It is very nice to hear your comments.
Here are a few thoughts from my horizon within the academia.
At the department of Physics and Astronomy in Uppsala we have professor Ane Håkansson who sometimes engage in debate related to nuclear power, but mostly as a response to anti-nuclear articles in newspapers. The latest example from him and colleague Sophie Grape was in Uppsala Nya Tidning in June, in response to Eva Moberg:http://www.unt.se/kultur/vi-har-inte-rad-med-karnkraft-978342.aspxhttp://www.unt.se/kultur/karnkraften-kan-ge-vardigare-liv-978331.aspxhttp://www.unt.se/kultur/karnvapen-kraver-karnkraft-984526.aspx
Professors Sven Kullander and Bo Höistad used to be a bit more active with debate articles in media, Sven is still writing together with colleagues at KVA, for instance they had a response last week to the article in Dagens Nyheter by SNF, LRF and Tällberg foundation.
Janne Wallenius sometimes writes articles for the general public about Generation IV reactors.
But there are no pro-active academics of Richard Dawkins style when it comes to nuclear power. I see mainly two reasons for it:
1: It is usually frowned upon by colleagues is you become too outspoken in media. You are supposed to be happy about doing your research, not expose yourself too much in media. If you're in nanotechnology, stem cell research or astrophysics then it may be fine. But nuclear power, no way. Furthermore, as somebody pointed out above, it is time consuming, and when most researchers already dedicate so much time to their work it is not too many of them that are willing to spend time on the media game. One could motivate it as outreach activities ("tredje uppgiften" in Swedish), but if you want to merit yourself within the academia you'd rather do outreach activities in the form of popular seminars or interaction with elementary schools.
2: Due to the political situation during the last 30 years the industry has not been too excited about media attention when professors who may know a lot but who are not in the field themselves make public statements. I remember about ten year ago when Sven Kullander wrote a few articles. People who worked with research closer to the nuclear industry were concerned about it, it could take a media spin in the wrong direction that would be bad for the industry, and indirectly for those working on research in connection to the nuclear industry. Don't rock the boat, as you say. But it seems to be changing, slowly.
Personally it was easier for me to be part of NPYP while I was working on exotic nuclei, that only exists in super novas, than my present projects that are closer to nuclear power applications. My new bosses and colleagues are amused about my involvement in NPYP and partly support it, but there is concern about media spins that go the wrong way. "Please let us know beforehand if you guys intend to do something big" was the message when I started.
And oppositely, we want to be independent from the nuclear industry, in order to be able to criticize it if/when we find it necessary. I am involved in projects that are in part sponsored by the nuclear industry. Does this mean that I should shut up if we see problems related to nuclear power that we want to bring up for discussion?