Well, I'll agree that some people in Sweden are irrationally afraid of nuclear power. Not 50% of the Swedes though. Neither are 50% unambiguously in favour of nuclear power.
The people who matter, the people who might swing to be in favour or against, were persuaded because of safety concerns. I don't remember the details (the key decision was made long ago), but a series of badly handled minor accidents or almost-accidents were involved. Nothing went badly, but some of the happy outcomes seemed to be more due to luck than to skill and professionalism. Then there was a big ugly accident somewhere else, in some rich country, and a considerable number of Swedes decided that if it could happen in that other rich country, then it could happen in Sweden. "Our organisations aren't that much more thorough, honest and capable than the ones in…" I don't remember what accident that was. It wasn't Chernobyl, it was in some well-regarded country.
I see Forbes ignores that, and pretends that the only ones that matter are the minority that never wanted nuclear power. That is fighting a straman, and IMO it's either dishonest or irrational of Forbes.
And I don't think Forbes is dishonest. Forbes is a publication that'll hire columnists with strong opinions, perhaps too strong, but not one that would publish a graph where the trend lines or curves doesn't match the numbers.
