Even with the inclusion of Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear is per terawatt the lowest death source of any method of generating power. It also does not contribute to greenhouse, and the old bugaboo of long term million year nuclear waste can be negated by the construction of molten salt breeder reactors or mixed spectrum reactors which can fission the long term actinide waste from existing reactors and produce 20x as much energy from the waste as the initial reactor produced from fuel. These reactors are safe by physics and the fast and mixed spectrum versions have no known radioactive isotope dispersal mechanisms.

What we are calling waste now consists of two components, actinides, those elements that are as heavy or heavier than Uranium, these are the long term waste components that last a million years. The other is fission product, MOST (not all) of these decay away in 300 years, the few that don't can be left in a reactor with a sufficient neutron economy to be transmuted or can be transmuted with a particle accelerator using 5-10% of the reactors output. The waste actinides contain 95% of the fuels original energy after the first pass in a light water reactor. A molten salt fast or mixed spectrum reactor can safely recover the remaining 95%.

The existing method of one pass then bury is the equivalent of filling a cars gasoline tank with 20 gallons of gas, traveling far enough to burn off one gallon and then dumping the remaining 19 gallons on the ground. Is it dangerous? Of course it is, it still has 95% of the energy potential. This is the same thing we are doing with nuclear but do not need to.

I think why nuclear is scary to so many people is because radiation is invisible, you can cure that for $100-$200 by purchasing a Geiger counter or scintillation detector, the latter are somewhat more expensive but they measure gamma ray energies so the source can be identified.