> Russia has a lot of uninhabited space
Nuclear installations are not in uninhabited space. For example the still operating (!) RMBK-style reactors are not that far away from major cities.
US irradiated large areas of Pacific Ocean and atmosphere (US) with its testing program, harming people living there and contaminating whole world with radioactive isotopes. UK dumped radioactive waste in barrels into Atlantic ocean, has bad record on nuclear safety (Windscale accidents) and continues to run old nuclear power plant that does not pass old safety tests, so they make the test less and less restrictive [1].
The lax approach to safety has been observed on all sides. It has to improve but it is no reason to stop development of nuclear power.
Soviet-build power plants near cities aren't as bad as people think, if run safely by competent people. Chernobyl was a preventable disaster, not solely due to technology, but mainly due to incompetence and dysfunctional society. Also, the disaster wasn't as bad as people think. Few people died when you compare to other industrial accidents.
The really badly polluted installations in Russia are the military/research ones in restricted areas - Mayak, Lake Karachay.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunterston_B_nucl...
And the need, since the baltic sea has a lot of countries which would be effected by leaking nuclear reactors.
mining, processing and 'storing' of nuclear material isn't any better in Russia.
> Soviet-build power plants near cities aren't as bad as people think, if run safely by competent people
I think there is not much reason pretending that the russian nuclear industry is especially competent.
