Abstrat :: Most discussions about public resistance to hazardous waste facility siting assume that opponents to the projects—those evincing “not-in-my-backyard” (NIMBY) attitudes—have strong environmental values, insufficient or inaccurate knoeledge, and can be assuaged by managerial input or economic benefits. Yet our findings suggest that a person's orientation towards the environment is not a significant factor in opposing these facilities, and that knowledge generally works to polarize differences rather than collapse them. Prescriptions for dilemma revolve around three strategies: education, economic incentives, and inclusion in management. Yet these prescriptions generally do not work as expected, and siting is delayed or scrapped. We propose that the foregoing assumptions are in some ways inaccurate or wrong, and that NIMBY attitudes have a stronger basis in core cultural values than more immediate instrumental considerations. The case of nuclear power is used as an analogy, since research has shown clearly that presentation of the issue as one of deficient public accountability by capitalist institutions has proved more effective than alternative explanations evoking environmental quality or economic efficiency. Technical issues, such as those involving nuclear power and hazardous waste, require intermediaries for most people to understand and interpret the issues and relate them to their core values. But while there are many continuities between the two issues, we find that there are still opportunities for public attitudes toward hazardous waste to develop differently.