It reads very much like a last-ditch effort by nuclear energy lobbyists to convince us that nuclear energy is really safe. This brings back memories of the Iraqi information minister.
In 15 years, if there are no further disasters, they might crawl out of their holes and start preaching about the wonders of nuclear energy again. Until then, just give up.
> a last-ditch effort by nuclear energy lobbyists to convince us that nuclear energy is really safe.
Well, let's see. In this case we've had a bunch of nuclear power stations very close to the site of a historically-large earthquake and the ensuing tsunami, large enough that even with Japan's outstanding disaster-preparedness thousands or tens of thousands of people have died. That would seem to be pretty much a worst-case scenario.
And, so far, all the troubles at the nuclear reactors have produced a grand total of zero deaths. Now, for sure, it's too early to know what the final outcome will be. Maybe there will be a Vast Nuclear Holocaust that obliterates Japan. (No, the laws of physics do not in fact permit this, but that objection applies equally to a number of other nightmare scenarios people have been proposing.) But so far as anyone can tell, the worst outcome that's at all likely is: a few people die, a few square km of land become unusable for a while, and they need to rebuild from scratch somewhere else. Well, that's pretty bad, for sure. But if that's the worst-case outcome from such a major natural disaster, it seems to me that -- so far as what we know right now goes -- nuclear energy is still looking pretty safe overall.
In 15 years, if there are no further disasters, they might crawl out of their holes and start preaching about the wonders of nuclear energy again. Until then, just give up.