Isn't there?

Or is it just NIMBY?

Lack of education?

I wish I could quickly locate references, but I seem to recall reading about reactor designs that are inherently safe, more efficient, less waste - some even burning as fuel what current reactors put out as waste. The whole problem was getting the new designs licensed ie educating the public that the new designs are better than current ones; getting past the fear. I read about this easily 5+ years ago I believe in Scientific American. ISTR one design that requires water to keep the reaction going, and that if the water was lost in the core the reactions cannot continue.

The thing to remember is that Fukushima Daiichi survived the earthquake. What took it out was the tsunami that over-topped the barriers. Now that we know, we can use that disaster to make even better designs. That's how we learn.

We didn't quit flying planes when the first plane crashes happened.

Heck, we don't stop driving cars despite how many people are killed in them EVERY DAY.

It's a balance between risk and benefit. I dare say that when the numbers are crunched that number is astonishingly lower than most people think for nuclear power. It's just that when something does go wrong, it can go wrong in a very big way; just like when an airliner crashes it kills a hundred+ at a time very spectacularly; unlike cars which usually kill only one or two at a time and are nothing more than a nuisance on the afternoon traffic report.

Perspective.

Brian