The present analysis of focus group discussions follows up on a survey study that showed clear demographic differences regarding the public’s attitudes to various measures after a possible nuclear accident with radioactive fallout in residential areas. Against the background of these attitudinal differences found along demographics, this focus group study recruited respondents who would likely differ in their chosen approach to risks and measures, but with the aim of studying how they choose to articulate attitudes in the discussions. What they all were asked to relate to was a scenario where radioactive fallout has prompted evacuation and decontamination, and later the possibility of continuing to live in their home but with certain rules of conduct because all the surrounding areas are not decontaminated and safe - a very likely outcome in the case of a radionuclide accident. Using concepts from appraisal analysis, the conversations from 12 focus groups were studied. With the exception of some elderly men, who articulate lower risk and greater acceptance of and attachment to the decontaminated home area, the results show that the respondents create a negative alignment with the scenario of living in a decontaminated neighborhood, and thus present more positive attitudes to moving permanently. The respondents acknowledge that the authorities make an effort in such a situation, but then raise critical questions, thus often using so-called concession/counter pairs to endorse balanced opinions. Overall, the objections, consisting of evaluative categorization and adjectives and modal choices in the upper scale of intensification, signal discomfort and worry on a number of themes including (1) the severity and magnitude of the risk across time and space, (2) the uncertainty of knowledge, (3) restrictions on the use of environments, and (4) children’s vulnerability and proneness to testing boundaries (including spatial restrictions, see point 3). These results demonstrate that the predominant, international government measures presented as restoration (with evacuation, decontamination, and the supposed return to normal life) are articulated and evaluated very differently and critically by most focus group participants. Thus, the study lastly discusses how risk governance in the area of radionuclide risk could be developed in order to incorporate, instead of counteracting, citizens’ understanding of risk and safety.