> still a far cry from fossils related deaths

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...