For example, children and pregnant women are warned to be careful about the fish they eat because of mercury contamination. A large part of that mercury contamination comes from burning coal. That's food from 70% of the planet rendered partially unfit for human consumption by coal.
There's nothing like that for nuclear. Yes, you should avoid food grown around Chernobyl, and there have been incidents where farmers had to dump milk for a while and things like that, but no nuclear accident has ever (nor could one ever conceivably) contaminate food from so much of the planet so badly.
I'm in no ways a defender or a supporter of coal here; I think we should be moving to clean energies as fast as we can. Still, the damages from nuclear catastrophes are orders of magnitude bigger than those of coal, imo.
Note that even if you think radiation is particularly scary and vastly worse than chemical poisons, coal power plants emit many tons of uranium in addition to all the other nasty pollution.
What is your basis for that last statement? Coal: about a million deaths per year. Nuclear: about half a million ever, including weapons. Given that, how can you possibly say that damage from nuclear is orders of magnitude bigger?
To me (and I suspect to many others), the huge difference lies in the indelibility of the damages of nuclear power.
Sure, coal might kill a million people a year, but the remnants of a nuclear incident will remain for thousands of years and affect hundreds of generations after that, in ways we don't even fully understand yet.