I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by that.
Do you mean that you are opposed to the use of technology if it's safety systems are ever fully put to the test, or are you saying that having the reactor core melt and puddle at the bottom of the room where it will eventually cool off and harden is just too catastrophically dangerous?
Either way, it's absurd. Shit happens. In this case, a big earthquake and tsunami. The fact that a safety system has to be used does not reflect poorly on the safety system. The earthquake has already killed far more people and caused more damage than even Chernobyl, and the tsunami has certainly caused more dangerous chemical contamination than whatever radiation may be released from Fukushima.
After an earth quake people can move back into the area.
Living in an area where a nuclear accident happened may not possible for many years.
If there is radioactivity released, then we are talking about large scale consequences. Tokio is just 240km away from Fukushima and there are living 30 Million people. Imagine if they have to leave the city behind.
Chernobyl had a certain type of scenario with radioactive particles released of a huge area in Europe. This has still effects. For the economy of the Ukraine in means that the have a region which can 't be developed, they have to pay for the maintenance of the broken reactor for decades and for example agriculture in that area is not really possible. Nobody outside the Ukraine will buy vegetable from them.
Check out the coal power plants. They had problems during the earth quake, but they fail and that's mostly it.
The nuclear reactors are full losses costing billions and need and extremely dangerous type of further maintenance.
I don't know many people who would want to work on Fukushima later. Who should clean up the site??? Which humans do we want to give these tasks???
In Chernobyl there was a lot of radiation released. Workers had a years of typical dose in a few minutes. I don't believe for a second that workers in Fukushima will not exposed to radiation. Even the US Navy pulls a ship away from the site, because it measured radiation in 160km distance.
"There is secondary containment with a huge heat sink down there"
Can I ask an uncomfortable question? If that secondary containment is enough to hold the molten core, why didn't they build the first containment that way?
Think about the secondary containment as the graveyard. The primary containment allows production of energy and the system to actually run, while the secondary doesn't. It's hole in the ground to catch the collapsed thing.
Do you mean that you are opposed to the use of technology if it's safety systems are ever fully put to the test, or are you saying that having the reactor core melt and puddle at the bottom of the room where it will eventually cool off and harden is just too catastrophically dangerous?
Either way, it's absurd. Shit happens. In this case, a big earthquake and tsunami. The fact that a safety system has to be used does not reflect poorly on the safety system. The earthquake has already killed far more people and caused more damage than even Chernobyl, and the tsunami has certainly caused more dangerous chemical contamination than whatever radiation may be released from Fukushima.