Actually, the nuclear power industry did / does indeed run astroturfing campaigns

Which nuclear power industry? Given the sheer scale of a nuclear power plant project, most research and reactor projects are public projects, with only SMRs seeing any recent interest in the USA. So you think it's the States that are conducting astroturfing campaigns? The same states that have been sabotaging nuclear power everywhere since Chernobyl? Is there any evidence of this?

For example the “pro-nuclear civil society” in Japan.

The only thing I have found about this is a study which I have to pay 43€ to read.

If you read up on nuclear power online you will find an abundance of websites and groups which offer very one-sided information

You can find that kind of content for about any other subject you can think of. That doesn't make it proof of astroturfing.

and are tied to the nuclear power industry.

Same question, what is exactly the "nuclear power industry" you're talking about?

Astroturfing campaigns promoting solar and wind power can be directly linked to the oil industry, as when Jay Anthony Precourt, head of oil and energy start-ups and a major investor in gas, swung a total of $80 million over three years at Stanford University to finance the Precourt Institute for Energy Efficiency, which later published a glowing report on a 100% renewable future. (If you don't see the link between fossil fuels and renewables, take a look at Germany: when there's no wind, they burn coal and gas. Fossils are very compatible with renewables.)

Can you find the same with nuclear?

Nuclear fission power had huge investments and substitutions but turned out to not be economically feasible in most cases. There is a lot of money to be lost and made in this industry.

This is factually incorrect. What's expensive is investing to build a cutting-edge industry, then dismantling it before it becomes profitable under the pressure of public opinion.

The French Court of Auditors has estimated the total cost of French nuclear power at around 130 billion euros between 1960 and 2010, including research, construction and maintenance. At its peak, a 1000MW unit of French nuclear power cost 1.5 billion euros, and the French nuclear industry produced two 900 to 1300MW reactors a year for two decades.

Everything came to an abrupt halt in the 90s, not because it wasn't profitable, not because it didn't work, but because the Russians made a mess of their power plant, which didn't even have the same design as the others, killed a few hundred/thousand people, and traumatized hundreds of millions.

Between scientists there is also no consensus whether nuclear power (in its current application) is a good thing.

There is no definition of "a good thing".

On the other hand, we know that nuclear power is the least polluting, least resource/space-consuming and safest form of controllable energy.

The increase in nuclear power is an essential of the 4 scenarios of the IPCC reports, and the European Union, based on these reports and other studies, has recognized nuclear power as an energy with a positive impact on the environment. and they incorporated it into the green taxonomy.

This is the entirety of the high-level nuclear waste that France produced for 80 years while having 70%+ of nuclear in its electricity mix.

The question of nuclear waste is an extremely minor problem compared to the ecological issues we're facing, and which we've been addressing for decades.

Anti-nuclear people just prefer to cover their ears and pretend it's an insolvable problem.

• France has been a net exporter for 40 years straight before that, as well as being the top exporter most of that time in Europe.
• Also they're back to Top 1 right now.
• Last year's gap in electricity production was not due to heat (only a few reactors were slowed down for a few hours, and we're talking about less than 0.5% loss due to these shutdowns over the year).

Besides, it's not a technical limitation on nuclear power, it's an ecological measure.

The hole in production was due to a corrosion problem detected in several reactors, which occurred at the same time as maintenance work in other reactors that were behind schedule because of COVID. This would have had no impact if nuclear power had not been left virtually abandoned for 30 years because of the anti-nuclear movement.

It's the classic story: anti-nukes shoot nuclear power in the foot, then claim that nuclear power doesn't work, despite reality.

we had almost no facemasks and much better results

You're comparing apples to oranges, and you're throwing every other possible explanation out the window because it does not fit your point.

Norway, Finland and Denmark, whose demographic, geographical and cultural situations are much more comparable, recorded far fewer Covid deaths per capita than Sweden.