• SITE
• HOMES
• MOTORS
• CAREERS
• STUFF

On a scale from 1 to 7 – with 7 implying secure – how safe is nuclear power?

If you’ve already answered that question, you are one of 600 surveyed about the divisive energy source.

Victoria and Refugio county residents were polled by phone during recent weeks.

Based on the questioning, some residents felt the survey was pro-nuclear. Others felt it was anti-nuclear.

Will Guild couldn’t be happier.

“That is the perfect result for me,” said Guild, a seasoned pollster. “I try to design surveys that are very neutral. That makes me very happy.”

Guild heads The Guild Group, an Austin-based social science research firm. The O’Connor Ranch interests paid Guild to conduct the phone survey. However, the O’Connor interests have yet to publicly say if it supports or opposes a Victoria nuclear power plant.

Residents were asked to rate all major available energy sources, including fossil fuel sources. Questions were shaped to gauge how residents feel and what they know about energy, he said.

The survey is complete. Results will be compiled within two weeks. Guild declined further comment.

His company’s many clients range from Nike to the Lower Colorado River Authority.

Exelon Nuclear announced in December that Victoria is its primary site for a proposed nuclear plant. Since then, nuclear power proponents and opponents have been posturing for support.

The proposed plant site is in south Victoria County – near McFaddin and not far from Refugio County. It would produce power to be distributed throughout South Texas.

The O’Connor Ranch interests own large chunks of land near there and paid for the survey to gauge public opinion about the proposed plant, according to Bill Jones, spokesman for the O’Connor Ranch interests.

The poll should offer a representative sampling, although there is a slight margin of error, he said.

“We are doing exactly what we said we’d be doing from the start. We are independently educating ourselves about the prospects long term, both positive and negative,” Jones said. “This is not a theme park coming to town. This is a nuclear power plant with long-term consequences.”

Although Victoria public officials have said residents support the project, the survey will be the first scientific proof either way, he suggested.

Resident reaction to the survey, however, was as varied as the questions.

Helen Salinas, 41, felt the survey was pro-nuclear. She was asked for opinions about different energy sources – solar, wind, coal, hydro and nuclear – and their effect on the environment.

“They really do a hard sell to make the nuclear plant sound like a good idea,” she said. “They talked about how many jobs it will bring and how the value of our home will go up. They said it burns cleaner than coal and the cost will remain stable for years to come. Toward the end, they really gave you a spiel about it.”

Bruce Rogers, a local pharmacy owner, was surveyed, too.

The questions were worded to slight nuclear power, he said. He was asked if a nuclear power plant would cause a local housing shortage, and about nuclear spills and disposal, he said.

“There was nothing positive. I think it was a biased survey,” he said.

Jones disagrees.

“The questions certainly were not slanted,” he said. “We didn’t commission it to get a specific answer. We commissioned it to get the truth. And that’s something that no one really has right now – what true public opinion is.”

Jones said it’s likely the survey results will be made public, although they are intended for the family’s education.

“I do know initially that this is a very polarizing issue in the community. We’re trying to determine to what extent,” he said. “We want to ensure that short-term economic gain isn’t exchanged for long-term environmental risk,” he said.

Jones wouldn’t say how much they paid for the survey, replying that “no cost is too great to get to the truth.”

Gabe Semenza and Tara Bozick are reporters for the Advocate. Contact them at 361-580-6519 or 361-580-6504, or at gsemenza@vicad.com or tbozick@vicad.com respectively.