[WS:] As they say, a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day :)
But more seriously, I do not think that government officials, scientists, power producers etc. who support the idea of nuclear power generation are stupid or evil people. They certainly sound more rational than many hysterical anti-nuke voices. In the end of the day, their reasons may prove inadequate to meet standards of public safety or sustainability, but that is a different argument than summarily denouncing them as liars.
I would also like to address another issue mentioned in your post - the distinction between actual damages and a potential threat. You seem, to agree that the actual death toll attributed to nuclear plant accidents is by far lower than that attributable to fossil fuel based power, but you counter with the assertion that the potential threat of a nuclear accident is far greater. I think there is some truth in this argument, but there is even greater ambiguity. Given sufficient time span, everything is possible, even things whose calculable probability is rather low. But even in a low case scenario, such as the Chernobyl accident, the total number of deaths directly attributable to the accident was 70 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster. That is far less than the number fatal injuries in the mining industry in the US http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0008.pdf. Of course, neither of these counts reflect consequential damages, illness, displacement etc. - but the devastation caused by surface mining is enormous and continuous, even though it does not produce scares sparked by nuclear disasters.
I understand that visceral opposition to anything nuclear is a core belief of many on the left, and bean counting is not going to change that. But let's not loose a sense of proportions and probability here.
In any case, I would like to thank Gar, Jordan and Andy for contributing links to informative resources on the subject.
Wojtek