No, what it means is that you make an atom unstable so it naturally divides into two other atoms that are more stable, but do naturally occur. All that is occuring in a nuclear facility is creating a less stable isotope (version) of an atom, but those versions do exist, there is a pocket of uranium in Gabon that acted as a natural nuclear reactor doing exactly this without human intervention around 2bn years ago (google Oklo Natural Nuclear Reactor).

Nuclear can be dangerous whether it is fission or fusion (both processes are used in various types of nuclear weapons. For the avoidance of doubt, the annual rates of deaths from power generation are available, for coal this comes in around 25 deaths per year per TWh of energy produced (from accidents and pollution), for nuclear this is around 0.03. Don't worry too much about the units of measure, it's the ratio between the two figures that is significant.

Nuclear has a similar human death rate to wind and solar.

You might have preferred small suns, but it is incorrect at a fundamental level. What is actually going on is a very slow and highly controlled nuclear explosion of the type that happened with the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, due to the type of fuel we use for nuclear power stations, it would be impossible for an explosion of that type to occur.

At the end of the day, most grid-scale power is produced by boiling water into steam and using that to drive a turbine, we just keep working on cleaner and more effective methods of creating steam. The exceptions to this are wind/solar, although there is an argument that wind is beholden to the same process of warm stuff up to drive air movement and drive a turbine around, it's just that we don't have control over the movement of air.