@saxnot No system is fully secured from polluting the surrounding area. Nothing is perfect, not even solar panels in that regard (lots of pollution created to make it).. What one needs to ask themselves is how the levels of pollution on average compare to others.

We already know there are types of reactors which are fundementally incapable of having a meltdown. So even if all the safety measures fail there is no more chance of the core melting down than a solar panel. The physics behind the choice of nuclear material makes it impossible.

So since we can garuntee at a fundemental level that melt downs wont happen (As we can) then what is the argument? If its just pollution due to proper disposal techniques then we would have to compare how the pollution compares to other methods.

I'm not even sure what your argument against nuclear is, like why would safety being imperfect even matter when meltdowns are possible?