The difference in deaths and severe effects on health and ecology is incomparable. Coal absolutely dwarfs nuclear. Like hundreds or thousands to one. Even if a Chernobyl happened twice a year, like it or not, the resulting pollution and death would be less than what coal mining and coal power plants do. THAT is the reality people don't want to admit because the anti-nuclear propaganda and scaremongering has worked so well.
(All of which gets kinda exposed when there's opposition also to fusion, so many nay sayers, and it won't work this, and it takes 40 years that... also, I swear, if I'm going to see one more "fusion reactor in the sky" tweet from Elon, my head's gonna explode. Dirtbag manipulator.)
Quantities of radiation released by coal plants under normal operations are not a health concern. Coal has plenty of other health, and environmental, concerns.
Quanities of radiation released by a coal plant are unlikely to vary much at all, no matter how critically mismanaged the plant might be.
Quantities of radiation emitted by a badly-mismanaged, sabotaged, or attacked nuclear power plant, on the other hand, become a health concern for people across continents and beyond, as with Chernobyl and Fukushima.
(Note that "concern" need not mean "realised risk", but given that one of the characteristics of nuclear incidents to date has been inaccurate or misleading information on precisely the levels of risk presented, prudence and caution strongly recommends presuming a worst case until otherwise conclusively demonstrated.)
Of course, coal kills a lot of people. But instead of investing the money in nuclear power plants, one could also build wind/hydro power plants and solar plants...
