From the page I found, "more Americans have died from installing rooftop solar than have ever died from the construction or use of American nuclear power plants". On average, nuclear is safer. The likelihood of another Fukashima is even lower now that it's happened and been documented.

I think you mean 'on average, nuclear is safer than rooftop solar'. How about nuclear vs. large scale solar? Large scale solar + wind? These are more realistic equivalents to nuclear.

This still seems to just mention rooftop but it's still telling how far US nuclear is below its next runner up, Hydro - .1 to 5 deaths/trillion kWh

Meant to link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...

That's certainly a delicious cherry you picked. I'm pro nuclear myself, but ignoring people's legitimate worries about worst-case scenarios is not a great advocacy strategy.

It's hardly cherry picking. Look at this chart: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...

The externalities of nuclear disasters/errors don't halt at borders, diffuse though they are.

This can quickly change, when one terrorist attack happens on a single nuclear plant.

Not so much with wind or solar, though ;)

From what I'm seeing in this PDF, it's not that much of a concern. http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Publ...