Three points:
1) You should probably scale to the amount of energy produced.
2) You should probably take into account the entire system-wide effects (e.g., supposedly coal emissions cause thousands of deaths)
3) Generally people who are all jazzed up about CO2 reductions but against nuclear (and natural gas, I would add) are not thinking of coal as the alternative (despite evidence that coal exists and has been growing) but some magickal technology like solar or unicorn farts.
1) That's why rates should be used instead of overall deaths. If, on average, one person dies per mine per year then it doesn't matter if there's ten mines in one industry and five hundred in the other.
2) The argument against uranium mining seems to be a "it's too dangerous to get it out of the ground" type of argument. It would be best to relate it to how dangerous it is to get coal out of the ground in terms of lung cancer for the workers, getting run over by fracking trucks, etc, as opposed to deaths by the industry as a whole. Deaths by coal emissions would be better related to deaths from Chernobyl events and the like, in a "it's too dangerous to use this stuff" type of argument.
3) I've been trying to tell people for years how much unicorns like chili, so this is an industry we could get off the ground tomorrow, but the fucking hippies just won't stop feeding them carrots. You try telling a hippie how to take care of his unicorn - it's like arguing with a table.