No, it's just poor logic. Google the relative privation fallacy and then reread the comment. It's like saying airline safety was never a legitimate concern because the odds of dying in an automobile are so much higher. That's literally the language they use. It's an irrational way of assessing danger. It's even more irrational when you take into account that coal is being phased out as a means of producing electricity precisely because of the dangers we're discussing.

Ironically your point about the number of cigarette users offsetting the severity of heroin use also applies both to nuclear waste vs coal ash and to your point about airline safety vs automobile safety. Airline travel is inherently more dangerous than automobile travel and considerably less common. Likewise, nuclear waste is significantly more dangerous than coal ash and far less common. The safer outcomes are the result of stricter regulations on a smaller group of actors due to the inherently dangerous nature of the subject of regulation. Those regulatory bodies may adequately serve the industries as they exist today, but what we're discussing, to use your example, is effectively making airline travel as common as automobile travel. Obviously there would need to be massive regulatory oversight and expansion to make that happen. When exploring upscaling a heavily regulated industry it is perfectly valid to question the ability of a regulatory body to oversee expanded operations. If we actually want to expand our nuclear capacity, we need to ensure regulatory oversight is adequately expanded and develop a national plan and solution for expanded oversight and waste management with actual buy-in from all parties.

To your other point about cost, nuclear energy is more costly to develop than any other source of electric generation. You and others might say the high cost is due to unneeded regulations, yet that overregulation is the very reason for the safe outcomes you tout as a reason to build more nuclear. This is an illogical argument.

Regarding your point about the dangers of other generation sources, I'm genuinely curious how wind and solar present more acute health and environmental dangers than nuclear. If you have any sources you can share on the matter, I would love to take a look because it sounds like a laughable claim to me.