGHfENING IMAGE 1 ALWAYSBEWORRIED 1 DEEP CONCERN 1 FEAR FOR NEW GENERATIONS 1 FEAR OF DYING 1 FEAR OF LEAKS OR EXPLOSION 1 FEAR OF UNKNOWN CONSEQUENCES 1 FOREBODING 1 FRIGHTFUL 1 GOODGRIEF 1 GOODHEAVENS 1 HEAVEN HELP US 1 HOLYSHID 1 HORRID 1 HORRIFIED 1 I AM CONCERNED 1 IT'S FEARFUL 1 MISGMNGS 1 OHBOY 1 OHGOD 1 OH SHIT 1 OH,MYGOD! 1 OH, MY GOODNESS 1 OMINOUS APPENDIX - Page 6 1 PEOPLE BEING SCARED OF IT 1 PREITY SCARY 1 SCARE ME TO DEATH 1 SCARED OF THEM 1 SCARED TO DEATH 1 SCARES ME IT WILL POLLUI'E WATER 1 SCARESYOU 1 SCARY FOR CHILDREN 1 SCARY TIIAT THEY DO IT 1 SCARYTHOUGHT 1 SCARY, CHILDREN 1 SCREAMING PEOPLE 1 SOMFl'HING HORRIBLE 1 SOUNDS SPOOKY 1 SPOOKS ME OUT 1 SPOOKY 1 UNEASINESS 1 UPSFI' 1 UPSFl'TING 1 VERYSCARY 1 WARY 1 WORRISOME 1 WORRY ABOUT EFFFCI'S 1 WORRY ABOUT THE FUTURE TOTAL Frequency for Category: 401 (4.01%) 1 AGAINST IT PERIOD 1 AVOIDABLE 1 CAN'f IMAGINE ANYONE WANTING ONE 1 DISAPPROVE 1 DO Nor BELIEVE IN IT 1 DO WITIIOUT IT 1 DON'f APPROVE 1 DON'f BELIEVE IN THEM 1 DON'f CARE FOR ONE 1 DON'f UKE IDEA 1 DON'f UKE THE IDEA 1 DON'f SEE THE PURPOSE 1 DON'f THINK THERE SHOULD BE ANY 1 DON'fWANTTHEM 1 DUMBIDEA 1 FIGHT 1 FIGHT IT WlTII ANY LEGAL POWERS I HA VE 1 I DON'f AGREE WITH IT AT ALL 1 I DON'f UKE THE IDEA AT ALL 1 I DON'f THINK IT SHOULD BE THERE 1 I DON'f THINK WE SHOULD HA VE IT 1 I DON'f THINK WE SHOULD HA VE THEM 1 I DON'fWANT IT THERE 1 I DON'f WANT ONE ANYWHERE 1 I DON'fWANTTHEM 1 I VOfE AGAINST IT 1 I WOULD Nor WANT IT 1 I WOULD WANT NONE AT ALL 1 I WOULDN'f WANT IT ANYWHERE 1 I'M AGAINST IT 1 I'M DEAD AGAINST IT 1 IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL 1 IT SHOULD Nor BE ANYWHERE 1 IT SHOULDN'f BE 1 IT'S UNCALLED FOR 1 NO PART OF IT 1 NO USE FOR IT 1 NOWAY 1 NO, DON'f WANT 1 NO-LIFE 1 NorFAVORIT 1 NorFORME 1 NorHAVEIT I NorINFAVOR 1 Nor LEITING IT HAPPEN 1 NorSOMETHINGYOUWANTTOHAVEAROUND 1 Nor TO BE DONE 1 Nor TO DO IT 1 NorWANTED 1 REAGAN WASTING THE MONEY 1 SHOULDN'f BE ANY 1 SHOULDN'fBEANYWHERE 1 SHOULDN'f BE IN THE FIRST PLACE 1 SHOULDN'f EVEN BE THERE 1 SHOULDN'f EXIST AROUND US 1 SHOULDN'f HA VE 1 SHOULDN'f HA VE THEM 1 THEY OUGHT TO DO AWAY WlTII IT 1 THEY SHOULD Nor EXIST 1 THEY SHOULDN'f BE 1 TO BE AVOIDED I TO GFI' RID OF 1 1UI'AL WASI'E OF GOVERNMENT MONEY 1 UNNECESSARY EVIL 1 UNNECESSARY THREAT TO HEALTH AND LIFE 1 USELESSNESS 1 VERY FOOLISH, NO NEED 1 VERY POOR IDEA 1 WASI'E MONEY 1 WASI'E OF EVERYONE'S TIME 1 WASI'E OF TAX DOLLARS 1 WASI'EOFTIME 1 WASTE, TIME & MATERIAL 1 WASTED MONEY 1 WOULDN'f WANT 1 WOULDN'f WANT IT TOTAL Frequency for Category: 296 (2.96%) d. Not Near Me 25 FARAWAY 8 WOUIDN'T WANT TO LIVE NEAR ONE 6 SOMEWHERE ELSE S AWAY FROM ME S MOVE S STAYAWAY S WOUIDN'T WANT TO LIVE NEAR IT S WOUIDN'T WANT TO LIVE 1HERE 4 AWAY 4 DON'T WANT IT HERE 4 MOVING 4 NorHERE 4 WOUIDN'T WANT TO BE 1HERE 3 DON'T WANT IT NEAR ME 3 I DON'T WANT TO BE NEAR IT 3 Nor AROUND ME 3 WOUIDN'T WANT IT NEAR ME 3 WOUIDN'T WANT TO BE NEAR ONE 3 WOUIDN'T WANT TO LIVE NEAR 2 AVOIDANCE 2 DON'T WANT TO BE NEAR IT 2 DON'T WANT TO LIVE NEAR IT 2 DON'T WANT TO LIVE 1HERE 2 FARAWAY AS POSSIBLE 2 FARAWAYFROMME 2 I DON'T WANT IT NEAR ME 2 I WOUIDN'T WANT IT NEAR ME 2 I WOUIDN'T WANT TO LIVE NEAR IT 2 I WOUIDN'T WANT TO LIVE 1HERE 2 MOVINGAWAY 2 NorINMYBACKYARD 2 Nor IN MY STATE 2 Nor LIVE NEAR 2 Nor LIVE 1HERE 2 NorNEARME 2 Nor WANTING TO LIVE 1HERE 2 SHOOf INTO SPACE 2 WOUIDN'T LIVE 1HERE I AN01HER STATE I ARIZONA A GOOD CHOICE I DIDN'T WANT TO LIVE NEAR IT I DO Nor DEPOSIT IN ALABAMA DON'T BRING IT HERE DON'T LIVE AROUND 1HAT AREA I DON'T LIVE BY IT I DON'T LIVE CLOSE TO IT I I DON'T LIVE 1HERE I DON'T PUT IT HERE DON'T WANT IT AROUND HERE I DON'T WANT IT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD I DON'T WANT IT NEAR HOUSE I DON'T WANT TO BE AROUND I DON'T WANT TO BE AROUND ONE I DON'T WANT TO BE NEAR ONE DON'T WANT TO BE 1HERE DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN NEIGHBORHOOD APPENDIX - Page 7 II. NEGATIVE I DON'T WANT TO BE 1HERE I Nor WHERE I LIVE I R.IGHTOFPEOPLEAWAY I PEOPLEAREMOVINGAWAY I GEfAWAY PLACEIDON'TWANTTOBE I GEfAWAYFROMHERE I PLACEIWOUIDNorWANTTOBE GEfFARAWAY I PUTITEASTOF1HEROCKIES GEfITAWAYFROMUS I PUTITINTEXAS I GEf IT OUT OF 1HE EAR1H I PUT IT IN 1HAILAND I GIVE IT TO RUSSIANS I PUT IT ON ANOfHER PLANEf I GLAD IT'S Nor NEAR US I PUT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE HOPE WE NEVER HAVE ONE AROUND HERE PUT ON MOON I DON'T WANT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD I REASON WE LEFT ARIZONA I DON'T WANT 1HEM NEAR ME I RELOCATION I I DON'T WANT TO BE AROUND IT I SEND IT TO ANOfHER PLANEf I HOPE IT'S Nor NEXT DOOR I SEND IT TO CALIFORNIA I WANT IT FAR AWAY FROM LONG BEACH I SEND IT TO OUTER SPACE I WOUID MOVE I SEND TO RUSSIA OR CUBA I WOUIDN'T WANT IT IN MY BACKYARD I SENT TO MOON I WOUIDN'T WANT TO BE AROUND IT I SHIP TO RUSSIA I WOUIDN'T WANT TO BE NEAR IT I SHor OFF IN SPACE I WOUIDN'T WANT TO BE 1HERE I SHOUID BE A LONG WAY AWAY I WOUIDN'T WANT TO LIVE NEAR ONE I SHOUID BE IN SIBERIA IN A DIFFERENT STATE 1HEN WHERE I LIVE I SHOUIDN'T BE HERE IT SHOUID BE IN OUTER SPACE SOME OfHER STATE KEEP AWAY SOMEPLACE FARAWAY KEEP IT AWAY SOMEONE ELSE'S STATE KEEP IT AWAY FROM ME SOMEfHING I DON'T WANT NEAR ME KEEP IT OUT OF MY YARD SOME1HING I WOUID AVOID KEEP IT OUT 1HERE I SOME1HING I WOUIDN'TWANTTO BE AROUND. I KEEP OUT OF 1HIS COUNTRY I SOMEWHERE AWAY FROM ME I LONG WAYS FROM FLORIDA I STORE IT IN NEW MEXICO I MOVEAWAY I STOREDSOMEPLACEELSE I NO DESIRE TO BE CLOSE I TO GEf FARAWAY FROM IT AS POSSIBLE I Nor A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE I TO 1HE MOON I Nor AROUND HERE I WANT rr TO BE SOMEPLACE ELSE I Nor AROUND HERE! I WANT TO BE FAR FROM IT I NorBENEARIT I WANTTOSTAYAWAYFROMIT I Nor BE 1HERE 1 WOUID Nor UVE NEAR IT I Nor CLOSE TO ME I WOUID Nor WANT TO LIVE NEAR I Nor GO 1HERE I WOUIDN'T BE NEAR rr I Nor HERE, I HOPE I WOUIDN'T LIKE TO HA VE rr IN MY BACKYARD I Nor IN CALIFORNIA 1 WOUIDN'T WANT IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD I Nor IN KENTUCKY I WOUIDN'T WANT rr AROUND I Nor IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD 1 WOUIDN'T WANT IT BY ME I Nor IN UNITED STATES WOUIDN'T WANT IT HERE I Nor LIVE BY 1 WOUIDN'T WANT IT IN OUR STATE I Nor LIVE NEAR rr I WOUIDN'T WANT IT NEXT DOOR I NOT UVING 1HERE I WOUIDN'T WANT IT NEXT TO ME I NOT NEAR I WOUIDN'T WANT IT WHERE I LIVE I Nor NEAR MY HOUSE I WOUIDN'T WANT ONE NEAR ME I Nor NEXT TO ME I WOUIDN'T WANT TO BE AROUND rr I Nor ON 1HIS PLANEf I WOUIDN'T WANT TO BE CLOSE I NOT SPEND TIME 1HERE I WOUIDN'T WANT TO BE CLOSE TO ONE I NOT TO GO NEAR I WOUIDN'T WANT TO LIVE BY ONE I NOT UNDER ME I WOUIDN'T WANT TO LIVE CLOSE I NOT WANT IT IN PHOENIX I WOUIDN'T WANT TO LIVE NEAR 1HERE I NOT WANTING TO BE AROUND 1HEM I WOUIDN'T WANT TO LIVE NEARBY TOTAL Frequency for Category: 273 (2.73%) e. War/ Annihilation 40WAR 10 NUCLEAR WAR 8 HOLOCAUST 6 END OF WORLD S HIROSHIMA 4 END OF THE WORLD 4 MUSHROOM CWUD 2 ANNIHllATION 2 BOMB SHELTER 2 1HEEND 2 WARS 1 "THEBOMB" 1 AIAS BABYLON 1 ATOMIC BOOM 1 BOMB SHELTERS 1 DEA1H OF 1HE EAR1H 1 DESfROYING HUMAN RACE 1 DESfROYING RACE f. Societally Unpopular 6 PROTllST 6 PROTESl'S 3 UNPOPUlAR 2 DEMONSfRATIONS 2 NO ONE WANTS IT 2 NOBODY WANTS IT 2 PROTllSTORS 1 ABOMINABLE POUTICAIL Y g. Crime and Corruption S CRIME 4 COVER-UPS 3 CORRUPTION 3 COVER-UP 3 IlLEGAL 3 LIES 2 GREED 1 AGAINST 1HE lA W h. Decay / Slime / Smell 9 SMELL 6 DECAY 4 SLIME 4 SMELLY 3 SLUDGE 1. Darkness/ Emptyness 17 DARK 9 BlACK 3 BLEAK II. NEGATIVE 1 DESfROYING 1HE EAR1H 1 DESfRUCTION OF 1HE UNIVERSE 1 DISINTEGRATION 1 DUCK AND COVER 1 END OF EAR1H 1 END OF 1HE SPECIES 1 EVERYBODY DEAD 1 EVERYONE DYING 1 EXTINCTION 1 KIWNGRACE 1 MAJOR DESfRUCTION OF 1HE EAR1H 1 MAN WILL DESfROY EAR1H cl: BlAME GOD 1 MANYDEAD 1 MASS EXTINCTION 1 MUSHROOM CLOUDS 1 NAGASAKI 1 NOBODY LEFf 1 NO'f...WE'LL BE GONE SOON APPENDIX - Page 8 1 NUCLEAR ATIACK 1 NUCLEAR ATIACKS 1 PLANETARYDESfRUCTION 1 POSSIBLEDEVASfATIONOFlHEPOPUlATION 1 PRIME TARGET 1 1HE END OF 1HE WORLD 1 TOTAL DEVASfATION 1 TOTAL DISASfER 1 ULTIMATE DOOM 1 WAR! 1 WE'RE GOING TO DIE 1 WHOLE STATES DISINTEGRATING I WILL KILL OUR PLANET 1 WORLD DESfRUCTION 1 WORLD GONE IN A COUPLE OF DECADES 1 WORLD WAR Ill TOTAL Frequency for Category: 126 (1.26%) 1 COMMUNITY PUWNG TOGElHER IN PROTllST 1 PROTllST, ACTA VIST 1 COMMUNITY UPSET 1 PROTllSTERS 1 DEMONSfRATING 1 PROTESTING 1 DEMONSfRATION 1 DEMONSfRATION AGAINST 1 EVERYONE WANTS TO GET RID OF IT 1 HOT POTATO NOBODY WANTS 1 NOBODY WANTS 1HEM 1 POPUlATION UPROAR 1 PUBLIC DISMAY 1 REVOLT 1 STATES IN EASf ARE AGAINST IT TOTAL Frequency for Category: 41 (0.41%) 1 BRIBERY 1 CORRUPT 1 CRIME INCREASE 1 DECEIT 1 GOVERNMENT COVER UP 1 GOVERNMENT FRAUD 1 GREEDY 1 lARCENY 1 LYING 1 MAFIA 1 POLITICS, CROOKED 1 PULL THE WOOL OVER OUR EYES 1 SHADY 1 SNEAKY 1 UNlAWFUL 1 WHITE COLLAR CRIME TOTAL Frequency for Category: 40 (0.40%) 2 DECAYING 2 SfENCH 2 STINKY 1 BIG SLIME POOL 1 GREENSLIME 1 GREEN SLUDGE 1 ODOR 1 SMELL WILL COME UP 1 SPOilAGE 1 STINKS TOTAL Frequency for Category: 39 (0.39%) 3 NOTHINGNESS 2 BlACKNESS 1 BlACKHOLE 1 DARKNESS 1 EMPTY TOTAL Frequency for Category: 37 (0.37%) APPENDIX - Page 9 II. NEGATIVE j. Negative Toward Decision Makers and Process S MISMANAGEMENT 1 IRRESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT /BUSINESS 1 SHOULD HA VE BEEN DEALT WflH BEFORE 2 NEGLIGENCE 1 IRRESPONSIBLE 1 SHOULD HA VE BEEN DONE IN 70'S 1 CAN'T 1RUST PEOPLE 1 IRRESPONSIBLE PEOPLE 1 SHOULD HA VE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT IN 1945 1 CONCERNED ABOUT LONG TERM GOALS 1 KEEP US MORE INFORMED 1 THEY DON'T CARE WHO GEl'S SICK FROM IT 1 GOVERNMENT IS Nor FACING UP TO ERRORS 1 I.ACK OF CONSIDERATION 1 THEY DON'T CARE WHO THEY Kill 1 GOVERNMENT ISN'T DOING ANYTIIING I I.ACK OF CONSIDERATION FOR FUTURE 1 THEY NEED TO UPDATE 1 GOVERNMENT Nor LEARNING FROM MISTAKES I MIS1RUST 1 UN1RUSTING I I DON'T 1RUST THEM 1 NATIONS 1RYING TO PICK UP PIECES 1 UN1RUSIWORTHY 1 IRRESPONSIBILITY 1 SHORTSIGHTEDNESS 1 WORRY ABOUT MANAGEMENT TOTAL Frequency for Category: 32 (0.32%) k. Commands to Not Build or to Eliminate Them 3 STOP 2 DOAWAYWflHIT 2 DON'T BUILD IT 2 GET RID OF THEM 1 ABOLISH 1 BAN IT 1 DOINGAWAYWflHIT Wrong or Bad Solution 4 QUESTIONABLE 1 BADPI.AN 1 ENERGY, MISPLACED I Ill-ADVISED 1 IMPRACTICAL I INCORRECT 1 DON'T 1 RIDOFIT 1 DON'f 00 IT 1 SHOULD BE CLOSED DOWN 1 GETRIDOF 1 SHUT IT DOWN 1 GET THEM OUT OF HERE 1 STOP IT 1 PUT OUT OF BUSINESS 1 STOP THOSE REPOSITORIES 1 QUIT IT 1 QUIT MAKING USE OF IT TOTAL Frequency for Category: 24 (0.24%) I INEFFECTIVE I INEFFICIENT I NO ANSWER TO ANYTIIING I Nor WEll THOUGHT OUT I POOR PI.ANNING I POOR USE OF FUNDS I QUESTIONABLE SOLUTION FOR PROBLEM I UNRELIABLE I WON'fWORK I WRONG AllEY TOTAL Frequency for Category: 19 (0.19%) m. No Nuclear, Stop Producing 2 NOMORE I FlND A WAY TO ELIMINATE I Nor BIG ON NUCLEAR I STOP MAKING IT 2 NONUCLEAR 1 AGAINST NUCLEAR WASTE I DO AWAY WflH NUCLEAR WEAPONS I DOAWAYWflH NUKES n. Unjust 3 INHUMANE 3 UNFAIR I CRIME AGAINST SOCIETY 1 CRUELTY o. Violence 2 MURDER 2 TERRORISTS I Nor DO IT ANYMORE I STOP BUILDING PI.ANTS 1 STOP USING UNTIL WE CAN NEUTRALIZE IT I WE SHOULDN'T HA VE NUCLEAR ANYTIIING TOTAL Frequency for Category: 15 (0.15%) I EXPLOITATION I EXPLOITATIONS I IT OUGHT TO BE AGAINST THE I.AW 1 NORIGHT I SHOULD BE AGAINST I.AW TOTAL Frequency for Category: 14 (0.14%) 2 VICIOUS 2 VIOLENCE 1 MASS MURDER 1 TERRORISM TOTAL Frequency for Category: 10 (0.10%) p. Prohibited 2 PROHIBITED q. Negative - Other 1 AGAINST NATIJRE 1 DEADMEAT 1 DEADLY FORCE 1 DEATH THOUGHl'S IN SOCIETY 1 FEAR PEOPLE APPENDIX - Page 10 II. NEGATIVE I FORBIDDEN I NOT ALLOWED I WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO HA VE IT TOTAL Frequency for Category: 5 (0.05%) 1 FIRE & BRIMSTONE I FORBIDDING I HORRIBLE FOR ONE PLACE I I DON'f LIKE THINGS I DON'f KNOW ABOUT 1 INCONVENIENT 1 MESS UP THINGS 1 NEVER PUT IN THE RIGHT PI.ACE 1 NOTATAll 1 POOR USE OF ENVIRONMENT 1 11!RRIBLE FOR PEOPLE WHO LIVE NEARBY TOTAL Frequency for Category: 15 (0.15%) a. Non-Nevada Locations 36 NEW MEXICO 31 ARIZONA 16 PALOVERDE 1S Ul'AH 11 DENVER 10 CAUFORNIA 8 COWRADO 7 RUSSIA S PHOENIX 4 HANFORD, WASHINGTON 4 TEXAS 3 ALBUQUERQUE 3 HANFORD 3 WASHINGTON 3 WASHINGTON STATE 3 WHITE SANDS 3 WYOMING 2 CANADA 2 KANSAS 2 LOS Al.AMOS 2 MIDWEST 2 NEWYORK 2 PENNSYLVANIA 2 SOUl'H CAROLINA 2 TUCSON 2 WASHINGTON, D.C. 1 A1ABAMA I AlASKA 1 ALBUQUERQUE AIR FORCE BASE 1 AMERICA III. LOCATIONS I ARCO, IDAHO 1 ARKANSAS 1 BUCKEYE ARIZONA 1 BY SAN DIEGO 1 CAUFORNIA CITIES 1 CARLSBAD CAVERNS 1 CARLSBAD, NEW MEXICO 1 CHICAGO 1 CINCINATn, OHIO 1 COWRADO MOUNTAINS 1 DAICOfAS 1 DIABW POWER PIANT I FLORIDA I GULF OF NEW MEXICO I HANFORD, WASHINGTON REPOSITORY I HOUSTON I IDAHO I IDAHO HAS ONE I IILINOJS I IN ANTARCTICA I IRAN 1 LOSALTOS I WUISIANA I MICHIGAN I MOJAVE I MOON I NEWJERSEY I NEW MEXICO WOULD BE GOOD 1 NEWMEXICQ.COAST/GULF 1 NIAGARA FAl.l.S APPENDIX - Page 11 I OAICRIDGE 1 OHIO 1 OUJ'ER SPACE 1 PANAMA 1 POWER PIANT IN ARIZONA 1 ROCKYFIAT 1 ROCKY FIATS 1 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL 1 ROCKY MOUNTAIN FIATS 1 SAN DIEGO 1 SANONOFRE 1 SAVANA RIVER PIANT IN GEORGIA 1 SEABROOK 1 SEABROOK, MASSACHUSEITS 1 SOUl'H AFRICA 1 SOUl'HERN UTAH 1 SOVIET UNION 1 STATE OF OHIO 1 TRI-CI'JlES AREA 1 TROJAN 1 Ul'AH JS THE BEST PlACE 1 VIETNAM 1 VIRGINIA 1 WAI.LA WAI.LA 1 WESTERN ARIZONA 1 WHIP PROJECT IN CARLSBAD 1 WHITE PlAINS 1 WHITE SANDS, NEW MEXICO TOTAL Frequency for Category: 245 (2.45%) b. Storage Location / Containers 24 STORAGE 24 UNDERGROUND 20 WCATION 9 OElll' 8 CONTAINMENT 6 CAVE 6 TUNNELS S CAVERNS S CONTAINERS S SALTMJNES S TUNNEL 4 CAVERN 4 MINES 4 SALTMINE 4 VAULT 3 ROCK 2 BIGCAVE 2 BIG CONTAINERS 2 BIGHOLE 2 CANS 2 CANISTERS 2 CONTAINER 2 DEEP HOLE 2 HOLE 2 MINESHAFT 2 SALTDOME 2 SILOS 2 SOMEWHERE TO PUT IT 1 SO GALWN DRUMS 1 A ROOM FULL OF CANS 1 USE ABANDONED MINES FOR STORAGE 1 ABOVE GROUND I BARRELS UNDER THE GROUND I BIG BARREL IN GROUND 1 BIG BUILDING 1 BIG BUILDING IN MIDDLE OF DESERT I BIG CANS THAT ARE SEALED I BIGCAVERN I BIG CONCRETE BOX 1 BIGDRUMS I BIG HOLE IN GROUND I BIG HOLE IN THE GROUND I BIG HOLE ON THE GROUND I BIGHOLES I BIGSHAFT I BIGTANKS 1 BIG UNDERGROUND SIW 1 CANISTER 1 CAVERNOUS HOLE 1 CAVERNS, UNDERGROUND 1 CAVES I CONTAINER TO HOLD IT I CYLINDERS I DARKCAVE I DEEP CAVERNS I DEEP CAVERNS FOR BURYING I DEEP CAVERNS WITH BIG SILOS I DEEPMINES I DEEPPIT I DEEP TUNNEL I DEEP UNDERGROUND I DRUMS I DRUMS FOR STORAGE I DRUMS UNDER GROUND I GIANT CONCREl'E SILOS I GIGAN'l1C BASEMENTS 7SO I HOLE IN GROUND I HOLE IN THE GROUND I HOLES IN THE GROUND I HUGE CAVERNS I HUGEDOME I HUGE UNDERGROUND STORAGE LARGE CAVERN LEAD BASEMENT, HOLE UKE A MINE SHAFT I UKEAVAULT I METAL DRUMS-STORAGE I MINE FOR STORAGE I ONEBUILTINTOACAVE I PIPELINES I PIPES 1 PIT 1 PUTnNG IN INTO MOUNTAINSIDES I SALTCAVES 1 SALTDOMES 1 SALT TUNNELS IN WUISIANA 1 SHAFT 1 SHAFT WITH CA VE AT BOTTOM I SHOf IN ROCKET I SIW I SOMETHING SIMilAR TO A PIPE UNE I SOUl'HEASTCAVERNS I STORAGE CANS I STORING I SUBMARINES I TANKS I UNDERGROUND CANYON I UNDERGROUND CATACOMBS I UNDERGROUND LABYRINTH I UNDERGROUND TUNNELS I WASTE CONTAINERS 1 WHITE SALT MINE TOTAL Frequency for Category: 243 (2.43%) c. Desert / Barren 123 DESERT 22 DESOLATE 17 BARREN 12 DESOLATION 9 WASTElAND 4 DESERTS 3 BARREN lAND 3 NOT POPUlATED 3 VAST 2 OPEN SPACES 2 WIDE OPEN SPACES 1 ARID ENVIRONMENT 1 BARREN AREA 1 BARREN DESERT 1 BARREN lANDSCAPE 1 BARREN WASrE lAND d. Nevada / Las Vegas 1SS NEVADA 29 YUCCAMT 20 lAS VF.GAS 3 NEVADA DESERT 2 NEVADA TEST SITE 1 AREASOFNEVADA 1 BEATIY 1 CAUENTE e. Waste/ Garbage/ Dumps 80 WASrE 27 NUCLEAR WASrE 2S GARBAGE 18 DUMP 8 TRASH S RADIOACTIVE WASrE 3 DUMPING 3 DUMPSITE 3 GARBAGE DUMP 3 HAZARDOUS WASrE 3 WASTES 2 ATOMIC WASrE 2 DUMP SITES 2 DUMPING GROUND III. LOCATION 1 BARREN ZONE 1 DESERT AREA 1 DESERT AREA PREFERABLY 1 DESERT STATES 1 DESOLATE lAND 1 EMPTYAREA 1 EMPTY PLACE 1 FlAT OPEN AREA 1 I HOPE IT'S IN THE DESERT 1 INDESERT 1 IN THE DESERT 1 LARGEAREA 1 LARGE OPEN SPACE 1 LARGE OPEN SPACES 1 LIKE A DESERT, NOTHING THERE APPENDIX - Page 12 1 OPEN 1 OPENlAND 1 OPENSPACE 1 PREITY BARREN 1 SAND, DESERT, BARENESS 1 SOMEPLACE OUT IN THE DESERT 1 SOMEWHERE IN DESERT 1 SPARSE 1 THEDESERT 1 VACANT lAND 1 VAST DESERT 1 VASTlAND 1 WASTElAND PLACE 1 WASTElANDS 1 WIDEOPEN TOTAL Frequency for Category: '237 (2.37%) 1 CLOSE TO lAS VF.GAS 1 MIDDLE OF NEV ADA DESERT 1 NEVADA DUMPING 1 NEVADA IS A GOOD PLACE 1 Nlt'V•n.& AJ.'A'IV 1 NYECOUNTY 1 ONE UP IN NEVADA 1 POOR, POOR NEVADA 1 PUT IT IN THE DESERT IN NEVADA 1 PUT ONE UNDER lAS VF.GAS 1 THE STATE OF NEVADA 1 VRn.&41i: 1 YUCCA, TONOPAH TOTAL Frequency for Category: 227 (2.27%) 2 DUMPS 2 lANDflLL 2 SEWAGE 2 SEWER 2 WASrE PRODUCTS 1 ADUMP 1 DUMP SITE, OVERGROWN 1 ILLEGAL DUMPING GROUNDS 1 lAND DUMPSTER 1 I A Mnl.'11 J ~ lt'l"'liD n.& ARAnJ:i' 1 LOIS OF GARBAGE 1 MORE GARBAGE 1 NUCLEAR WASrE DUMPS IN UNITED STATES 1 SEWAGE SYSTEM 1 SEWERS 1 TOXICDUMP 1 TRASH CAN IN GROUND 1 UNDERGROUND DUMPING 1 UNDERGROUND FULL OF TRASH 1 UNDERGROUND GARBAGE CAN 1 UNDERGROUND SEWAGE REPOSITORY 1 UNDERGROUND STORAGE 1 W.6.~Prr I WASl'I!, UND1!KGKOUND TOTAL Frequency for Category: 215 (2.15%) f. Isolated 13 ISOlATED 8 ISOlATION S AWAY FROM PEOPLE S DESERTED S REMOTE S UNPOPUlATED 4 HIDDEN 4 SECLUDED 3 DESOlATE AREA 3 DISTANT 2 NOT POPUlATED AREA 2 REMOTE AREA 2 UNINHABITED 1 A Pl.ACE THAT IS NOT CLOSE TO HABITATION 1 ABANDONED AREA 1 AREA WHERE THERE ARE FEW PEOPLE 1 ASFARAWAYFROMCMUZATION 1 AWAYFROM 1 AWAYFROMCIDES 1 AWAYFROMEVERYTHING III. WCATION 1 AWAY FROM POPUlATION 1 DESERTED AREA, DESOlATE 1 DESERTED ISLAND 1 DESERTED Pl.ACE 1 DESOlATE AREA, REMOTE AREA 1 DO IT FARAWAY FROM PEOPLE I DUMP IN OCEAN AWAY FROM PEOPLE 1 FARAWAYFROMHUMANS 1 FAR FROM POPUlATED AREAS 1 GETITFARAWAYFROMCMUZATION 1 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT NONE NEAR 1 I WANT IT AWAY FROM THE POPUlATION 1 IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE 1 ISOlATED AREA 1 ISOlATED, BARREN AREA 1 LOCATED IN REMOTE, SAFE Pl.ACE 1 WW POPUlATION AREA 1 NEEDAWAYFROMPOPUlATEDAREAS I NEEDS TO BE IN A DESOlATE AREA 1 NEEDS TO BE ISOlATED APPENDIX - Page 13 I NON-POPUlATED I NOT NEAR URBAN AREAS I PUT IT WHERE NO ONE ELSE IS 1 PUT OUT SOMEWHERE UNINHABITED I REMOTE AREAS I REMOTE HANDLING I REMOTE HOPEFULLY I REMOTE SITE I SECLUDED-WANT IT TO BE 1 SECLUSION I SHOULD BE DESOlATE Pl.ACE I SHOULDN'f BE AROUND PEOPLE I SHOULDN'f BE CWSE TO ANYTHING I UNPOPUlATED AREA I VACATEDAREA I VERY WW POPUlATION I VERY REMOTE I WANT IT SECLUDED I WILDERNESS, AWAY FROM PEOPLE TOTAL Frequency for Category: 107 (1.07%) g. Facilities and Their Construction 12 CONCRETE 11 DIRT S BIG 4 LARGE 2 BUILDING 2 BUILDINGS 2 CEMENT 2 STEEL 2 STORAGE FACILITY 1 BIG TRAP DOORS 1 CRANES WWERING h. Bury It 6 DEPTH 3 BURIED I BUNCH A JUNK BURIED I BURIED DEEP 1 BURIED WASTE 1 BURY 1 BURYIT 1 BURY IT DEEP 1. Locations - Other 2 SOUTHWEST I IN THE OCEAN 1 JACKASS FLATS I LOCATION? I LOCATIONS I MOUNTAIN AREA I NEVADAANDARIZONA I ELEVATORS I FACILITIES I FACILITY I FOUNDATION I GIGANTIC I GLASS I GRANITE I HEAVY CEMENT I LARGE METALLIC I LEAD SHIELDING I LEADWALLS 1 LCYJ'S OF CONCRETE 1 MASSIVE 1 METAL I PUTl1NG UP A SITE 1 ROCK STRUCTURE 1 SOUDROCK 1 STEEL DOORS 1 STEEL WALLS 1 STEEL WALLS UNDERGROUND 1 STRUCTURE 1 TUNNELING THRU A MOUNTAIN IN NEVADA TOTAL Frequency for Category: 66 (0.66%) 1 BURY UNDERGROUND 1 BURY WASTES 1 BURYING WASTE I DIGAHOLE I DIGDEEPER 1 UIUUl~U nvt...e I I HOPE IT'S DEEP 1 IT BETTER BE DEEP I NOT DEEP ENOUGH I SOME Pi.ACE TO BURY WASTE I STORE DEEP ENOUGH 1 STORED UNDERGROUND 1 Uf'IILIDn.U'ftVUrtLI ffVVLLI DC. r...,_,t.llYC. TOTAL Frequency for Category: 30 (0.30%) 1 NEVADA & ARIZONA DESERT-BEST Pi.ACES 1 NEVADAANDNEWMEXICO 1 Pl.ACE TO GET RID OF IT 1 Pl.ACE TO STORE IT I Pi.ACE TO STORE NUCLEAR 1 Pl.ACE WHERE STORE NUCLEAR WASTE I PUT IN MIDDLE OF CRIME DISTRICTS I PUT WHERE NO PROBLEMS 1 SANDID MOUNTAINS 1 UNDERGROUND GARAGE 1 UNDERGROUND SHELTER 1 WOULDN'f WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW WHERE TOTAL Frequency for Category: 20 (0.20%) a. Radiation / Nuclear 197 RADIATION 35 RADIOACTIVITY 23 RADIOACTIVE 16 NUCLEAR 5 PLUJ'ONIUM 4 GLOW IN TifE DARK 3 GLOWING 3 HALFLIFE 3 REACTORS 3 URANIUM 2 HALF-LIFE 2 RADIOACTIVITY 2 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL 1 ATOMIC 1 BETARAYS 1 DEGREE OF RADIATION 1 FISSION IV. RADIATION, PHYSICAL STATES lGLOW 1 GLOW IN DARK 1 GLOWING EARTII 1 GLOWING POPULATION 1 HAZARD OF RADIATION 1 I PICIURE TIIE TALL REACTORS 1 MEN WITII FUNNY RADIATION SUITS ON 1 MUSHROOM BOMB 1 NUCLEAR CONTAMINATES 1 NUCLEAR DUMP 1 NUCLEAR MELTDOWN 1 NUCLEAR PRODUCTS 1 NUCLEAR RADIATION 1 NUCLEAR RESEARCH 1 NUCLEAR SIGHTS 1 NUCLEAR SI'ORAGE 1 NUCLEAR TREE APPENDIX - Page 14 1 NUCLEAR WRAP 1 NUKE 1 NUKE PARTICLES 1 NUKES 1 OVERHEATED NUCLEAR REACTOR 1 PEOPLE GLOWING 1 RADIATION LEAK I RADIATION SICKNESS I RADIATION, SPREADING 1 RADIATIONS 1 RADIOACTIVE FOOD 1 RADIOACTIVE RESIDUE 1 RADIOACTIVE SEEPAGE 1 RADIOACTIVE SOIL 1 RADIOACTIVE SUITS 1 RADIOACTIVE SYMBOL 1 REACTOR TOT AL Frequency for Category: 336 (3.36%) b. Chemicals & Physical States (Liquids, Gases) 19 CHEMICALS 6 VOLATILE 5 FUMES 4 GAS 3 MERCURY 2 RADONGAS 1 ACID 1 ACIDS c. Fire/ Hot 10 HEAT 9 FIRE 3 BURNS 3 HOT I BAD CHEMICALS I BUBBLING LIQUID I BUBBLING LIQUIDS I CARBON MONOXIDE 1 CHEMICAL PLANT 1 CHEMICALS, BAD I CHEMICALS, HARMFUL I GASES I LIQUID I METHANE GAS I POISONOUS GASES I SI'ORED CHEMICALS I VAPORS I VOLATILE TOTAL Frequency for Category: 55 (0.55%) 2 SMOKE I BURNING I FIRE-POT I FIRES I FLAMES 1 HEAT EMANATING FROM IT 1 VERYHOT TOTAL Frequency for Category: 33 (0.33%) a. Safe and Secure 100 SAFETY 37 SAFE 17 SECURITY S PROTECl'ION 3 SAFEGUARDED 2 GEOLOGICALLY SAFE 2 HIGH SECURITY 2 IS IT SAFE 2 SAFER 2 SECURE 1 AS LONG AS ITS SAFE WE WOULD BE SAFE 1 AWAY FROM EARTHQUAKES 1 BEITER BE SAFE 1 CONCERN ABOUf SAFETY 1 CONCERN FOR SAFETY 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 1 FAIRLY SAFE 1 FINDING A SOLUflON TO MAKE SAFE 1 HIGHLY ENGINEERED, SECURE PLACE 1 HIGHLYSECURE 1 HOWSAFE 1 HOW SAFE IT JS V.SAFE1Y,SECURI1Y 1 HOW SAFE IT IS GOING TO BE 1 HOW WE CAN BE SURE ITS SAFE 1 I HOPE ITS SAFE 1 I WOULD WONDER ABOUf THE SAFEIY 1 I'D LIKE IT TO BE SAFE 1 MAKE IT SAFE 1 MAKE SURE SAFE 1 MODERATE SAFEIY 1 MORE PRECAUflONS 1 MUSI' BE SAFE 1 NEED TO BE SAFE 1 NEEDS TO BE SECURE 1 NOT DANGEROUS 1 NOT HARMFUL TO PEOPLE 1 NOT SURE HOW SAFE 1HEY ARE 1 NOT THREATENING 1 NOT WORRIED, SAFE 1 PREl1Y SAFE 1 SAFE FROM NATIJRAL DISASJ'ER 1 SAFE STORAGE 1 SAFE STORAGE AREA 1 SAFE TYPE OF PLACE APPENDIX - Page 15 1 SAFE UNDERGROUND 1 SAFEWAYOFDISPOSAL 1 SAFE? 1 SAFER THAN ABOVE GROUND 1 SAFETY FACTORS 1 SAFETY IN TESTING 1 SAFETY IS IMPORTANT 1 SAFETY OF GROUND WATER 1 SAFETY OF IT 1 SAFETY PRECAUflON 1 SAFETY PRECAUflONS 1 SAFETY PROBLEMS 1 SHOULD BE SAFER 1 SOMEWHAT SAFE 1 STORED AND SEALED 1 STORED CORRECTLY 1 SUFFICIENTLY SAFE 1 UNCASEMENT SECURITY 1 UNHAZARDOUS 1 VERYSAFE 1 WHERE WILL IT BE SAFE? 1 WHB1HER OR NOT ITS SAFE TOTAL Frequency for Category: 228 (2.28%) b. Facilities Security 6 SECREJ' 4 SECREl'lVE 3 FENCES 3 GUARDED 2 GUARDS 2 PROTECTED 2 SECREJ'S 2 TOP SECREJ' 1 A FENCED IN AREA 1 BADGES 1 BARBED WIRE 1 BARRIERS 1 BUNCH OF PEOPLE IN PROfECTIVE SUITS 1 CHAIN LINK FENCES 1 CONCEALMENT 1 FENCEDOFF 1 GUARD HOUSES 1 GUARDS AND PATROL 1 INCREASED SECURITY 1 KEPT SECREJ' 1 MEN IN FIREPROOF OUfFITS 1 OFFLIMITS 1 OFF LIMITS ZONE 1 POTENTIAL SECURITY 1 SECREJ' TIJNNELS 1 SECURITY GUARD 1 SECURITY SJ'A110NS 1 VERY TIGHT SECURITY TOTAL Frequency for Category: 44 (0.44%) c. Control, Containment and Cleanup 3 CONTROLLED 2 CLEAN UP 2 CONTAIN 2 CONTAINED 1 CLEANITUP 1 CLEAN-UP d. Caution 13 CAUflON 7 CAREFUL 1 CONTROLS 1 ENCAPSULATED, BURIED, AND MONITORED 1 FINDA WAY TO CONTAIN IT 1 HAVETOflNDAWAYTOCONTROL 1 IT WOULD HA VE TO BE CONTAINED 1 MONITOR 1 MONITORING 1 MUSI' BE CONTAINED 1 NEED TO BE MONITORED 1 NEEDED TO MONITOR 1 NEEDS BEITER CONTROL 1 NEEDS CONTROL 1 NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP /REMOVED 1 SEALED FOREVER TOTAL Frequency for Category: 32 (0.32%) 4 CAUflOUS 1 BECAREFUL 1 DAMN CAREFUL 1 PRECAUTION TOTAL Frequency for Category: 27 (0.27%) a. Problems 26 PROBLEMS 22 1ROUBLE 12 PROBLEM 6 CHAOS 4 BIG PROBLEM 3 QUESTIONS 2 SCANDAL 2 1ROUBLESOME I A LOf OF PROBLEMS I BIG CLEAN-UP PROBLEM 1 BIG 1ROUBLE I BOI'HERSOME I CAUSE SOME HARDSHIP TO PUBLIC 1 COMPLICATED 1 CONCERN ABOUf HAZARD 1 CONCERN FOR ENVIRONMENT 1 DEEP 1ROUBLE VI. CONCERNS I DIFFlCULT QUESTION I DIFFlCULT TO Sl'ORE I DIFF1CUL1Y 1 DIFF1CUL1Y IN MONITORING 1 DIFF1CUL1Y OF DISPOSING 1 DISPOSALS ARE HARD 1 ENGINEERING CHALLENGE 1 ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS 1 HARD TO CON1ROL 1 HARD TO GET RID OF 1 HASSLE I HUGE PROBLEM I IT'SAMESS I IT'S A PROBLEM I LIMITED CAPACI1Y 1 NO PLACE TO PUf IT APPENDIX - Page 16 1 PICKEI1NG 1 POTENTIAL PROBLEM 1 PROBLEM FOR FUfURE GENERATIONS 1 PROBLEM TO Sl'ORE I PROBLEMATICAL 1 PROBLEMS FOR FUfURE GENERATIONS I PROBLEMS IN THE AREA I QUESTION 1 SCIEN'IlFlC PROBLEM 1 SERIOUS PROBLEM 1 TERRIBLE PROBLEM 1 THE PROBLEM OF WHERE 1 1ROUBLES 1 UPSET PEOPLE 1 WHAT PROBLEMS WILL IT CAUSE TOTAL Frequency for Category: 119 (1.19%) b. Questions 4 WHY 3 IS IT NECESSARY 3 WHERE 1 DO WE NEED IT I ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS I HOWBIG I HOWMUCH 1 HOW MUCH OF QUANTI1Y I WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO PUf IT I WHEREISIT 1 HOW WELL IT IF MAINTAINED I WHERE IT IS 1 HOW WOULD YOU GET IT AWAY FROM PEOPLE I WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE 1 I HA VE A LOf OF QUESTIONS I WHERE PUf IT 1 IS IT DANGEROUS 1 WHERE Sl'ORED? I HOW CAN YOU GET RID OF NUCLEAR WASTE? I IS THERE SOMEWAY TO GET RID OF IT I WHERE THE CLOSEST ONE IS TO ME? 1 WHERE TO BURY IT I HOW DEEP TO BURY IT 1 WHAT DAMAGE COULD IT DO I HOW EFFECT LAND I HOW IT AFFECTS US I HOW IT IS AFFECTING PLANET I HOW IT WILL AFFECT PEOPLE 1 HOW IT WOULD AFFECT THE COMMUNI1Y 1 HOW IT WOULD AFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT I HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN THERE I HOW LONG IT LASI'S 1 WHAT DO YOU DO WITH IT I WHATFOR I WHAT HAPPENS I WHATISIT I WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF IT I WHAT IT MIGHT DO TO THE SOIL I WHAT TO DO WITH IT 1 WHAT WOULD HAPPEN? I WHERE TO PUf IT 1 WHERE TO PUf THEM 1 WHERE WILL IT BE LOCATED 1 WHETHER PRNATE OWNED OR GOVERNMENT 1 WHO WANTS IT I WHY DO WE HAVE TO HAVE IT 1 WONDER WHERE LOCATED 1 WONDERING WHERE IT WAS I HOW LONG UNTIL IT GETS TO GROUND LEVEL I WHERE ARE THEY PUTTING IT? c. Health 22 HEALTH d. Unsolvable 4 FUTILE 2 IMPOSSIBLE TOTAL Frequency for Category: 58 (0.58%) 1 HEALTH COVERAGE 1 HEALTH OF PEOPLE IN AREA 1 HEALTH QUESTION TOTAL Frequency for Category: 25 (0.25%) I FUTIU1Y 1 NEVERGOESAWAY 1 NO SOLUTION I BOI'HERS ME WHETHER WE CAN GET RID OF IT I CAN'T BE SAFELY DONE 1 IMPOSSIBLE DREAM I INDISPOSABLE I NEVER GET RID OF IT 1 NEVER GETS BURIED 1 NOWAYTOCON1ROLIT 1 NOWAYTOGETRIDOFIT 1 NOT FEASIBLE 1 CAN'T TAKE CARE OF WASTE e. Family 7 CHILDREN 2 MY CHILDREN I AFFECTING CHILDREN 1 BABIES TOTAL Frequency for Category: 19 (0.19%) 1 CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN 1 KIDS 1 FAMILY 1 SAFETY, FAMILY 1 GRANDCHILDREN 1 WORRY ABOUf KIDS MORE THAN OLD PEOPLE 1 HURTING MY CHILDREN & GRANDCHILDREN TOTAL Frequency for Category: 18 (0.18%) f. Uncontrolled S UNCON1ROILED 2 NOCON1ROL 1 CON1ROLS, lACK OF g. Controversy 3 CON1ROVERSIAL 3 CON1ROVERSY 2 CONFLICT h. Unpredictable S UNSTABLE 2 UNPREDICTABLE i. Mistakes 2 MISTAKE 1 AFUCKUP 1 BIG MISTAKES j. Serious 2 IMPORTANT 2 SERIOUS k. Skeptical 2 SKEP'I1CAL l. Concerns - Other 2 QUESTIONING 1 CRACKS IN EARTII 1 CRITICAL TIME WISE 1 DEFECI' 1 DEFECilVE VALVES VI. CONCERNS 1 lACK OF CON1ROL 1 MAYNOTBECONTAINED APPENDIX - Page 17 1 NOT CON1ROILED 1 UNCONTAINED TOTAL Frequency for Category: 14 (0.14%) 1 A LOT OF CON1ROVERSY 1 ALWAYSARGUE 1 SQUABBLING 1 STICKY ISSUE TOTAL Frequency for Category: 13 (0.13%) 1 NEVER KNOW WHAT COULD HAPPEN 1 UNEXPECTED 1 UNEXPECTEDNESS 1 UNFORESEEN TOTAL Frequency for Category: 11 (0.11 % ) 1 CARELESS 1 MISTAKES, MISHAPS 1 CARELESSNESS 1 FOLLY OF OLD MEN TOTAL Frequency for Category: 8 (0.08%) 1 EXTREMELY SERIOUS 1 LIFE AND DEATII 1 LIVES AT STAKE TOTAL Frequency for Category: 7 (0.07%) 1 I QUESTION TIIE NEED 1 SKEP'I1CAL ABOUT IT 1 SKEP'I1CISM TOTAL Frequency for Category: 5 (0.05%) 1 DEFECTS 1 FAIR 1 FAIRNESS 1 GEOLOGICALLY UNm 1 NOWAY OF DESTROYING 1 TARGET FOR ENEMY ATIACK 1 TARGET FOR PROBLEMS 1 TARGET FOR TERRORISM TOTAL Frequency for Category: 14 (0.14%) a. Government / Industry 58 GOVERNMENT 8 POLmCAL S GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT 4 BUREAUCRACY 3 REGUlATIONS 2 BIG BUSINESS 2 BIG INDUSIRY 2 BUSINESS 2 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 2 INDUS'IRIAL I A LOT OF SAFEIY REGUlATIONS I CITYHALL 1 CONGRESS I DEALING wrm 1HE GOVERNMENT 1 DEFENSE DEPARTMENT I DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE VII. SOCIETAL INSTITUTIONS 1 DOWCOMPANY I ENVIRONMENTAL PROI'ECl10N AGENCY 1 ENVIRONMENTAL REGUlATIONS I FEDERAL I FEDERAL RESERVE 1 FEDS 1 FUCKED UP GOVERNMENT 1 GOVERNMENT CONTROL 1 GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED 1 GOVERNMENT DOLlARS IN RESEARCH 1 GOVERNMENT FORCE I GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE APPENDIX - Page 18 1 GOVERNMENT, U.S. 1 GOVERNMENTS 1 INDUSIRY 1 LARGE CORPORATIONS Nor DOING I lAWS 1 NEGATIVE GOVERNMENT 1 PEOPLEWILLPAYFORGOVERNMENTMISTAKES I PRESIDENT 1 PRESIDENT BUSH 1 RULES AND REGUlATIONS 1 SENATORS 1 1HE GOVERNMENT 1 GOVERNMENT IS RESPONSIBLE 1 1HE GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPT 1 GOVERNMENT MADE IT/SHOULD CARE FOR IT I 1HE STUPIDITY OF 1HE GOVERNMENT I GOVERNMENT SPENDING I UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IS FUCKED I GOVERNMENT, BAD TOTAL Frequency for Category: 125 (1.25%) b. Military / Weapons 23 BOMBS 17 MILITARY 9 FALLOUT S TESfSITE 7 BOMB 4 MISSILES 3 ARMY 3 GUNS 2 ATOMIC BOMB 2 BOMBING 2 DEFENSE 2 WEAPON 2 WEAPONS 1 ARMY DEPOl'S I ATOMBOMB 1 ATOMIC TESTING 1 BOMBING, UNDERGROUND I HOPE Nor NEEDED FOR WARFARE I HYDROGEN BOMB TESTING I LEAD TO WAR HAZARDS I MILITARY BASE I MILITARY DEFENSE I MISSILE SITES I MXMISSILE I NATIONAL DEFENSE I NUCLEAR BOMBS I NUCLEAR TESTING I NUCLEAR TESTS I NUCLEAR WARHEADS I NUCLEAR WEAPONS 1 NUKEBOMBS 1 PENTAGONS I PREPARATION OF WAR 1 ROCKETS I TESTING IN NEVADA I WARGAMES I WARHEADS I WORLDWARII TOTAL Frequency for Category: 106 (1.06%) c. Science, Technology, Research and Progress 6 TESTING 4 SCIENCE 3 PROGRESS 2 RESEARCH I ADEQUATE TECHNOLOGY I ADVANCEMENT I COLD FUSION I EXPERIMENTAL STAGES d. Political Process 19 POLmCS 2 POLmCIANS I BIGGER PROBLEM wrm WASHINGTON I MONEY-POLmCAL 1 HIGH TECHNOLOGY 1 LEf SCIENTISTS HANDLE IT, Nor MEDIA 1 LEf 1HE EXPERTS DECIDE 1 OBSOLEfE TECHNOLOGY 1 PHYSICS I RESEARCHED I SCIENTIFIC I SCIENTIFIC STUDY 1 eor,~C'lr,.& r r v ,, ._ r rn. I SCIENTIST 1 SCIENTISTS SHOULD CHECK OUT SAFEIY 1 SOMETHING 1HAT NEEDS TO BE RESEARCHED I TECHNOLOGY, TO STOP RADIATION I TESTING IS NECESSARY 1 1HERE SHOULD BE MORE RESEARCH I VERY TECHNICAL TOTAL Frequency for Category: 42 (0.42%) I POLmCAL BATTLE I POLmCAL LIES 1 POLmCAL MANEUVERING I POLmCAL PWY I POLmCAL STRIFE I SIRONGER CONTROL POLmCALLY I TOO POLmCIZED 1 VERY POLmCAL TOTAL Frequency for Category: 31 (0.31%) a. Natural Environment 44 WATER 35 ENVIRONMENT 6 GROUND WATER 5 AIR 3 MOUNTAINS 3 WATER, GROUND 2 OCEAN 2 SOIL 1 AIR QUALITY 1 ANIMALUFE 1 AQUIFER b. Food and Water Supply 3 WATERSUPPLY 2 AGRICULTURE 2 DRINKINGWATER 2 FOOD 2 WATER SYSTEMS 2 WATER TABLE c. Climate 2 COLD 2 COOL VIII. ECOWGY I BEACHES I BIRDS I EARTH 1 F.COLOGY I F.COLOGY, U.S. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL 1 FlSH I FLOWERS I HABITAT I LAKES I NATURE APPENDIX - Page 19 I PLANTS I RING-TAIL POSSUMS I RIVER I THEWATER I UNDERGROUND LAKE I UNDERGROUND WATER 1 VEGETATION I VEGETATION ON EARTH I WATER, UNDERGROUND I WILDERNESS TOTAL Frequency for Category: 124 (1.24%) I AGRICULTURAL DISASTER 1 BAD FOR CROPS 1 FAILING CROPS 1 HOW IT WILL AFFECT WATER USED I NO VEGETABLES 1 WATER RUN OFF 1 WATER WELL 1 WATER, STABILITY 1 WATERTABLE I WELL WATER DESTROYED I WELLS 1 WOULDN'l'WANTTODRINKTHEWATER TOTAL Frequency for Category: 25 (0.25%) 2 DRY I CLIMATE I HOT WEATHER I WET TOTAL Frequency for Category: 9 (0.09%) a. Necessary 56 NECESSARY 21 NECESSITY 17 NEEDED 9 NECESSARY EVIL 3 HAS TO BE OONE 3 WE NEED 1HEM 2 IT'S GOT TO GO SOMEWHERE 2 IT'S NECESSARY 2 IT'S NEEDED 1 BUTHAVETOHAVE1HEM 1 ESSENTIAL 1 GOTTO 00 SOME1HING wrm IT 1 GOT TO PUT IT SOMEWHERE 1 GOT TO PUT SOMEWHERE 1 HAS TO HAPPEN 1 HAVETOHAVEIT 1 HA VE TO HA VE 1HEM IX. NECESSARY 1 I 1HINK IT'S CERTAINLY NECESSARY 1 IT IS A NECESSITY 1 IT IS NECESSARY 1 IT MUST BE OONE 1 IT'SAMUST 1 IT'S A SHAME 1HAT WE HA VE TO HA VE IT 1 KNOW IT IS NECESSARY 1 MANDATORY 1 MUST BE SOMEWHERE 1 NEED 1 NEED IT 1 NEEDMORE 1 NEEDED IN 1HAT ARFA 1 NOCHOICE 1 NO OTI{ER CHOICE 1 NOT GOOD, BUT NEEDED 1 SOME1HING HAS TO BE OONE APPENDIX - Page 20 1 SOME1HING 1HAT HAS TO HAPPEN 1 SOME1HINGWEHAVETOHAVE 1 SOME1HING YOU HAVE TO LIVE wrm 1 SOMEWHAT NECESSARY 1 1HEY GOT TO 00 SOME1HING wrm IT 1 1HEY'RE NECESSARY 1 UNDERSTAND 1HE NEED FOR IT 1 UNPLEASANT NECESSITY 1 WE HAVE TO HAVE 1HEM 1 WENEEDIT 1 WE NEED IT AND NOBODY WANTS IT 1 WE NEED MORE PIACES FOR 1HAT 1 WE NEED ONE PIACE FOR ALL OF IT 1 WE NEED SOME PIACE TO GET RID OF IT 1 WE SHOULD HAVE SOME 1 YOU'VE GOT TO HA VE 1HEM TOTAL Frequency for Category: 156 (1.56%) a. Cost 23 EXPENSIVE 6 COSTLY 4 cosr 4 TAXES 3 EXPENSE 2 ECONOMICS 1 BIGFUNDS 1 COSfMONEY b. Employment 33 JOBS 11 EMPWYMENT 8 WORK c. Money / Income 16 MONEY 2 INCOME 2 Wl'S OF MONEY 1 DOLIARS d. Economics - Other ECONOMY X. ECONOMICS 1 COSf TO MUCH 1 cosr TO TAXPAYERS 1 DIRTY PROPERTY VALUE 1 DOLIARS WASTED 1 ECONOMIC I EXPENSES FROM NUCLEAR WASTE I HIGHCOSf 1 HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO COSf APPENDIX - Page 21 1 INSTANT DEBT 1 PROPERTYVALUES I PROPERTY VALUES TO DROP I THEPRICEWEPAY I WHAT'S THE cosr 1 WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR IT TOTAL Frequency for Category: 58 (0.58%) 1 BUSY PlACE OF EMPWYMENT 1 CREATED EMPWYMENT 1 HIGH PAY I INCREASED JOBS I MOREJOBS TOTAL Frequency for Category: 57 (0.57%) I INCOME FOR PEOPLE IN THE STATE I WTOFMONEY I LUCRATIVE I MONETARY I MONEY FOR STATE 1 PROFITABLE I STATE INCOME 1 WHAT'S THE PROFIT OF THE CO. TOTAL Frequency for Category: 29 (0.29%) I UNEMPWYMENT TOTAL Frequency for Category: 5 (0.05%) XI. INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE a. Uninformed 4 DONTKNOW 4 IGNORANCE 4 UNFAMILIAR 3 UNCERTAIN 2 CONFUSING 2 CONFUSION 2 DONT KNOW ABOUT IT 2 DONT KNOW WHAT IT IS 2 UNEDUCATED I DONT KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT IT TO MESS WITH I DONT KNOW HOW BIG I DONT KNOW HOW TO DISPOSE OF IT SAFBL Y I DONT KNOW SOLUilON I DONT KNOW WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT I DONT KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH IT I DONT KNOW WHERE THEY ARB I DONT THINK PUBLIC IS INFORMED I DONT UNDERSTAND I DONT UNDERSTAND IT I I DONT KNOW WHAT THEY DO WITH THEM 1 IDONTKNOW I I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THEM I I RBALL Y DONT KNOW 1 IGNORANCE-NOT KNOWING ABOUT IT 1 IGNORANT PUBLIC OPINION I lACK OF INFORMATION I lACK OF KNOWLEDGE I lACK OF UNDERSTANDING APPENDIX - Page 22 I lACK OF WASfB DISPOSAL KNOWLEDGE I MISUNDERSTANDING 1 NANB 1 NO COMPREHENSION 1 NOIDBA 1 NOT INFORMED ABOUT IT 1 NOT SURE WHAT IT IS 1 PEOPLE DONT KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT IT 1 PUBLIC MISUNDERSTANDING 1 SO MUCH WE DONT KNOW I SO MUCH WE DONT UNDERSTAND 1 UNINFORMED 1 UNKNOWLEDGBABLB TOTAL Frequency for Category: 57 (0.57%) b. Unsure / Unknown 20 UNKNOWN 11 UNCERTAINTY 3 UNSURE 2 DOUBT I UNKNOWN FACTORS OF EFFFCrS 1 UNKNOWN QUALITIES UNKNOWN-GOOD OR BAD? TOTAL Frequency for Category: 39 (0.39%) c. Curiosity, Interest and Knowledge 3 CURIOSITY 2 CURIOUS 2 EDUCATION 2 INTBRBSTING 2 KNOWLEDGE 1 AWARENESS d. Media 2 MEDIA 2 PUBLICITY I MEDIA CONTROL 1 INFORMATION 1 INFORMATIVE 1 INFORMED 1 MORE INFORMATION I MORE UNDERSTANDING 1 NEED TO BB EDUCATED ON IT 1 l'BOPLB SHOULD BB MORE AWARE OF IT 1 PROPER EDUCATION 1 PUBLICAWARBNESS 1 PUBLIC INTEREST 1 PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE 1 UNDERSTAND TOTAL Frequency for Category: 24 (0.24%) 1 NEWSPAPER I RADIO I SENSATION PRESS I TBLBVISION TOTAL Frequency for Category: 9 (0.09%) e. Information, Knowledge - Other 1 UNSTIJDIED I UNTBSTBD TOTAL Frequency for Category: 2 (0.02%) a. Positive, Unconcerned 4 GOOD 2 BENEFITS 2 GOOD IDEA 2 NOf WORRIED ABOUI' IT 2 SOUNDS GOOD 1 ACCEPTIT 1 AFF1RMATIVE 1 ALI.RIGHT 1 ALRIGHT 1 BENEFlCIAL 1 BEST TIIING 1 DESIRABLE 1 DOESN'T BOIHER ME 1 DOESN'T BOIHER ME A BIT 1 DOESN'T WORRY ME 1 FAVOR 1 FAVORABLE 1 GOOD FOR COUN1RY b. Effective 2 EFFICIENCY 2 WELL DESIGNED 2 WELL MAINTAINED 1 APPROPRIATE I BEST ALTERNATIVE 1 BETTER TIIAN ABOVE GROUND I BETTER TIIAN ontER SOLUTION I BETTER TIIAN SENDING IT INTO SPACE c. Improved Environment 2 CLEAN I ADD TO ENVIRONMENT 1 CLEANAIR d. Feasible 2 FEASIBLE e. Positive - Other I USE NUCLEAR POWER XII. POSITIVE I GOOD PLACE TO KEEP IT I GOOD PLACE TO S'IORE I HAPPYDAYS 1 HAPPY TIIOUGHT I IT DOESN'T BUG ME 1 IT'S ALL RIGHI' WI'IH ME I LOWRISK 1 NOPROBLEM I NO PROBLEM WI'IH IT 1 NOSWEAT I NO WORRY ABOUI' IT I NONTIIREATENING I NOf A BIG DEAL I NOf AFRAID OF IT 1 NOf AS WORRIED AS ontERS 1 NOf CONCERNED 1 NOf TOO WORRIED ABOUI' IT 1 NOf WORRIED APPENDIX - Page 23 1 NontING AGAINST 1 O.IC. 1 OKAYWI'IH ME 1 ON TIIE POSITIVE SIDE 1 POSITIVE FEELINGS 1 POSSIBLY GOOD IDEA 1 PRETIY GOOD 1 PRO 1 PUI'ITIN 1 SHOULD HA VE IT 1 SMART 1 THAT'S FlNE 1 UNAFRAID 1 UNCONCERNED 1 WELCOME 1 WOULDN'T BOIHER ME TOTAL Frequency for Category: 59 (0.59%) 1 BETTER UNDERGROUND TIIAN ABOVE 1 ECONOMICAL 1 EFFICIENT 1 FlNE UNDERGROUND 1 GOOD IDEA-IT CAN'T BE PU!' ON TOP 1 GOODSENSE 1 GOOD TO BE UNDERGROUND 1 HELPFUL 1 LOGICAL 1 MAYBE UNDERGROUND WOULD BE BEST 1 ONE OF TIIE BEST WA VS TO DISPOSE OF IT 1 ONE OF TIIE FEW SOLUTIONS WE'VE Gar 1 PROPERLY DESIGNED 1 WELLSITED TOTAL Frequency for Category: 25 (0.25%) 1 CLEAN ENVIRONMENT 1 LESS POLLUTION 1 LOWSMOG 1 NOFALLOUI' 1 NO MORE POLLUTION TOTAL Frequency for Category: 9 (.09%) 1 SOLVABLE TOTAL Frequency for Category: 3 (0.03%) TOTAL Frequency for Category: 1 (0.01%) a. Future / Long Lasting 14 FUl1JRE 8 FUl1JRE GENERATIONS 4 GENERATIONS 4 LONG HALF LIFE 4 PERMANENT 3 FOREVER 3 LONGTERM 2 10,000 YEARS 2 LONG LASTING 2 LONG TERM EFFECTS 1 2S,000 YEARS 1 ALWAYS THERE 1 AWFUL LONG HALF LIFE 1 CHANCE OF FUl1JRE DHVELOPMENTS 1 DEIRIMENTAL IN YEARS TO COME 1 DON'T BIODEGRADE I EVERLASTING b. Energy/ Power 13 POWER 12 ENERGY 8 ELECI'RICITY 6 NUCLEAR POWER 5 POWER PLANTS 4 NUCLEAR PlANT 2 NUCLEAR POWER PlANT c. Transportation 20 TRANSPORTATION 2 CARS 2 RAILROAD 2 TRANSPORTATION, ACCIDENTS 2 TRUCKS d. Find Alternatives 5 ALTERNATIVES I ALTERNATIVE ME'IHODS I ALTERNATIVES I BEITER SOLUTION I BEITER WAY OF STORAGE I COME UP wrrn ALTERNATIVE XIII. MISCELLANEOUS I FUl1JRE CLEANUP I FUl1JRE DANGER I FUl1JRE Nor TOO BRIGHT I FUl1JRE PROBLEMS WHEN IT'S STILL THERE I GENERATION 1 GENERATIONS OF DAMAGE I HALF LIFE FOREVER 1 HOW LONG WILL IT LAST 1 HOW LONG WILL THEY BE TRANSPORTING IT I LASTING EFFECTS I u.sTS FOREVER I u.sTS MANY YEARS I LONG DISSOLVING TIME I LONG LASTING PROBLEMS I LONG RANGE EFFECTS 1 LONG TERM TROUBLE APPENDIX - Page 24 I LONG-TERM PROBLEM I LONGEVITY 1 MAY ENDANGER FUl1JRE GENERATIONS 1 MORTGAGING OUR CHILDREN FUl1JRE I NO REVERSAL I PERMANENCE I PERMANENT DAMAGE I PROfECTION FOR FUl1JRE 1 STAYS IN EARTH FOREVER 1 STORAGE FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS I STORAGE, LONG TERM I THE FUl1JRE OF THE WORLD I THE NEXT GENERATION I UNCERTAIN FUl1JRE I YEARS DOWN ROAD TOTAL Frequency for Category: 85 (0.85%) 2 NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 2 POWER PlANT I CHEAP ELECI'RICITY I ENERGY SAVING 1 ENERGY SAVINGS 1 NUCLEAR ENERGY 1 NUCLEAR PLANTS I NUCLEAR POWER STATION I POTENTIAL ENERGY SOURCE 1 POWER STATION I POWER, ENERGY I UNLIMITED POWER I USEFUL FOR ENERGY UTILIZATION TOTAL Frequency for Category: 65 (0.65%) 1 HAULING I RAILROAD OR TRUCK I SHIPMENT 1 SHIPMENTS I TRAFFIC CONGESTION I TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS I TRANSPORTATION, CHEMICALS I TRANSPORTATION, RAILROAD 1 TRANSPORTATION, WASTE 1 TRUCK TOTAL Frequency for Category: 38 (0.38%) 1 FLOATING NUCLEAR WASTE 1 Nor IN FAVOR OF BURYING 1 GOf TO BE A BEITER WAY 1 OTHER SOURCES FOR DISPOSAL 1 GOV NEEDS TO THINK OF SOMETHING DIFFRNT 1 SHOULD BE CHANGED I HAVE BEITER WAY TO GET RID OF IT 1 SOMETHING BEITER 1 I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD BURY THE snJFF I SOMETHING BEITER MANAGED 1 MUST BE A BEITER WAY I THERE'S A BEITER IDEA I FlGURE OUT A WAY TO NEUTRAUZE IT 1 FlND ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE I NEEDANALTERNATESOLUTION I THINKOFABEITERWAY 1 NEED BEITER WAY TO GET RID OF IT 1 WISH SOMETHING OTHER THAN THAT • ••--••-·---•••a,... a ---- •••• •• . ··-····--··· ....... ..,. .................... . TOTAL Frequency for Category: 31 (0.31%) e. Natural Disasters (Potential or Actual) 19 EARTHQUAKE 6 EARTHQUAKES 2 VOLCANO I FLOODS 1 EARTHQUAKES, FAULTS TOTAL Frequency for Category: 29 (0.29%) f. Population 9 POPUL-\ TION S PEOPLE 3 LIVES g. Degree of Distance 11 DISTANCE 2 FAR I 100 MILES AWAY I 20-MILES XIII. MISCELLANEOUS I CROWDED I CROWDS I HUMANITY APPENDIX - Page 25 I LARGE CTTIES I POPUL-\TION INCREASE TOTAL Frequency for Category: 22 (0.22%) I CLOSE I CLOSE TO WHERE I LIVE I DISTANCEAWAYFROM1HINGS I DISTANCE FROM I FlFIY-MllESAWAY 1 PROXIMITY TOTAL Frequency for Category: 21 (0.21%) h. Neutral / Apathetic / Mixed Feelings 2 DOESN'T MA'ITER 2 NEUTRAL I APA1HETIC Wl1H 1HAT SUBJECI' I BOREDOM I BORING I DOESN'T EFFECI' ME i. Supervision / Responsibility 2 MANAGEMENT 2 RESPONSIBIUIY 2 SUPERVISION I MANAGED PROPERLY j. Public Figures 3 RONALD REAGAN 2 JERRY FALWEIL 1 DR.TELLER k. Fiction I 19SOS PICTURE 1 A MOVIE I SAW ONCE 1 DAY AFTER-MOVIE I MOVIE 1. Problem Avoidance 2 DON'T WANT TO 1HINK ABOUT IT 1 DON'T UKE TO 1HINK ABOUT IT 1 ITRYNOfTO I DON'TCARE 1 DON'T OPPOSE IT 1 DON'T 1HINK ABOUT IT I FEW PEOPLE WHO CARE I INDECISIVE 1 INDIFFERENCE I INDIFFERENT I IT WON'T MA'ITER I MIXED FEEUNGS I NEUTRALITY I NOTHING. DOESN'T AFFECI' ME TOTAL Frequency for Category: 20 (0.20%) I MANAGEMENT 1 MORE RESPONSIBLE 1 NEED SUPERVISION 1 NEEDS TO BE HANDLED RIGHT I OBLIGATION TO DEAL Wl1H IT RESPONSIBLY I SOMEBODY WATCH OVER IT I SUPERVISED TOTAL Frequency for Category: 14 (0.14%) I GEORGE BUSH 1 GORBE'CHEV 1 MERYL SfREEP I NIXON I OUJENOR1H 1 REAGAN TOTAL Frequency for Category: 12 (0.12%) I MOVIES I REMINDS ME OF A MOVIE I REPOMAN I SCIENCE FlCTION I SCIENCE FlCTION MOVIE 1 SCIENCE FlCTION NOVEL 1 1HE DAY AFTER TOTAL Frequency for Category: 11 (0.11%) I I WISH IT WASN'T NECESSARY I I WISH WE COULD FOROB'f ABOUT WASTE I TRY Nor TO THINK ABOUT IT 1 WISH WE DIDN'T HAVE THEM 1 WISH WE DIDN'T NEBO THEM TOTAL Frequency for Category: 9 (0.09%) m. Inevitability 4 INEVITABLE 1 GOINGTODO n. Faith 1 IITERNAL 1 IITERNAL UFE o. O.K If ... 1 AS WNG AS IT IS HANDLED RIGHf XIII. MISCELLANEOUS 1 GONNA BB GONNA BB 1 IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN APPENDIX - Page 26 1 WERE GOING TO HAVE TOTAL Frequency for Category: 8 (0.08%) 1 FAITH 1 WRD TAKES CARE OF EVERYTHING 1 HEAVEN TOTAL Frequency for Category: 5 (0.05%) 1 AS WNG AS IT'S NOf DANGEROUS 1 GOOD IF UNDERGROUND 1 OKIFAWAYFROMPOPULATION TOTAL Frequency for Category: 4 (0.04%) SNOTIIING 4 EXPOSURE 4UFE 4TIME 3BREA1HING 3RECYCLE 2 CLAUSIROPHOBIA 2COMMUNISM 2 CONSERVATION 2CRIES 2DUSf 2 EFFECTS 2GREEN 2 GREENPEACE 2GROWIH 2HELP 2HIDE 2HOSPITAL 2UGHI'S 2NOGROWIH 2PEACE 2PLANT 2 PRCYJ'ECl1VE 2 RECYCLEABLE 2RED 2 RUSSIANS 2SCAPEGOAT 2SHELTER 2SIGNS 2SPACE 2SURVIVAL 2TOOMANY 2TREATMENT 2UNREAL 2 WOUlDN'f WANT TO BE AROUND I 121HGRADE l 17I'H/WASHJNGTON I 19SO'S I A BUNCH OF STUFF UNDERGROUND IA COP OUT I A LOT OF TALK ABOUT IT I A LOT OF TRAFFIC IN AND OUT I A LOT OF WORK !ABANDON !ABANDONED I ABANDONED MACHINERY I ACCESSIBILITY I ACCESSIBLE !ACTION I ADDRESS 1HE PROBLEM I AFFFCTING LIVES !AFTERGLOW !AFTERMATH IAIRRAID IAUENATOR !AIL ALONE I ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF ENERGY I ALTERNATIVE TO PROVIDE THAT POWER !AMOUNT I ANY REPOSITORY I APS SHOUlD PAY FOR IT IATIACKS I AVAllABLE I BACKFIRE IBAW I BAWNESS I BARRELS, DEBRIS I BARROWS !BASE I BASEMENT I BATS I BEER I BEST FRIEND'S PARTY I Bl- PRODUCT I Bl-PRODUCTS I BIGGER PROBLEM WITH LANGUAGE PEOPLE USE I BITHERS TOY XIV. UNCATEGORIZED IMAGES I BIZARRE I BLASTING !BLIND I BLOWING IT UP I BLOWING 1HINGS UP I BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION !BODY PARTS I BRAVE I BUDDIE PERCHETil I BUFFALO I CAMWAYS MANAGEMENT I CAN'f HELP ANYTHING !CANYON !CAPACITY I CARE FOR WORKERS OF FACILITIES ICAUlDRON I CHilDISH I CHllDREN (GENERATION) I CHINA I.AKE-KIDS AFFECl'ED I CITY DEPRESSION I CLAUSIROPHOBIC I CLEARING I CLOSE TO AN OCEAN I CLOSED FAST !COAL MINE !COMING I CONSIRUCTION !CONSUMER I CONSUMER ADVICE I CONTAGIOUS I CONVERTED TO FUEL !CORE I COUNTRIES I COVERAGE PROPERLY I CPPP !CURRENT I CURTAILMENT I DEFACING I DEFINITE I DEFOLIATION I DENSE I DEPENDS ON CIRCUMSTANCES IDEPLimON I DEPOSIT I DESIGN OWN BETIER 1HEN ANYTHING ELSE I DISARMAMENT I DISPERSION I DISPOSAL DEVICE I DISPOSAL UNIT I DO WITH WASTE !DOG FOOD I DON'f CAUSE PROBLEMS I DON'f DESTROY COLORADO I DON'f EDUCATE PEOPLE ABOUT IT I DON'f 1HINK WE SHOUlD WASTE ANY I DON'f 1HROW WHERE THEY ARE I DON'f WANT IN OPEN I DONE RIGHT I DOWNFAIL OF POPULATION I DRAINAGE !DUDE I EFFORT I EMOTIONS I EMPLOYEES I ENGINEERING I ENVIRONMENTAL HEAL1H I ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE I ENVIRONMENTALIST I ERUPTION I ESCAPE 1 EUROPE HAS LESS TROUBLE 1 EVACUATION PLANS 1 EVENTS I EVENTUAL EVACUATION I EVENTUAILY BECAME TOO COMMON I EVERYBODY WOUlD MOVE I EVERYONE SHOUlD BE INVOLVED !EXEClmON APPENDIX - Page 27 1 EXISTING lFACTOFUFE !FAD I FARM ANIMALS I FATIGUE I FEIL FOR PEOPLE UVJNG CLOSE TO IT I FENCING 1 FEUDAL I FlElD 1 FlElD CONTAINERS 1 FlElD IN GLASS I FlNDING 1HE LOCATIONS I FRACTURE POINTS !FUEL !GAMBLE I GEOLOGICAL SURVEY I GERMANY-UNDERGROUND SYSTEMS I GEI'S BANNED I GETilNG RID OF THE WASTE I GIANT GRANT I GOING TO GET FUIL IGOlDSUITS !GOSH !GRAVEYARD !GRAY I GROUNDWORK I GROWING NEAR 1HEM DEAD 1HINGS !GUIDELINES I GUS'IY !GUTTER I GUTIERS !HAIR 1 HARD TO DEFlNE I HARD TO NOTICE IT'S 1HBRE I HARRY REID I HECTIC I HEIGHI'S I HIDING I HIGH VOLTAGE I HISTORY I HOMELESS PEOPLE I HOPING THAT WE CAN GET RID OF IT I HOSPITALS I HOTSPOTS I HUGE GRAVEYARD I HUGEWEILS I HYPERTENSION I I HOPE IT DOESN'f BLOW UP I I HOPE IT IS IN A MOUNTAINOUS AREA I I HOPE IT'S PUT TOGETHER WEIL 1 I WONDER WHY WE HAVE IT 1 I'D VOfE TO HA VE IT CLEANED UP I IMMEDIATEATIENTION I IMPROPER INFO I INHABITABLE !INSECTS I INSENSITIVE I INSIGNIFlCANT I INSULATION I INTEX I INVESTIGATION !ION !IRON I ISLAND I IT'S A POSSIBILITY !JAPANESE I JUSf DO IT I KEEP DENSELY POPULATED I KEEP OUT OF SIGHT I KENNEi.MAN CITY !LACK I LAND ELIMINATION I LARGE COMP !LAVA I LAWSUITS, BIG ONES I lAX CONTROL I LEAVE I LENG1H 1 LESS GROUND 1 LESS PEOPLE lUABIUJY 1 LIBERAL lLIBERALS lLIMITEDUSE 1 LIVE WITH IT 1 LOCATED IN A MILDLY POPULATED AREA 1 LONELY 1 LONG TERM COMMITMENTS lLONGWAIT 1 LOOKS LIKE MY NEIGHBORHOOD 1 LOSS OF SPACE 1 LOTS OF SPACE FOR SOMETHING 1 LOTS OF TIME lLOUD 1 LOW LEVEL IS Nor A CONCERN 1 MAINTENANCE 1 MAKING IT INTO TOURIST PLACE 1 MALFUNCTIONING POSSIBILITIES lMANMADE 1 MASKS 1 MATERIAL 1 MELTING 1 MELTING POf 1 MIKE BOSMAN lMILL 1 MINING AREA 1 MIXED 1 MODERN 1 MODERN TIME lMOLDY lMOSS 1 MOVE THEM lMOVEMENT 1 MY HOUSE 1 MYSTERY 1 NATION 1 NATIONAL 1 NATURE WILL HOPEFULLY TAKE CARE OF IT 1 NEGATE lNEW lNEWWORLD lNEWS 1 NIGHT 1 NOEFFECf 1 NO HOPE FOR SOLAR 1 NO MATTER HOW THEY USE IT 1 NO MORE ROOM INSIDE 1 NO TRESPASSING SIGNS 1 NO USE lNOWORK 1 NON-PEACE 1 NON-PRODUCTIVE lNONE 1 NOSE 1 Nor CLOSE TO WATER 1 Nor ENOUGH 1 Nor ENOUGH SAFE PLACES 1 Nor EXPERIENCED 1 Nor MUCH OF ANYTHING 1 Nor NATURAL 1 Nor SUFFIOENT 1 Nor TAKEN CARE OF 1 Nor THE WAY OF THE FUTURE 1 Nor TOO DANGEROUS 1 OVERALL USES HELPFUL lOWN 1 PATRIOTISM 1 PEACE 1 PEACE WILL OVERCOME 1 PEOPLE DON'!' KNOW IT'S THERE 1 PEOPLE RELATIONS 1 PEOPLE WON'!' TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT 1 PERMEATES 1 PLACE 1 PLANNING 1 PLANTATION DYING 1 POOR KIDS 1 POOR SOURCE OF ENERGY 1 POSSIBIUIY FOR HUMAN 1 POSSIBLE 1 POTENTIALLY 1 POVER'IY 1 PRACTICAL 1 PRAIRIE 1 PREJUDICE 1 PREPARATION I PREPAREDNESS 1 PREVENT CONTAMINATION 1 PREVENT NUCLEAR ACCIDENT 1 PRIVATE 1 PROBABLY HAS TO BE ADDRESSED 1 PROBABLY HA VE THEM AND DON'!' KNOW IT 1 PROBLEM IN MINNESarA 1 PROBLEM SOLVING 1 PROCESSED FOOD 1 PRODUCERS 1 PROLIFERATION OF HOSTILITIES 1 PROPER 1 PROPER DISPOSAL 1 PROPER'IY 1 PUSHOVERS 1 PUTATION 1 QUAUFlED PEOPLE 1 QUALl'IY 1 RACED 1 REACTION 1 REACTIONARIES 1 REDUGHT 1 RED SKY 1 REDESIGN 1 REDUCTION 1 REJECTED 1 REJECTION 1 REPOSITORY 1 REQUIREMENT 1 RESPECT 1 RESTRICTION 1 RETALIATION IRODS 1 RUBBER SUIT 1 RUNNING AWAY !RURAL 1 RUST 1 RUSTING SS GALLON BARRELS 1 RUSTY 1 SANITATION 1 SATURATION OF SOILS 1 SA VE ENERGY 1 SAVEMYUFE 1 SAVING MONEY 1 Nor WANT IT TO DAMAGE ANYTHING CLOSE BY 1 SCARa'JY 1 Nor WELL REGULATED 1 SCAVENGE 1 Nor WORTH TAKING CHANCES ON THE PEOPLE 1 SCHOOL 1 NOTHING COMES TO MIND !NOWHERE 1 OIL SPILL !ON ALERT !OPEC 1 OPTIONAL !ORGANIZED 1 OUT OF IT 1 OUT OF SIGHT 1 OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND lOUTOFWAY 1 OVER-RATED 1 SCHOOL AFFECTED I SEGREGATED I SELF DESTRUCTIVE 1 SEPARATE I SHARED 1 SHEER POINTS !SHIELDING !SHIP AWAY !SHORT RUN 1 SHOULD BE LOCKED 1 SHOULDN'I' BE ALONE ANYWHERE 1 SHOULDN'I' BE FEAR lSHOVED 1 SKilL8I'ONS 1 SKIN lSOOE'IY APPENDIX - Page 28 1 SOME FAOUIY TO HOUSE THE PEOPLE 1 SOMETHING NEW 1 SOMETHING SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT IT 1 SOMETHING THAT'S FUNNELED I SORRY WE Gar NO OTHER 1 SOVIEf 1 SPACE 1 SPACE IT WOULD TAKE lSPEAKERS I STABLE lSTATES lSTEAM 1 STERILE 1 STOCKPILE 1 STOP THE CAUSE 1 STOPPAGE 1 STORAGE OF DEADLY FUMES 1 STORAGE OF NUCLEAR WASTE 1 STORE STUFF 1 STORING NUCLEAR WASTE 1 STRESS 1 STRESS POINTS 1 SUBSTITUTE NUCLEAR 1 SUIODAL lSUIODE 1 SUMMIT MEEI1NG 1 SUN 1 SUPER COLUDER 1 SUPERFUND 1 SURPRISE 1 SURROUNDS US 1 SWAMPS THAT ARE DARK 1 TAKING ADVANTAGE OF ITS LOCATION 1 TAKING CARE OF IT 1 TAKING OUT SPACE lTANGWANDA 1 TEMPORARY 1 TEST TUBE 1 THERMO PLANTS 1 THOUGHTLESS lTO 1 TO POINT WHERE IT IS PART OF LIFE 1 TOO CLOSE 1 TOO CLOSE TO HOME 1 TOO MUCH 1 TOUCHES EVERYTHING 1 TOXIC ADVENTURE 1 TRASH DOWN IN PLACE 1 TRAVEL 1 TREATIES 1 TRYING TO GEi' UNDER CONTROL 1 TUTONIUM lUS 1 UGLY LANDSCAPE 1 UNFORTUNATELY 1 UNIFORMED 1 UNIFORMl'IY 1 UNIMPOSING 1 UNIVERSl'IY OF ARIZONA 1 UNOB'IRUSIVE STORAGE 1 UNTOLD UFE EXPECTANCY 1 USING THE WASTE FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES 1 UTAHONA 1 VALLEY 1 VALUE 1 VERY UTl1.E VEGEfATION 1 VULNERABLE 1 WASTE HAZARDS 1 WASTE OF UFE 1 WASTE REDUCTION 1 WASTE THE STATE OF OHIO 1 WASTE TIME 1 WASTED 1 WATER CONTAINER 1 WATER SEEPAGE 1 WATER, DRY SURROUNDING 1 WAY OFF 1 WE CAN DO ITIFWEPAYFORIT 1 WE GOf OURSELVES INTO IT/ULTIMATE WASl'E 1 WE HA VE TO PICK A PLACE TO HA VE IT 1 WE NEED ALL TIIE PROl'ECl10N WE CAN GET I WE'LL BE DEAD/TAKING OVER POPULATION I WE'RE NOT FINDING A BETTER SOLUTION I WELL BUILT I WELL BUILT INCINERATORS I WEST I WHAT CAN I DO I WHAT CAN WE DO TO ELIMINATE IT 1 WHATCITY 1 WHAT DO YOU WANT TO KNOW I WHAT TIIE HELL KIND OF QUESTION IS THAT I WHERE TIIEY PUT TIIE WASl'E I WHITE SAND I WHO CLEANS UP MESS 1 WHOSE ABLE TO HANDLE IT I WIFE I WIRES ABOVE GROUND APPENDIX - Page 29 I WISH WASN'T I WONDER I WORLDWIDE I WOULD HELP I WOULD NOT WANT TO LIVE 1 WOULD TIIEY GO OFF !WOW 1 YELLOW SUITS