I would have thought that the evacuation response and the ability to restore water supply to the fuel rod cooling pools would have had a bit more to do with the lack of deaths than the safety of radiation disaster..
I support nuclear as An energy source but it really seems like we are doing it wrong at the moment - it costs too much, seems like we are, or have been using reactor designs that we probably shouldn't (ie they have meltdown risk in disasters vs other newer designs).
However it speaks volumes about the changed political environment, and our environmental sensitivity these days, that a response to Japan's tsunami and nuclear shutdown was also the shutdown of German reactors and fast-tracked plans to transition away from nuclear from them and other countries.
One is the safety of radiation. This is a medical question. It can be tested in the laboratory, but we have enough "field experience" with it by now to know that it is indeed Very Bad News(tm) in high doses.
The second is the safety of nuclear power. This has many factors including the first issue and also including things such as evacuation response. Our ability to recognize threats (such as plainly unsafe radiation) and react effectively and rapidly is itself a reason that nuclear power is safe.
Properly regulated nuclear power is safer than nuclear power that is not. Sort of like how cardiac arrest in Seattle is safer than it is in Detroit, since the EMS response time is about 1/3rd the time.
I support nuclear as An energy source but it really seems like we are doing it wrong at the moment - it costs too much, seems like we are, or have been using reactor designs that we probably shouldn't (ie they have meltdown risk in disasters vs other newer designs).
However it speaks volumes about the changed political environment, and our environmental sensitivity these days, that a response to Japan's tsunami and nuclear shutdown was also the shutdown of German reactors and fast-tracked plans to transition away from nuclear from them and other countries.