I'd agree if our only two options were nuclear or coal/oil plants but we have many options that don't require everything be powered from centralized power plants.

Who cares about a bit of contaminated area, very localized, every few dozen years, when the alternative is a global climate crisis?

I'm sure all the people and companies that exist in these areas. Land is finite and hospitable land is even more finite. Destroying these areas for decades to come isn't any more preferable that the occasional natural disaster rolling through over a few day period.

As I said I'm not against nuclear power and I would love to see more advancements come to fruition, but it doesn't need to be our main source of energy nor is it accurate to claim that the potential issues that come with it are solely overblown conspiracy theories pushed by oil/coal companies.

More people died in the evacuation of Fukushima than died fighting the meltdown, which was arguably 1.

1 confirmed from radiation (lung cancer, 4 years later),[3] and 2,202 from evacuation.[4]

The tsunami killed over 15,000 people. Awful disaster.

However, Japanese people are very anti-nuclear so their media made it seem that the impact was horrific when, aside from the exclusion zone, wasn’t all THAT bad. However, losing that land was a big hit to a small country.

while that is certainly an issue, i very much doubt that it is a primary reason (or even remotely a concern) for the average anti-nuclear layperson.

Ah, those activists wouldn't talk about that mostly, they'd talk about boom and radioactive pollution in places their audience lived in.

Leftists caring about minorities and oppressed communities anyplace far from themselves are a notable rarity.

And since the replacements were coal, oil and gas, which are just as dirty, I'd say your argument isn't worth shit.