Personally, I'd feel a lot safer if all nuclear plants were turned off forever. Sure, the chance of something going horribly wrong is low, but if it goes wrong it is a big big mess. Just too horrible to warrant any of the advantages that nuclear power has.
And still I'd rather be exposed to all of those risks than worry about one nuclear explosion. As I said, the consequences can be just too horrible, for too many people.
I'd love to move on from fossil fuels to something else, but not something that can cause such disasters.
Most of the mercury in fish originates from coal-burning power plants. [1]
Do you fly? A single airliner accident can kill hundreds at a time, but cars kill many more people a year. Somehow it's more acceptable for people to die one or two at a time in great numbers.
[1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Mercury_in_fi...
No matter how you compute statistics, a nuclear meltdown is a big downside risk. It can happen, and if it happens it's extremely destructive. It's an event with a small chance of occurence but with great consequences.
That's qualitatively different from something like traffic accidents. The chances of those happening are much higher, but if they happen, they affect at most a few people, They won't turn your city into a 'wildlife reserve' for years to come.
Even though the total amount of people that die of traffic accidents is higher, to me it's less scary. The risks are more manageable: you have some degree of control over it (drive safely) and the consequences are visible.