Using data from 132 telephone interviewees, we examined the role of affective-cognitive ambivalence in forming overall attitude and behavior toward toxic chemical and radioactive waste issues in Marion, Ohio in the U.S. In order to compare attitudinal preference, participants were divided into four A-C groups: action-group (Affective+/Cognitive+), detached-group (A-/C+), concerned-group (A+/C-), and inaction-group (A-/C-). Affective and cognitive components interacted, producing redundant influences on overall attitudes and judgments as frequently observed and postulated in previous attitude studies. The results showed that the action-group who were feeling unsafe and believed that environmental accidents had happened or are happening in Marion were less willing to move to the area than other three groups who were feeling safe and/or doubted reports of contamination and its relation with leukemia. Affective and cognitive components were found to have redundant influences on overall attitude. It was also observed that affective-cognitive ambivalence theory has a great potential for explaining the mechanism by which people form attitudes, especially when people have moderate or positive feelings (e.g. sympathy or eagerness for resources) toward the objects and/or when uncertainty is a major feature of environmental issue under consideration (e.g. global climate change).