"Extreme" seems an overstatement, and I don't think it's necessarily the main motivator for a lot of people that are anti-nuclear. Many don't like it because they believe large-scale power sources supplied and run by (or inevitably being a source of profit for) mega-corporations are a bad idea in general. Others because there are genuine environmental consequences to and risks with uranium mining and storage of radioactive waste that we don't have complete solutions for, even if by almost any measure those consequences are less serious than they are for fossil fuel extraction and consequence GHG emissions. And others because they're skeptical it can scale up quickly and economically enough to reach necessary emissions targets (I have one foot in that camp, at least for my own country). Ultimately I think increased nuclear power will be accepted as a "necessary evil" or "least worst" solution in most developed countries, though it's hard to see it happening here in Australia, despite the fact we supply much of the world's uranium (*) and arguably have a fair number of appropriate options for waste storage.

* actually we have almost 30% of known viable resources, but only contribute 8% or 9% of the world total supply currently, producing less than a 5th of Kazakhstan, by far the most prolific supplier.

It looks extreme to me, and from my experience is closely related with a general fear of GMOs, strong dislike for plastics, a preference for "alternative medicine" etc. It's fundamentally an emotional approach that isn't concerned with "how do we deal with the waste?" but just grips on to that to rationalize the intuitive fear. Maybe I'm the crazy one, but I am not overly concerned about nuclear plants, I'll gladly live next to one (but not too close, I don't want to live in a shadow half the day) and have the waste containers stored a few hundred meters below me. And my willingness just increases with a thought of all the great things energy does for us.

Of course there are risks, but everything has risks attached -- we calculate the probabilities and then stop worrying about the risks if they're minuscule. And of course there's an economic part to consider, but I'm pretty sure if you counted the amount of hours Germans have spent in 2022 talking about the energy crisis, we could've been well on our way to 100% nuclear coverage if we had spent that time productively instead.

I agree it's irrational fear, but I can understand for many that if they had to choose between living near something that there's no reason to believe will ever prove immediately fatal (a coal-fired power station) and one for which there have been historic examples of unexpected fatal explosions, they'd choose the former, all else being equal (which of course we know it isn't). In Germany's case I agree it makes no sense, given the number of reactors located in neighbouring countries and the fact Germany has an established nuclear industry with experienced engineers etc. (and more limited renewable options), and is generally well positioned to scale up rapidly to replace fossil-fuel based power.

Some people do things that they know are bad for others because they want to hurt others.

Sure, but I don't believe you run into a lot of actually evil villains in politics that only do what they do because they want to see suffering and want their action to scale instead of ripping the wings from a butterfly one by one. Stalin or Mao didn't just enjoy seeing peasants starve, they believed that sacrificing a million here and there is the price to pay for the communist utopia they thought they were building.

I agree that very few, if any, leaders are intentionally evil. Even the most (in)famous ones such as your examples.

However, I'm not sure the distinction is too useful. Ultimately we're judged by actions, not intentions.

Certainly, I was just pointing out that that's the very problem with the position that someone or some group shouldn't be morally judged for things they do/cause while having good intentions. It's a tough problem, and I guess we're mostly basing our judgement on results. Push through a stupid policy and it's expensive but nobody freezes and you'll be forgotten. Do the same and be unlucky and a million citizens freeze because of it and you won't be forgiven.