Reply #19: The balance seems wrong to me...

[kristopher]

When I read the OP, and then read this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x286488#286490

And then this:
Fukushima No. 1 plant designed on 'trial-and-error' basis
While changes improved safety at the Fukushima No. 2 nuclear power plant, overconfidence, complacency and high costs stymied such action at the now-crippled Fukushima No. 1 plant, according to people familiar with the situation.
The difference in the safety designs was the main reason why the crisis continues to unfold at the Fukushima No. 1 plant--one of the oldest in Japan--while the No. 2 plant a few kilometers south remains relatively unscathed by the March 11 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami.
http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201104060126.html

Well, when I look at the totality of what those stories discuss that is "wrong", I just don't see Nader as much of a factor. If that strategy has restricted the global exposure to the total risks of 440 reactors instead of 6000, then I suspect the overall balance of risk is far lower when we have:

440 reactors with 440 meltdown opportunities + 440 on site storage problems

Than if we have
6,000 reactors with 6,000 meltdown opportunities + a new yucca mountain sized storage facility being required every 8 months + increasingly energy intensive fuel requirements that escalate fission reactor emissions /kwh to levels comparable to natural gas.

I don't know, is that a tough choice?