I don't think this is relevant to my point. Not wrong, just not relevant. Individuals who are anti nuclear have reasons, explicitly stated, that are misinforme

I don't think this is relevant to my point. Not wrong, just not relevant. Individuals who are anti nuclear have reasons, explicitly stated, that are misinformed. Being anti nuclear because Chernobyl is in fact like being anti airplane because Hindenburg. The criticism is actually (in this analogy) that they claim the hydrogen in a 747 will catch fire. "It's not hydrogen, it's just filled with oxygen and nitrogen" is met with "then what if that spontaneously combusts?!". But in a way you make a good point. "I don't want to have a rational discussion or learn anything" is indeed the anti nuclear stance. "I don't want the truth, i just want to be right" is political. The other things you mention are not really even known to anti nuclear people. Wanting to be right despite facts or ignorance is almost the definition of politics. People say they're anti nuclear because they want to spare us radiation and death, but when you tell them nuclear would reduce both then they just scream louder. You can be factually wrong in politics. When your stated and internal reasons don't align with what your actions will accomplish, then that's wrong.