I feel for them. But with coal many more would have died from pollution. With more dams the contribution to climate change (gas released from rotting vegetation) would damage the planet, millions would be driven from their homes, and the risks of dam failures would keep being driven up and over time likely cause more deaths (as it has in the past). With more rooftop solar, more people would kill themselves in installation accidents.

It's not a situation where shutting down nuclear just magically prevents deaths, because the demand for power is still there. It is a matter of shifting the risks elsewhere. And the numbers are clear that nuclear is far safer than most of the alternatives (most - it's not clear for example if that'd be the case for larger solar installations; it's rooftop installations that seems to be the biggest problem with solar).

This doesn't mean we should uncritically build a ton of nuclear plants, but e.g. delaying the decommissioning of coal plants to take nuclear plants offline, the way Germany did, is tantamount to mass murder given what we know of the relative risks.

I'm sad for their misfortune but arguing against nuclear won't do any good for them, on contrary as this article states nuclear is safer than the other major energy sources. A family is a small sample size too. Of course we should also look into other studies of the energy sources total effect on humanity, to be sure. I think we have to see the big picture and not focus on our bubble.

I see an analogy to car and plane safety when comparing coal and nuclear safety. Car accidents are more frequent and damage can vary, while plane accidents are seldom but often severe. It is difficult to foresee the future, but we have the past that give us a good indicator of what will save most lives.