Two points:

Chernobyl was a poor, badly run reactor that was designed badly decades ago. I don't know why we paint all of nuclear with that brush, other than folks fall victim to availability bias all the time.

The other point is that we sweep aside externalities for all forms of power generation. People don't think of coal as dangerous, but it's killed far more than nuclear.

We do not even have to go as far as killed; injured will suffice[1]. The differences are extremely huge between fossil fuel vs nuclear.

[1] ... and it is on-going. It is happening right now.

We don’t actually do that, at least not in the USA. America’s industrial policy — until Trump — has been (politicians from certain areas of the country excepted) a gradual phaseout of coal and other fossil fuels. It’s taking time because West Virginia produces a lot of coal and their politicians have been assholes about it.

Fukushima, lack of insurance, and lack of waste storage facilities that no one wants to manage.

Not only designed decades ago (which the PWR also was) but the designers also cut corners, ignored its faults and pushed it through politically because it was cheap and the Soviet governments could meet their 5 year targets easier. Early incidents were treated with cover-ups.

"The RBMK was considered by some in the Soviet Union to be already obsolete shortly after the commissioning of Chernobyl unit 1. Aleksandrov and Dollezhal did not investigate further or even deeply understand the problems in the RBMK, and the void coefficient was not analyzed in the manuals for the reactor. Engineers at Chernobyl unit 1 had to create solutions to many of the RBMK's flaws such as a lack of protection against no feedwater supply. Leningrad and Chernobyl units 1 both had partial meltdowns that were treated, alongside other nuclear accidents at power plants, as state secrets and so were unknown even to other workers at those same plants."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK