Your not counting the indirect deaths.

https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima

To be fair, Frank falling to his death from the top of wind turbine 45 has much shorter consequences.

It won't have distant descendants dying after not working out symbols meant to not play with the glowing stuff left by the ancients.

Like tragic Glowing Peril tale: https://timharford.com/2023/11/cautionary-tales-the-lethal-fallout-of-a-stolen-treasure/

To be clear, this is on the right wing Netanyahu government, not all of Israel. There is protests in Israel about this right now : https://news.sky.com/story/huge-protests-call-on-israeli-pm-benjamin-netanyahu-to-approve-us-ceasefire-deal-and-release-hostages-13146730

Some of us use FOSS because of access to the source and the benefits of an all FOSS system. Not because it's zero cost. This list is just zero cost and some happen to be FOSS.

Not to mention slow to build. Takes about a decade to get a nuclear plant going. If that is replacing coal, you are burning that coal during construction. The CO2 cost of that should be taken into account when comparing to much quicker renewables (approx 2 years). Also pouring all that concrete. Once it's build, sure it's green, but that is expensive, takes ages and comes with a big CO2 cost to get going.

Or you go renewable now, turn the filthy coal off about 8 years sooner and save a ton of money and CO2 right now.

Mmmm. Looking at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship

Roughly I'd say it's at most 200-300 people. Airships just didn't carry many at once.

If you look at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_fatalities_by_country

You easily go past the airships estimate. One that surprised me was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

"Estimated 100 to 240 cancer fatalities in the long term"

You can beat airships deaths will just one of big accidents.

https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima

I fear it we will keep see new high records. If you have read Ministry For The Future, this all very alarmingly familiar.

Not the first time this has been pointed out : https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/heat-wave-india-climate-fiction-b2065039.html

Now he's been found guilty, I wonder if more and more will dare to come forward. This isn't that, it is just a NDA running out.

So you can't cut to growth? Next your tell us moral can't be improved by beatings.

As I said, if you want to start today, solar is without doubt the way to go. If you are dealing in decades, and much more money, nuclear becomes an option. But in the time building it, you're poluting and it's not clear it's even cleaner long run discounting that, let alone including it.

As a bonus, solar is safer too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country

So nuclear just isn't the choice to make in 2024.

That's part of the issue with nuclear, it's not today. It's a decade to do, power coal in the mean time, pouring concrete which also cause a load of CO2. When it's finally running, it's clean, but expensive. In the mean time you could have solar running 8 years and it is cheaper to power and install. Nuclear is going to struggle to compete. Until fusion, but even that, if it ever comes, might not be cheap enough compared. Cheap, fast and clean wins.

It's a new area, but there are companies : https://www.recyclesolar.co.uk/

Life cycle comparing isn't as simple as your thinking: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421506002758 Happy to look if you have a unbiased source for life cycle emissions comparison.

But costs and time is a no brainer: https://www.energysage.com/about-clean-energy/nuclear-energy/solar-vs-nuclear/

You as also don't want to be burning coal for a decade while you build a nuclear power plant. Then it's expensive to run compared to solar too. The CO2 costs of waiting for nuclear should be included for nuclear too.