The public's rejection of nuclear power is a 'perfect storm' of psychological biases: the high salience of disasters (availability heuristic), an intuitive fear of 'contamination,' and the desire to eliminate one scary risk rather than reduce overall aggregate danger.

Related Insights

People often object to AI's energy use simply because it represents a *new* source of emissions. This psychological bias distracts from the fact that these new emissions are minuscule compared to massive, existing sources like personal transportation.

The tendency to blame a single entity for disparate negative events isn't about logic but about satisfying a deep psychological need for order and control. This "derangement syndrome" provides a simple, pre-made narrative that assigns blame and creates a sense of understanding, regardless of evidence.

Post-mortems of bad investments reveal the cause is never a calculation error but always a psychological bias or emotional trap. Sequoia catalogs ~40 of these, including failing to separate the emotional 'thrill of the chase' from the clinical, objective assessment required for sound decision-making.

Public perception of nuclear power is skewed by highly visible but rare disasters. A data-driven risk analysis reveals it is one of the safest energy sources. Fossil fuels, through constant air pollution, cause millions of deaths annually, making them orders of magnitude more dangerous.

An initially moderate pessimistic stance on new technology often escalates into advocacy for draconian policies. The 1970s ban on civilian nuclear power is a prime example of a fear-based decision that created catastrophic long-term consequences, including strengthening geopolitical rivals.

Linked to the "White Bear" experiment, trying *not* to think about a negative outcome (like a canoe flipping) keeps the idea active in your mind. This mental availability makes you more likely to act on that fear when faced with ambiguity.

Perception of nuclear power is sharply divided by age. Those who remember the Three Mile Island accident are fearful, while younger generations, facing the climate crisis, see it as a clean solution. As this younger cohort gains power, a return to nuclear energy becomes increasingly likely.

As you gain experience, your emotional biases don't vanish. Instead, they become more sophisticated, articulate, and adept at hiding within what appears to be rational analysis. This makes them even more dangerous over time, requiring constant vigilance to separate logic from emotion.

Research on contentious topics finds that individuals with the most passionate and extreme views often possess the least objective knowledge. Their strong feelings create an illusion of understanding that blocks them from seeking or accepting new information.

Munger argued that academic psychology missed the most critical pattern: real-world irrationality stems from multiple psychological tendencies combining and reinforcing each other. This "Lollapalooza effect," not a single bias, explains extreme outcomes like the Milgram experiment and major business disasters.