Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intentionally weaponized uses of nuclear energy.

That would be like arguing against research on pathogenic microbians and their further usage in beneficial ways because they have been weaponized in the past.

But Chernobyl and Fukishima certainly weren't intentionally weaponized instances of nuclear power creating a hell on Earth.

And need I bring up Godzilla?

Fukushima was caused by an earthquake followed by a tsunami. Hardly something neutral.

But if a nuclear plant with such poor controls and vulnerable infrastructure wasn't there in the first place, an unexpected but far from unlikely natural disaster wouldn't have caused the even greater and far longer-lasting unnatural disaster that followed. Which is my point.

And still... do you have any idea of the costs to the surroundings which power plants using other energy sources have? Nuclear is still cleaner than almost anything, even with accidents taken into account.

Until these accidents occur, that is, and even one such accident can render large portions of the environment unlivable for ages. That will hardly happen if a wind-harnessing mill is smashed by an earthquake or tsunami. Or trampled by Godzilla.