You have to take education into account. Nuclear isn't the kind of thing many people easily understand. They know "nuclear" makes for those amazingly destructive bombs, they know Chernobyl, and Fukushima. They know those results and explaining "but a new reactor would make that impossible" doesn't make a difference because they can't understand why, so it sounds like empty promises.
Also I remember reading a survey (can't find it now) where smokers were put in a hypothetical situation: they live in a parallel universe where smoking is completely harmless except 1 in 18.000.000 cigarettes would be laced with explosives and kill the smoker the moment they light it up. Every person asked said they would find that risk unacceptable. Needless to say it was exactly the same as smoking in our reality. The perception of risk is different in the 2 cases. It doesn't matter that a new nuclear reactor design would make this kind of catastrophe impossible, it's not how people perceive the risk. They still see bombs and Chernobyl. "Better safe than sorry".
Also I remember reading a survey (can't find it now) where smokers were put in a hypothetical situation: they live in a parallel universe where smoking is completely harmless except 1 in 18.000.000 cigarettes would be laced with explosives and kill the smoker the moment they light it up. Every person asked said they would find that risk unacceptable. Needless to say it was exactly the same as smoking in our reality. The perception of risk is different in the 2 cases. It doesn't matter that a new nuclear reactor design would make this kind of catastrophe impossible, it's not how people perceive the risk. They still see bombs and Chernobyl. "Better safe than sorry".