The question is not "which amount of fossil fuel, which amount of nuclear?" but about renewables and nuclear.
>> Because those who refuse to be exposed to induced risks can prevent most of it
> ??? In cities the bulk of deaths are cyclists/pedestrians
Being ultra-alert, or avoiding crossing any street or even avoiding any area where motorized vehicles zoom around is possible. Avoiding most of the effects of a major nuclear accident or of some wandering "hot" nuclear waste (during the upcoming 100000 years or so...) is way, way more difficult.
> Coal power plants are literally generating more radioactive ematerial
This is not about preferring coal to nuclear but about preferring renewables to nuclear.
> The entire french nuclear waste
(I'm French. ) Our "solution", named "Cigéo" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cig%C3%A9o ), isn't even ready (more than 60 years after the first industrial reactor diverged) and is officially imperfect (there are risks, French ahead: section «Déchets» in https://sites.google.com/view/avenirdunucleraire/#h.e4d4cdh3... ).
Better avoiding producing such stuff, IMHO. Renewables...
BTW check the trend: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...
Even at 10x you're still a far cry from fossils related deaths, every single year
> Because those who refuse to be exposed to induced risks can prevent most of it
??? In cities the bulk of deaths are cyclists/pedestrians, not even talking about air pollution due to exhaust fumes being produces en masse right in front of people's flats. 1/5 of road deaths in EU are pedestrians
> thanks to nuclear waste
Coal power plants are literally generating more radioactive ematerial than nuclear power plants lmao: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
The entire french nuclear waste, since the 70s, would fit in a cube with a side length of 15m... The one that matter: <3% of the total waste, the rest is low radioactivity/short half life waste