The deaths and damage from them must be weighed against the thousands of people who die, year after year, as a direct result of the pollution generated by coal and even gas-powered plants, to say nothing of climate impacts. In any ledger of harm, nuclear power could look quite good--especially since it's one of very few currently viable sources of carbon-free always-on power. Its importance as baseload will only increase as the power mix shifts more to solar and wind.
Your comment is a typical justification for nuclear power, but really provides no real substance. The argument against regulatory is always in there, but think of Boeing. Having worked in private industry and regulatory this is how it all starts going down hill until it gets so bad, (i.e., Boeing again as the prime example among a long list of similar examples) that society must once again "regulate" the issue again. I've seen this over and over. Get use to it. Note that even if conservatives back a strict reg they will over time whine and complain until its weakened and unenforced.
