Or as safe; 230.000 people died in just one instance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure). 112 people died building the Hoover Dam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam#Construction_deaths).

Compare that to what are considered massive world news nuclear power plant tragedies like Chernobyl (about 31 direct deaths, long term effects are up for debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...) and Fukushima (1 direct death, low counts of radiation poisoning that can be attributed to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... ).

Unlike water, radiation can't be seen which is why it is so frightening to the average person.

>radiation can't be seen

Not to be pedantic, but...

> radiation can't be seen

Neither can many other pollutants, but it can easily be detected, in fact it's probably one of the most easily detected.

Not really: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24301436

Are there any studies comparing QALYs gained and lost instead of deaths?

Dams are MORE environmentally friendly than most of the alternatives so that assumption is not entirely wrong.

If the choice is between environmental damage from fracking or coal mining and deaths from coal pollution or flooding a valley somewhere...

Other than the massive areas of land they flood and destroy (but you don't live there right?), or the fish that can no longer swim upstream, or anyone downstream that has to deal with reduced flow...

Conveniently ignoring nuclear power.

MOST. I'm from Ontario and we get 58.3% of our electricity from clean, safe CANDU reactors. Why did you assert I'm ignoring nuclear power? It has nothing to do with Dams being LESS polluting than MOST of the alternatives.