You appear to have accepted the arguments of the antinuclear opposition. I would guess that you might be one of the molten salt / thorium reactor proponents who claim that all will be better and nuclear energy will prosper if we simply move on to "better" technology.
Based on my reasonably deep well of knowledge about the safey and reliability of light water reactors over their fifty year operating history - approximately 25,000 reactor years worth LWR operations around the world (about half of that number comes from shipboard power plants) - the real issues that lead to such a strong organized opposition do not stem from the weakness of LWR technology. LWRs certainly have their challenges, but most have been mitigated with good design, maintenance and operation.
There are people that will oppose any nuclear technology that actually makes it into the market place. Some of them hate nuclear because of its tenuous relationship with nuclear weapons. Some hate nuclear because it provides abundant, reliable energy and they would prefer for human society to revert to an earlier, less powerful time when people only had access to "natural" energy sources.
Finally, and in my opinion most importantly, there are people who oppose nuclear energy because it competes directly with their favorite sources of energy and income - coal, oil, gas, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal. If not artificially restrained, it is a formidable competitor that not only captures market share, it drives down the market prices of all other forms of energy because it represents an increase in the supply without increasing the demand.
Energy suppliers hate the idea of selling fewer BTUs at lower unit prices per BTU. So do their bankers, equipment suppliers and other investors.
Publisher, Atomic Insights