Why not Fission?

[Dassier]

We've seen a lot of people over the last decades criticizing nuclear fission for the danger that comes with a nuclear reactor. Yet, as the World Nuclear Association remarks in a recent article from febuary this year, i quote

In the chemical industry and oil-gas industry, major accidents also lead to improved safety. There is wide public acceptance that the risks associated with these industries are an acceptable trade-off for our dependence on their products and services. With nuclear power, the high energy density makes the potential hazard obvious, and this has always been factored into the design of nuclear power plants. The few accidents have been spectacular and newsworthy, but of little consequence in terms of human fatalities. The novelty value and hence newsworthiness of nuclear power accidents remains high in contrast with other industrial accidents, which receive comparatively little news coverage.

In avoiding such accidents the industry has been very successful. In the 60-year history of civil nuclear power generation, with over 18,500 cumulative reactor-years across 36 countries, there have been only three significant accidents at nuclear power plants.

The use of nuclear energy for electricity generation can be considered extremely safe. Every year several hundred people die in coal mines to provide this widely used fuel for electricity. There are also significant health and environmental effects arising from fossil fuel use. Contrary to popular belief, nuclear power saves lives by displacing fossil fuel from the electricity mix.

Of course, there are interests to be considered with this article. But i have researched their claims and they are verifiable and show strong contradictions in the "Danger" motif for the rejection of nuclear power.
On a personal note, i live in a country that cannot access nuclear power, at least for now, due to it being the country most prone to earthquakes, in addition do being where the single most destructive earthquake on the ritcher scale happened. This all makes it so every building here (that abides with construction regulations, and common sense) has to have above average earthquake-resistant structures. Adding this on top of the already high cost of building a nuclear reactor, my countries relatively small economy and non-zero possibility of a literally earth-shattering earthquake, in which case not even the best of protections could prevent a catastrophe of byblical proportions for any energy plant that uses any amount of any fuel, makes nuclear energy mostly out of the question for most people. Even then, this country still has 2 research nuclear reactors IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR LARGEST CITY, SINCE 1970, neither of them having any reported incidents even with a 8,8 earthquake happening very recently, which goes to show how much we overestimate nuclear power's dangers. It is to be mentioned, though, that these reactors are mostly scientific, and of a low water pool and power generation capacity, along with one being deactivated, though for unrelated budget reasons. And no, im not saying Alaska or California should have nuclear reactors built, since both share the same tectonic hotspot with chile, and California specifically having to account for Saint Andrea's Fault being able to raze everything at any second, but considering the last "major" (Above 7,0 Ritcher) east coast earthquake happened on 1886, and that it had a magnitude of 7,3 (Here in chile we have 6,0-6,9 degree earthquakes at least once every year) really goes to show the wasted potential that the US, with its gigantic capital and large swaths of plains and overall lands with 0 natural disasters in the last 100 years has for nuclear power. Quoting the US Department Of Energy:

Based on the capacity factors above, you would need almost two coal or three to four renewable plants (each of 1 GW size) to generate the same amount of electricity onto the grid.

All of this while coal, that theorically costs half to build than nuclear, costs DOUBLE THE CASH to generate the same amount of energy, all this without even considering CCS, while releasing toxic gas and having to source coal leading to, according to the official carbon credit site:

Even factoring in big disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear power resulted in just 0.03-0.04 deaths per TWh. With coal, statistics indicated at least 24.6 (Our World in Data) to 100 deaths per TWh (WHO/CDC).

Thats, according to the low estimate, more than 600 times the deaths for coal.
So, if you are opposed to nuclear power, why? I invite you to fact check my claims, and I would love to hear other views, as long as they are well researched and backed, of course.