Technically you are correct. The key here is how many lives did one of the very few nuclear catastrophes that everybody points to actually take? What damages did it incur?

From what I know. the damage both to health and to property is disproportionally low to how much it is used as a scaremongering scapegoat. The same (perhaps) surprisingly) applies to Chernobyl. It's scary, but the actual damages were disproportionally low to what were the estimates at the time and to the public perception even today.

The economic side of the equation is a different thing, but that is a complex topic on it's own and I'll just note thst it's not entirely economical, but rather mostly political.

And regsrding the waste. that's yet another thing thst is almost irrelevant when we really break it down even though it is often repeated by anti-nuclear voices.

Regarding wind and solar, I would agree if a relevant energy storage solution was at hand, ehoch is not the case for the most part. Perhaps you can efucate me on that, but afaik, without a major breakthrough, those can only be complementary power sources and cannot replace stable ones.