Saying that nuclear power isn't "safe" is ignoring the facts:

A nuclear reactor under normal operating conditions releases less radiation to the environment than a comparably-sized coal power plant. http://www.ornl.gov/info/reports/1977/344560511508 7.pdf

Containment-breaching accidents in the entire history of nuclear power amount to exactly 1 in approximately 10,000 reactor-years of total operation, and the RBMK (Chernobyl) is a dog of a design that under any rational oversight system would never even have been built. This is in line with probabilistic risk assessments which indicate a CMF (core melt frequency) of 1 in 10^4 reactor-years, and a LRF (large release frequency) of 1 in 10^5 reactor-years. Current designs (specifically the AP1000) reduce these to 4x10^-7 and 4x10^-8 respectively. http://www.nuclearinfo.net/twiki/pub/Nuclearpower/ WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower/AP1000Reactor.pdf

Nuclear power isn't without its problems: high capital costs, mostly as a result of legal fees associated with brain-dead NIMBY protesters, and the waste management issue, although even that is only a problem for at most 10,000 years under a competent, well-thought out fuel cycle (e.g. NOT in the US).

Compared to the global economic and environmental consequences of our current fossil fuel addiction, whether or not to transition to nuclear power, and quickly, is no choice at all. But rational inquiry doesn't play as well on the news as "OMG IT'S NUCULAR THINK OF TEH CHILDRENZ!!!!1`one"