Golddigger
The reasons it is useful to discuss other forms of power, is that it puts things into context and helps decide where we should be investing our efforts and money.
Assuming the need for electricity in the world can't be changed, then we must generate it in the most safe way.
So, when deciding whether we should be using coal or nuclear, the choice is simple.
When deciding if people should spend their time campaigning to stop nuclear power stations from being built, it is clear. Campaign FOR nuclear, not against.
Of course you are right, we should do everything we can to minimise the risk of nuclear incidents, but this is being done all the time already. Clearly this is always a balance of cost vs. benefits, and a view on what value in £s each potential death is worth, but that is the world we live in today - this is how companies and regulators make decisions.
A similar argument is air travel vs. car travel, where many people are scared of flying, but don't think twice about driving to the airport.
The fact is, you are far more likely to die during the drive to the airport (by many orders of magnitude) than you are during the flight, but you don't hear many people complaining about being car phobic!
This doesn't mean that engineers and regulators aren't doing everything they can to make flying even safer. EASA and FAA etc are making constant safety improvements to the aircraft design and air traffic management requirements. Many of these improvements will be made based upon lessons learned from aircraft crashes and incidents.
This is completely analogous to the nuclear industry, who will likely be changing their regulation regarding power plant installations in tsunami risk areas, which will likely require retrofits to existing plants to improve safety, and new, more stringent requirements for newly built facilities.
The long and the short of it is: nuclear power is very safe indeed (statistically).