I'll take the bait
Using Chernobyl as an indicator of danger is the wrong argument to make. So far there have been 78 recorded deaths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll
A greater number of people have died from mishandling of radiotherapy and x-ray machines. This should be much scarier than nuclear power plants because people are closer to these things on a daily basis.
However those few hundred losses pale in the face of renewable energy. One event at a hydroelectric dam can kill up to hundreds of thousands at once!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure
Even that is grossly overshadowed by fossil fuels which are responsible for 8.7 megadeaths per year (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/feb/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-1-5-deaths-worldwide). That's not a one-off like a Chernobyl disaster, it's every single year. And it's getting worse because despite all the evidence global use is still growing.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-fossil-fuel-consumption
---
Your pathetic fear mongering won't work here. The real obstacle to Nuclear power is it's huge up front cost. Try using that to deter people instead.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
