Studies of reactions to nuclear facilities have found consistent male/female differences, but the underlying reasons have never been well-clarified. The most common expectations involve traditional roles--with men focusing more on economic concerns and with women (especially mothers) being more concerned about family safety/health. Still, with changing gender roles, women are becoming economic providers as well as caregivers; past studies have not actually examined the interaction of employment and gender effects. This study examines a rural county where issues of risk and economic interest were both salient--a county where a nuclear waste site had been proposed but where an existing nuclear power plant was a major employer. Overall, concern levels expressed by employed mothers did not differ significantly from those in the rest of the sample, but further analyses revealed a sharp contrast: In the half of the county that was home to the existing nuclear power plant, where economic concerns could be expected to be more salient, over 90 percent of the employed mothers expressed low levels of concern; in the other half of the county, closer to the potential risks of the proposed nuclear waste site, almost 90 percent of the employed mothers expressed "high" levels of concern. No such differences are found for other sociodemographic groups. This county may or may not be unique; what the findings show is that the interplay of geography, gender roles and risks should receive more attention in other contexts, as well. (Contains 1 figure and 4 tables.)