The argument is that nuclear pollution scorches the earth for centuries if not longer. Any of the examples you've mentioned has - relatively speaking - as short

The argument is that nuclear pollution scorches the earth for centuries if not longer. Any of the examples you've mentioned has - relatively speaking - as short term impact. A nuclear plant shedding a plume of radioactive elements? All you can do is set up an exclusion zone. That doesn't mean nuclear technology doesn't have advantages. It very much has. Arguably, it's both the cleanest and most consistent way of energy production at the same time. The trade-off is security, as mentioned by the commenter, is security. If society decides to invest in nuclear energy, it has to be willing to accept the consequences of that choice. The technology isn't "bad" in and of itself. It's context and intentions leveraging said technology which shifts perceptions towards "good" or "bad". If the Russians would clearly recognize the challenges associated with securing a captured nuclear power plant, and take them to heart, the conversation would steer into a different direction.