I really wonder how history will look back upon this - a well-executed response to a unforeseen disaster in the most difficult of circumstances, or an example o

I really wonder how history will look back upon this - a well-executed response to a unforeseen disaster in the most difficult of circumstances, or an example of governmental coverup exposing civilians to unnecessary danger? There's a lot of gray area between those two outcomes: - a well-executed, but ultimately human error prone response - an unforeseen, but foreseeable disaster - a universal example of government/large organization incompetence - normal and continuously shifting, dangerous conditions To me these are the underlying issues with the march towards more nuclear energy facilities: unavoidable human error, mechanical error, electrical error, design error, environmental events, etc. The safest plant in the world could easily turn into a situation worse than Chernobyl when concurrent unforeseeable situations manifest. That's the problem with manipulating extraordinarily dangerous material. Ultimately, Fukushima will likely be viewed through the lens of history in the way most things are: as a construct of those who are holding the lens.