Honestly those numbers are quite depressing. Even if we assume those 5 million people are all Americans we could only afford to build 10 nuclear reactors per year in the entire world if we seized all of their wages and used them to build nuclear power plants. I expected nuclear power to at least be worth the number of lives it is saving but unfortunately this isn't the case.

"Over 11000 people will die PER YEAR if we switch to nuclear energy!!"

Despite that, I use a similar argument to that graph on the (rare) occasions I've discussed nuclear energy with friends and family.

The calculation completely ignores any risk of nuclear disaster.

It's simply based on historical data, which is hugely misleading and dishonest.

Each existing barrel of nuclear waste has been causing risk for few decades at max but will cause risk for thousands of years.

(Not to mention all the waste that has been dispersed in the environment)

This is like driving a car for a 30 seconds and claiming that it's safe.

This is not how radioactivity works.

There’s lots of construction material that has isotopes with a long half life. But the long half life means it’s barely dangerous (less dangerous than background levels of radiation in many habited places in the world).

The stuff that’s actually dangerous for humans are isotopes with short half lives. Those isotopes, by definition, don’t last long.

So does coal waste. Handling nuclear waste is not improving because humanity gave up on using tis energy. There are reactor types which “burn” nuclear waste from traditional plants and make them less dangerous. All of the problems you mention are solvable: safety, radioactive waste etc if we commit to it. Fire and burning is 400.000 years old, nuclear power is 70-80. We have technology ready to make it safe just as we did with fire.

> We have technology ready to make it safe just as we did with fire.

citation needed