I will admit that other forms of energy beside nuclear have negative effects - coal mining, oil drilling, hydroelectric projects. I find the effects of uranium mining are under-covered but perhaps there is a lower volume of ore required in the case of uranium that mitigates the effects.
The burr under my saddle today is the claim that a much smaller number of people are killed by nuclear incidents than other energy-related industries. This is likely true but I have a question? What other activity requires the evacuation of the population for 20 some odd miles following an accident? Could this "precaution" be affecting the numbers a wee bit? And what about the impact of that contaminated zone through the years? The area around Chernobyl turns out not to be the wildlife haven that some would have had you believe.
So, we have the fact that actual deaths from radiation is low versus the fact that large areas might be declared off limits following the Fukushima Daiichi and future accidents. Sounds like the nuclear mavens are playing a little game of misdirection to me.