There are ways to keep contamination under control so that the total amount of material that needs special control is minimized and relatively easy to handle. Many of those processes are in use today, though it took some time and experience with the technology before they were fully implemented. (In other words, I acknowledge that there have been problems in the past, but there are far fewer problems today even with more widespread use of nuclear power.)

I do not think that the opposition to nuclear power is as deeply embedded in the population as you do. After many years of conversations with people all over the US, my impression is that most people are cautious, but open to reasonable information. There are very focused, reasonably well organized groups that oppose nuclear power as one of their main goals, and I kind of expect that to continue. The main thing to understand about opposition to nuclear power, however, is that a major portion of those opposition groups get their funding - either directly or indirectly - from people and organizations that are financially threatened by competition from nuclear power.

Oil, coal and gas industries, the transportation sector that moves that massive material and the governments that obtain significant portions of their budgets from royalties or taxes on petroleum all know that increased used of nuclear power means decreased use of their product. Once the public begins to understand that, they will be able to put the comments of many organized opposition groups into context and realize just how many benefits nuclear power has for their own prosperity.

The fossil fuel industry and its supporters are powerful, but there are a heck of a lot more energy consumers than there are energy producers in the world.