It is terrifying when things go wrong. The "Chernobyl" series definitely shows that. For the circumstances, the number of deaths Chernobyl contributed to were m

It is terrifying when things go wrong. The "Chernobyl" series definitely shows that. For the circumstances, the number of deaths Chernobyl contributed to were much lower than the worst case it could have been. It's not surprising the public responds trepidatiously in the aftermath of a large-scale disaster (see trends of nuclear plant operation in the aftermath of Chernobyl and Fukushima: https://sites.utexas.edu/mecc/files/2014/05/Worldwide-Reactor-Trends1.png https://sites.utexas.edu/mecc/files/2014/05/Worldwide-Reacto...). Nuclear bombs also caused quite a public scare in the 40s-60s following WWII after images of the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be seen. The magnitudes of destruction scared people enough to build fallout shelters. While nuclear power has brought a lot of good, it has also brought a lot of bad. Witnessing the bad changes people. If things go wrong either intentionally or unintentionally, the negative response is going to exceed the positive response, and those responsible for the nuclear plant are going to get the blame for bringing disaster upon everyone else. "Nuclear" is a tough sentiment to paint positively, when so many unspecialized members of the public think straight to disasters associated with "nuclear". There's pros and cons to many different energy sources, whether fossil fuel, nuclear, solar/wind, hydro, geothermal, etc. Each decision means accepting the possible consequences that could happen. No one solution is an obvious panacea.