If this sort of language is more effective affecting change for the better, then would you agree that it is good to use regardless of the "clinical" nature of the framing?
More people die from wind power than die from nuclear. Solar uses vastly more land area than nuclear, a major problem for an island nation like Japan. The varying power output from sources like solar/wind make them infeasible for a full grid.
If nuclear killed the same number of people as wind it would still be safe enough. So I am not sure that is a good reason for choosing nuclear over wind. Both energy sources have extremely small numbers.
Also, the deaths are workers. People who understand and have consented to the risk. And who can take some responsibility for their own safety. The death of a random member of the public is morally different.