Interesting but people die (or are severely injured) in all kinds of industrial accidents all the time. Unfortunately, with or without regulation it comes with the territory of a modern industrial society.
Very few other industrial accidents cause effects that have to be dealt with for decades over 1000 miles away, even across oceans.
Nuclear power really is in a league of its own when it comes to risk. I am not aware of anything that comes close. Dam accidents have killed many more people and devastated towns, but the day after that happens, the area can be reused and the risk is entirely gone. The risks of nuclear power remain for decades or even centuries.
Finding ways to deal with that risk is fine, arguing that it can be managed is fine, but pretending that the risk is exaggerated based on the accidents that have happened so far is a mistake.
The risk is things that could happen, not what has actually happened.
There are estimates that pollution from European coal power plants cause more deaths EACH year in Europe, than the total estimated deaths from Chernobyl accidents (most pessimistic estimate 4000-8000 deaths).
For example, just the Great Smog event that affected London, England, in December 1952 caused by modern estimate 10,000–12,000 deaths.
First and foremost - coal sucks. Secondly - the choice isn't between nuclear or coal.
That said, the estimates you mention are not believable. Pollution as a whole causes lots of premature deaths, but coal burned in electricity plants are a very small part of total pollution.
Especially in Europe, where most countries no longer operate coal power plants. Not even the UK.