[eeeeaaii]

In the article linked to from this article:

A preliminary report by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency has stated that the response to the Fukushima nuclear incident was "exemplary" and that nobody has been harmed by radiation exposure resulting from it.

That seems to contract what the Japanese government's own panel concluded:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18718057

[ianb]

The article on safety this article links to is a year older than the article itself (though same author). It doesn't seem responsible to me to leave out a year of analysis of the effect of Fukushima, and I don't think it's been a particularly positive year. In some ways if Fukushima was a result of human error (as that report indicates), then that's positive: it's resolvable. But if we scaled nuclear power up to 10x what it currently is I would worry about more human error, and introducing nuclear power to places that have even more problems with reliability, or cultural problems with creating reliable systems. A nuclear power plant in Nigeria? I'm sure there are very reliable people who could staff and monitor the plant, and that those people could be attracted to the jobs, but I don't trust the political infrastructure of the nation to ensure that all actually happens. That no one uses shoddy concrete, or pushes problems under the table instead of resolving them and opening oneself up to blame, or manipulates risk assessment to protect their personally acquired power in the working of the plant.