> Fukushima was caused by shoddy planning. > In 2002 they already knew the seawater pumps were located too low, but took no action A relatively-unasked questi

> Fukushima was caused by shoddy planning. > In 2002 they already knew the seawater pumps were located too low, but took no action A relatively-unasked question is, "How many nuclear power plants have analogous failings?"[0] Fukushima could be an outlier because it is more shoddy. This is an argument for nuclear power. Or every nuclear powerplant could have a different subset of shoddinesses. I'd be interested in having the same attention paid to all nuclear powerplants that was paid to Fukushima. Then we'd be able to tell whether Fukushima was an outlier.[1] [0] This may be publicly available information, say published by America's Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I as a layman haven't found it and doubt I could read it. [1] You might say, "Why are we overanalyzing nuclear power relative to $SOMETHING_ELSE?" I agree with that criticism. My point as regards the parents is that the parent is implicitly making a statistical conclusion (other plants are safer than Fukushima) when we don't know as much about other plants as we do Fukushima.