They might have interpreted the question as "inspires more visceral fear" rather than "objectively more dangerous in the long run", perhaps?
The word "nuclear" is impressively scary in the former terms, including as it does the twin failure modes of earth-shattering kabooms that level a city and invisible death fields you don't even know you're walking into until it's far too late. (I realise the former is unlikely in terms of nuclear power in particular, but it will still be associated in people's minds with the word "nuclear".) Either of those on its own would be fairly scary; associating both with the same technology makes it entirely plausible that that technology would inspire a lot of gut-level fear.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
The word "nuclear" is impressively scary in the former terms, including as it does the twin failure modes of earth-shattering kabooms that level a city and invisible death fields you don't even know you're walking into until it's far too late. (I realise the former is unlikely in terms of nuclear power in particular, but it will still be associated in people's minds with the word "nuclear".) Either of those on its own would be fairly scary; associating both with the same technology makes it entirely plausible that that technology would inspire a lot of gut-level fear.