Not offering an opinion one way or the other, but just noting that there really are some facts here that are motivating people.
The piece that rationalist engineers (I am one of them) tend to gloss over is that the public has historically been lied to, by experts about the dangers and difficulties of nuclear power -- all nuclear technology, really. X rays for shoe sizing. Atmospheric weapons tests. Ed Teller. The downside to accidents is large, and there's not much trust anymore. Some, but not much.
These are the facts that are perhaps engaging people's fears.
Given this history, for some people, the bank of "expert credibility" is overdrawn already. The classic nerd technique of argument from expertise is ineffective.
If we shouldn't argue from expertise, what should we argue from? Cast members of Jersey Shore? Berry diet fad producers? PR persons? Our personal feelings? A magic 8 ball?
Seriously if they won't listen to experts (assuming that we can agree on whom the experts are), that is perhaps the best argument against democracy that I have ever heard.
...and none of this says anything about the facts that have been reported (most of which, you'll note, have not been pretty for pro-nuke advocates). Are the facts that have been reported wrong? If you don't have evidence that they aren't, this is just a "hunch", and not really worth serious consideration.
The piece that rationalist engineers (I am one of them) tend to gloss over is that the public has historically been lied to, by experts about the dangers and difficulties of nuclear power -- all nuclear technology, really. X rays for shoe sizing. Atmospheric weapons tests. Ed Teller. The downside to accidents is large, and there's not much trust anymore. Some, but not much.
These are the facts that are perhaps engaging people's fears.
Given this history, for some people, the bank of "expert credibility" is overdrawn already. The classic nerd technique of argument from expertise is ineffective.