In talking about the Nuclear Facts Report, I'm sometimes told: "But it's not the scientific facts that count; it's the perceived facts as seen by a nervous public." My answer is: that's a perfect situation to use the Facts Report.
If we confine our discussions to working within the context of the Facts Report, we encounter the following facts: The public has been more fearful than the facts seem to justify. So the policy-makers have responded by "appeasing the public" by providing much more “protection” than otherwise necessary. Next fact: The public has not been appeased. Instead, looking at the immensity of the “solution,” the public has (reasonably, in my opinion) concluded that the problem must actually be must worse than they had perceived, to require such a response. This course of history has continued until we have policy-makers claiming that if we can just complete the extreme “solution” of Yucca Mountain, the public will conclude that their previous concerns have now been met. I see no factual basis in science or history to support that hope, and much historical data to deny it.
We also have the Fact that a large majority of the people tell pollsters they favor building more nuclear power plants. Why don’t we base our measure of the public attitude on that, instead of reinforcing unreasonable fears by acting as if they were real? As long as we treat those fears as if they were realistically justified, why should the public see them any less so? The experts should provide the protection they considered needed, and then explain to the public why that policy is appropriate. At that time, reasonable questions, getting reasonable answers, should provide the best way to build public confidence.
Of course, the persons profiting from this outlay of money have a strong incentive to maintain it. That's another fact to be dealt with.