>>13037756Fukushima was running 6 years before Chernobyl. It was literally one of those old designs focused on construction price and not safety. In the specific case of Fukushima, it was a matter of being told literally during construction, 40 years in advance, that their tidal walls weren't tall enough.
This guy here
>>13037820 is almost on it. What he misses is that they were literally warned *40 years in advance* and chose to do nothing about it.
None of this addresses that the damage caused by the reactor meltdown itself might as well not have even happened when compared to the damage we do every year with carbon-based energy. That's the biggest take-away - the second worst nuclear disaster in human history is not even ten-thousandths as damaging to life on this planet as the continued use of fossil fuels. Even if the newest designs are just as prone to failure and human error as the currently existing ones, you're netting an outrageous positive by implementing them.
The *only* reason people are anti-nuclear is a combination of fear-mongering, ignorance, and oil propaganda, and that is it.
