People aren’t very good at assessing risk. Nuclear isn’t perfect, not by a long shot, but I also think it’s been painted as much more of a monster than it really is, particularly because of the way people tend to associate it with nuclear weapons, but also because of outlier disasters like Chernobyl.
There are chemical, industrial and bio processes in some plants that are potentially extremely deadly if they ever went wrong, yet we tend to only focus on the big glowing green monster.
Chernobyl happened in a plant with an utterly weird design, no secondary containment systems and in the paranoid political backdrop of the USSR, where blowing the whistle might mean disappearing.
I mean if you look at say Union Carbide and the Bhopal disaster in India in 1984 that killed up to 16,000 people and injured more than half a million. It happened in a backdrop of a different type of chaotic and totally inadequate regulation and lack of caring about risk, but it caused an a absolutely horrendous disaster and human tragedy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
Which do we rate as scarier? Seems to me we wouldn’t be shutting down the entire German chemicals sector because of an unrelated disaster in a badly designed, badly managed and badly regulated plant in a completely different context, but a weird design of Soviet nuclear plant blows up and an old 1960s GE plant, built in a ridiculous location gets hit by a tsunami, and everyone runs around pushing the emergency stops on the unrelated stuff, built by Siemens or AREVA, of a different design, in extremely low risk, non seismic locations and in a highly regulated and safety conscious environment …
We’re great at calculating risks and being coldly rational.