I think Chernobyl and Fukishima have proved that if nuclear power is to be safe, we have to do a better job at it. I know it can be done--look up "Calder Hall"--but these cases prove that it ISN'T being done safely in some cases. You've totally cherry-picked and misquoted a Wikipedia article. Here is the very next paragraph:
Sharing in common with attempts to estimate low level radon and air pollution exposure situations, determining the total eventual number of exposure related deaths is based on the linear no-threshold model, a contested statistical model.[17][18] Model predictions with the greatest confidence values of the eventual total death toll, in the decades ahead from Chernobyl releases vary, from 4,000 fatalities when solely assessing the three most contaminated former Soviet states, to about 9,000 to 16,000 fatalities when assessing the total continent of Europe.[19]
I like to quote verifiable figures, you know the ones governments put out, rather than speculation and fear-mongering. Relying on non-scientific data is the reason why solar roadways got off the ground in the first place. If only they actually used scientific calculations to determine the energy output it would have saved us millions. Also even if the fatalities were put at 16,000, still far more people have died falling off roofs installing solar panels then caused by Chernobyl.
And there appears to be no consideration of India and other countries that may have been subject to I-131 contamination. Chernobyl was a massive disaster that caused the world to (correctly) reconsider the viability and safety of then-current nuclear power plant design.
Chernobyl was caused by the people in charge trying to test a system to see what would happen if the backup systems would kick in, in the case of an emergency. If you were to devise a foolproof plan, to cause a nuclear meltdown, what they did at Chernobyl would pretty much be it. You had idiots in charge that didn't know what they were doing. These days the control rods (which was the eventual cause of the disaster) are automatically inserted without human interaction when there is a risk of nuclear reaction overload. Power plants are built with multiple containment vessels so that radiation does not leak out. Nuclear power plants are designed these days to be idiot-proof.
So you've established that solar installations are about as hazardous as roof work in general--and I'm going to guess that most of those fatalities were a result of non-compliance with OSHA fall protection requirements. There are not likely to be large areas of the earth made uninhabitable for centuries by massive contamination by solar panels. Solar panels do not generate waste that is expensive and dangerous and needs to be stored for centuries. And you don't mention the workers killed in construction accidents at nuclear power plants.....you can go on forever with this.
That is my point, as with planes, nuclear power is very regulated, and has many automatic safeguards in place to prevent human error from causing major accidents. Solar panels on roofs, on the other hand, is not idiot-proof, people often install them without the costly fall protection that the OSHA requires, and is not maintained as well as a nuclear power plant. This is the same situation for cars and planes.
The statistics have already been calculated, and the number of deaths from nuclear power per TWh is very small compared to the number of deaths from rooftop solar installation per TWh. I can link you to the study if you really want me too...
Thorium reactors don't produce waste, nearly all by-products of thorium reactors can be used in other industries. For example the desalination of seawater in order to mine the salt needed for LFTR.