Which might be okay if it wasn't for certain states whose prime directive is to cover up mistakes and issues.
Otherwise this article wouldn't exist and we'd be discussing ways to improve safety. Just look how they handled Chernobyl. It was pure luck that the majority of Europe wasn't contaminated as a result of disinformation, refusal to accept help in order to appear strong, and pure incompetence on all fronts. All followed by an unwillingness to fix the problem.
Nuclear fission power in such hands is seriously dangerous. Even Belgium is holistically incapable of safely running a nuclear plant as highlighted by Tihange.
I am completely with your sentiment but the true issue is real world handling. Idealistic scenarios don't help us.
Even Chernobyl is a drop in the ocean compared to the impact of fossil fuel though. aka: The worst case scenario of using nuclear energy is less harmful than the best case scenario of using fossil fuel.
It's all about perceived threat vs actual threat. In the case of nuclear energy the perceived threats is blown out of proportion, in the case of fossil fuel it's just business as usual. I'm not saying nuclear doesn't have issues, but I'd argue that nuclear issues are manageable/solvable whereas fossil fuel issues are not.
They have other drawbacks, pollution, storage, transportation and peak production aren't solved.
In the meantime just look at France vs Germany, nuclear is a net positive in every possible metrics I can come up with. How many people died directly/indirectly in the last 60 years because of german coal industry ? Way more than in all nuclear disasters world wide. And that's for a single country.
What's the societal factors of coal and ICE again ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog