Nuclear is obviously key to energy independence etc... but the very common take these days of "Nuclear power is the safest energy production technology available, just look at historical data" is deeply misguided.

It's very hard to accurately estimate the risk of a nuclear power-plant disaster because looking back at the past and extrapolating data from there is non-sensical when the risk is so fat-tailed. Sure, Chernobyl, Fukushima and ever Three Mile Island killed a few thousands at most in aggregate but for anyone familiar with the history of Chernobyl, the story is quite different.

10 days after the main explosion, a leak caused a large amount of water to accumulate under the melting core. Had the melting core reached that pool of water, it would have caused a massive steam explosion that would have spread radioactive particles over most of Europe and Russia making them uninhabitable. Thankfully, three men risked their lives to enter the power-plant and closed a valve preventing more water from accumulating under the core.

Now, you could say that current reactors are safer, which might be true, but before Chernobyl, such a disaster was also thought to be impossible. Even if there is a 10% risk of contamination of a whole continent over a century, does it make sense to take it? One could argue that such risk would be acceptable if it prevents climate change. But acknowledging the existence of these enormous risks is a required step to have an honest debate.