Upon first sight, to the uneducated eye, the Airbus Beluga looks incredibly 'un-aerodynamic'. Is the Beluga just as safe as other Airbus models?
There's a history of oversize airplanes for transport. One of the earliest was the Pregnant Guppy and its successor the Super Guppy
By NASA/Tom Tschida - http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/multimedia/imagegallery/Guppy/EC00-0212-2.html (image link), Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=32895741
Boeing operates its own variant, the Dreamlifter
By scott wright (originally posted to Flickr as n780ba) [CC BY 2.0 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 )], via Wikimedia Commons
To my knowledge, none of these (including the Beluga) have had any safety incidents (although the Dreamlifter did once land at the wrong airport). I'm not sure if there's any conclusions on safety to draw from, however, as there aren't a lot of these around, as they primarily transport large materials (like aircraft parts).
The Beluga, or other bulk-freight carriers, such as the Guppy variants or the Dreamlifter, are as aerodynamic as they can be, regarding the contrains on cargo volume. So, they are unusually shaped/large, yet they are not un-aerodynamic.
As for the safety record, there is only a small number of Belugas. So, the safety statistics is not comparable to a large-number type, e.g. A300. Furthermore, the per-plane, per-year mileage is much larger for the common passenger carriers that for the bulk-cargo carriers. So, a single A300 clocks much more miles in a year than a Beluga.
To conclude, statistics becomes more and more significant the larger the involved sample is. Statisticians might argue, whether a sample of 5 (hulls, in the case of the Belugas) is a sample at all (strictly statistically/mathematically speaking).