Extreme events and subsequent changes are why it can be the "safest form of energy". After Chernobyl and Fukushima, regulation did change in those countries as well.
Nuclear energy has a minuscule list of total casualties throughout history. Casualties per megawatt produced? It's practically zero. At the same time burning hydrocarbons kills every single day through pollution. It kills millions yearly. Burning coal even spews radioactive ash into the air!
And above all, climate change is looming as a civilization-ending danger, closer and closer.
So which one should we regulate more?!
A nuclear accident creates a big and costly disaster suddenly. People don't like sudden big problems but can live with continuously growing ones.
Burning hydrocarbons is much more acceptable in that regard. CO2/dust pollution is accepted by society, because it is continuous and dilutes well. Killing millions is socially acceptable when it happens randomly all over the planet. Radioactive pollution due to coal burning is/should be negligible, most is(should be) filtered out in the smokestack scrubbers.
I don't like fossil power plants, but they are much easier to build and more acceptable to people than nuclear ones. That's why regulation and security have to be high with nuclear, to make it acceptable to most of society.
> civilization-ending danger
I don't think climate change is a civilization-ending danger in the coming decades. It already creates political problems, migration. If we keep pumping CO2 then maybe in hundred years.
We had 2 huge ones. They resulted in a few thousand deaths and some uninhabitable land. Nothing compared to pollution damage.
> accepted by society [...] socially acceptable
I'd rather decide based on reason. And I doubt many people find millions of deaths due to pollution every year acceptable. They just don't know they had a choice. Choice stolen from them by rabid anti-nuclear fear mongering.
> I don't think climate change is a civilization-ending danger
Yet you think a few black swan nuclear disasters are? Can I borrow your crystal ball? You are pretty sure about the future but most experts I read disagree: nuclear experts consider it extremely safe while climate experts warn of dire futures.
Nuclear experts consider it safe because of existing regulations and because it is hard for sketchy company to launch a new plant.
That may be, but you're coming off as mongering the same irrational fear.