"Even taking into account increased instances of radiation-induced cancer that aren't noticed until nearly half a century later?"
For all statistical purposes, they simply don't happen.
Radiation exposure tends to kill you relatively quickly or not kill you at all. The bigger issue is poisoning from radiation breakdown products (beryllium is a nasty carcinogen as a for-instance) and heavy metal poisoning from things like uranium 238 - which isn't radioactive to speak of, but is an environmental toxin.
Being exposed to radioactive isotopes doesn't mean you _will_ get cancer. It raises the risks - you might go from a 1 in 1,000,000 risk to a 1 in 500,000 risk as a for-instance (which gets "doubles the risk of cancer" scarelines.) Bear in mind that cancer levels in Nagasaki and Hiroshima are 2% above "normal", whilst down the road at Minamata Bay it's about 25% higher thanks to organic mercury compounds in the seawater.
Pressurised water reactors have a "sweet spot" at 7-10MW electrical power generation (which is hardly surprising, as that's what the original research was aimed at for submarines). Scaling them up to 1400MW is bad news, but they're still safer than every other form of electricity generation and produce less waste than coal ever will. That said, there are safer methods which aren't pressurised and don't use metals which catch fire on expsoure to air, or graphite cores.
An anecdote to amuse: There was a nasty cluster of cancers amogst workers in the old Rutherford laboratories at Oxford. The labs were cleared out and gone over with a fine-tooth comb to fine what residual radioactives might be causing this. Nothing was found, so they virtually tore the place apart trying to find them eventually finding the cause - which was nothing radioactive at all. A long time before Rutherford even set foot in the labs they were used for chemistry research and mercury from broken thermometers had found its way into the floorboards, oxidising and forming nasty carcinogenic organic compounds.
This risk is well understood and looked for in chemistry departments, but because "Radiation" might have been the cause, everyone was blinded to looking for anything other than a radioactive cause.
last week someone posted pictures of deformed daisies around Fukushima as "evidence" of radiation poisoning. Never mind that the species in question is well-known for producing odd shapes all the time without any radiation exposure, somehow these particular ones are a direct result of non-existent radioactive contamination simply because they're in the area.
The USA let off a large number of atmospheric tests in the 1950s, many of which produced substantial fallout downwind because they were fired too close to the ground. The statistical increase in cancers in those areas is about 5% over "normal". This is down in the noise as changes like that are seen all over the world without radiation exposure (the highest spikes are downwind of coal burning plants and they're more statistically obvious). Areas around US military nuclear installations are bad news requiring superfund cleanups, but that's the military all over. Civilian installations have been very clean.