The years perspective is useful. But I'm not sure it's useful to compare the danger from different sources of house fires. The bad ones happen at night, and then have more than enough time to cause catastrophic damage whether it starts from a dryer or a candle or whatever. (There are some instructive videos on YouTube of how quickly fires spread in rooms)
After a few years of arguing with people about nuclear safety I'm not sure that this sort of perspective is useful. People make a gut-feel check on whether they feel safe and then just rationalise it. The actual level of risk doesn't seem to factor in to the conversation.
If we're going by the numbers this should probably disqualify the use of home battery storage on safety grounds. We're talking something like 1 home/year catching fire in a large town, those are some crazy levels of damage. If it was 1 home/year being hit by no-harm-detected-but-higher-than-expected radiation people would be seizing the numbers as evidence that a reactor needs to be shut down.
The thing with nuclear reactors is that they don't go off that easily or that often, but when they go off, the impact is both very large (Chernobyl spread to Bavaria!) and very long-lasting in its impact (Chernobyl is still a no-go zone, and to this day you have to inspect and throw away game and shrooms collected in Bavaria if it is impacted by radiation).
Coal power plants have a much larger impact, new ones have been cleaned up, but in the 1960s they were putting lots of radioactive waste into the air which rained down around the world and is still there.
