Well, I'll agree that some people in Sweden are irrationally afraid of nuclear power. Not 50% of the Swedes though. Neither are 50% unambiguously in favour of nuclear power.<p>The people who matter, the people who might swing to be in favour or against, were persuaded because of safety concerns. I don't remember the details (the key decision was made long ago), but a series of badly handled minor accidents or almost-accidents were involved. Nothing went badly, but some of the happy outcomes seemed to be more due to luck than to skill and professionalism. Then there was a big ugly accident somewhere else, in some rich country, and a considerable number of Swedes decided that if it could happen in that other rich country, then it could happen in Sweden. "Our organisations aren't <i>that</i> much more thorough, honest and capable than the ones in…" I don't remember what accident that was. It wasn't Chernobyl, it was in some well-regarded country.<p>I see Forbes ignores that, and pretends that the only ones that matter are the minority that never wanted nuclear power. That is fighting a straman, and IMO it's either dishonest or irrational of Forbes.<p>And I don't think Forbes is dishonest. Forbes is a publication that'll hire columnists with strong opinions, perhaps too strong, but not one that would publish a graph where the trend lines or curves doesn't match the numbers.