It's not necessarily a shame in the other direction either. To have heard a word in conversation early enough that a local pronunciation is embedded before we are old enough to read it is acceptable, is it not? We do have an idea that people should make an effort to adopt the standard pronunciation. Sometimes, I suppose. I wouldn't make a general rule of it. I have heard there are PhD's at Oak Ridge who say "nukular."
In pronouncing nuclear, the second and third syllables are most commonly said as [-klee-er] , a sequence of sounds that directly reflects the spelled sequence ‐cle · ar. In recent years, a somewhat controversial pronunciation has come to public attention, with these two final syllables said as [-kyuh-ler] . Since [-klee-er] , the common pronunciation of ‐cle · ar, might also be represented, broadly, as [-kluh-yer] , the [-kyuh-ler] pronunciation can be seen as coming from a process of metathesis, in which the [l] and the [y] change places. The resulting pronunciation is reinforced by analogy with such words as molecular, particular, and muscular, and although it occurs with some frequency among highly educated speakers, including scientists, professors, and government officials, it is disapproved of by many.Molecular, particular, and muscular. I hadn't thought of that.