Chernobyl and Fukushima were both very old reactor systems and did not have modern safety systems.

Chernobyl had massive design flaws in both the cooling system placement, the electrical system and the rods themselves.

Fukushima relied of diesel generators for it's cooling, in the event of power failure.

Modern reactors can be build with passive safety systems which pour molten metal over the robs to stop snowballing fission reactions, effectively halting the process that would lead to a meltdown.

Nuclear reactors today are very different from what they once were. We are now seeing ideas for molten salt reactors which will eliminate the need for extremely pressurized cooling tanks which are a risky piece of hardware.

Nuclear energy is a rapidly progressing field of research and engineering. We should be assessing it's viability and the potential risk of it with the new technologies available to us and the likely developments that we will see in the future.

Also the people that dislike nuclear have their skepticism not with the science involved but instead with the quality of the engineering

This is not at all my experience in this field of debate. The ignorance not only towards what radiation is, it's quantifiable risks, the way it works and the fundamental mechanics of nuclear energy generation have been very, very poorly understood by most, in my experience with the general public. I myself am a layman but I did do research into radioactive decay, fission, reactor designs, etc. for a research project in high school and I learned a lot. Enough to know that nuclear energy is not being addressed fairly in politics.

I think that the biggest issue would be the waste storage, rather, ensuring that there is not any degree of negligence. That is something which can be achieved with strict regulations and transparent oversight of the facilities.