wrote:

the US nearly had its chernobyl, 3 mile island. some roids melted, it
was a close thing....

plus a meltdown like situation can occur at any time, with the spent
fuel rods in unhardened buildings, a easy terrorist target. and
reactors with waste storage tend to be near population centers and
rivers for cooling water.

http://www.nuclearflower.com/highres.htm

now take a look at some of these photos and explain how the risk is
worth it?

Certainly the risk is worth it. That's already been established.

If it can be shown that nuclear power causes less deaths per KWs generated
than any other form of electrical generation, then nuclear should be a
hands-down winner.

Well, it can.

Consider the mining and transportation (from, say Montana to Chicago) of
tens of thousands of railcars full of coal. Consider that hydroelectric dams
don't fail very often, but when they do...

And so on.

The thing that nuclear has that the others don't is the "terror factor."