> this would be only relevant if Fukushima was the epitome of nuclear disaster Isn't it? I thought what happened at Fukushima was the worst case scenario for a

> this would be only relevant if Fukushima was the epitome of nuclear disaster Isn't it? I thought what happened at Fukushima was the worst case scenario for a nuclear power plant of its type. What is the worst that could have happened? Aren't new designs even safer than that?