> There was nothing learned from these incidents that was surprising, or not known before. You seem to have completely forgotten how events at Fukushima unrave

> There was nothing learned from these incidents that was surprising, or not known before. You seem to have completely forgotten how events at Fukushima unraveled, or perhaps didn't follow them at the time. Watching CNN and other news outlets it was almost farcical: they'd put on world experts in nuclear engineering (legitimate experts, mind you, not science reporters or policy pundits) who would claim that event X (like a hydrogen leak) was so statistically improbable to the point of impossibility, then some hours later event X happens. Wash, rinse, repeat. It was all the more absurd because they clearly weren't updating their priors, so to speak, regarding the soundness and confidence of engineering analyses as events unfolded. All the nuclear industry's statistical modeling techniques turned out to be crap. The fact it was an ancient BWR is irrelevant as that's what the engineers were modeling--engineer interviewees were basing their opinions on specific analyses of Fukushima and similar, contemporaneous designs. OTOH, it stands to reason that our statistical risk modeling for most other endeavors (maybe excepting some well worn areas, like commercial aviation) is also crap, so nuclear isn't likely exceptional in this regard. And we have about 80 years of solid experience building and running nuclear reactors, with quite a few meltdowns, not to mention many other incidents, and excepting Chernobyl outcomes have fallen well within the range of the risks and outcomes we deal with everyday in many other industries, and far short of the nightmares peddled by nuclear opponents.