I would argue that Fukushima was a pretty good example of how safe nuclear power is. The damage was very well contained, and the evacuation measures caused more harm than the primary danger.
I know it's tempting to say "oh, if we just don't do these 4-5 dumb things-- the risk is gone".
It's s small risk, but boy the end of the tail in what it costs is pretty dang high.
But we happily live with oil drilling and transport.
Countries like France show how safe nuclear can be.
The magnitude of the risks we're contemplating when we're discussing nuclear are completely insignificant in relation to that.
Even things like oil spills? I know it's hard (or even impossible) to reduce to "overall damage" as the common unit, but I know oil spills are catastrophic.
No death tallies from the accident will be complete until the products have decayed to background levels.
I think this study will take sometime to complete.
All you can do is look at the dose and estimate the deaths. Pretty obvious the evacuation-related death toll is going to be one order of magnitude, and perhaps 2 orders of magnitude higher than Fukushima.