But there is the "you have to invest to get return" point that elthrasher made (in this case you have to take some risk of danger to get benefit) It is a matter of how big the risks are compared to the alternatives and what the net effect is. the obvious example is the danger of crossing the road which is, I expect, considerably more dangerous than living near a nuclear plant albeit possibly more neccesary. Not that I am saying nuclear power is a good idea without evidence - just that it isnt as simple as you imply here... at the margins cheaper power saves lives.
I think that we have a tendancy to seek to reduce certain risks - this makes us suckers to insurance companies and medicince producers and other groups that want to game us. For example if we take drugs to prevent tiny chances of rare diseases or buy insurance for a large premium against events that we could afford to cover ourselves. This is also true for things like nuclear power. Again - maybe it is too dangerous - maybe in economic terms the government of japan is nationalizing the insurace costs that the power companies should have to cover and which might price their power out of hte market but it is somthing to be debated rationally.