You do realize that everything that has happened at the plant since the earthquake, including that explosion, is a direct result of the earthquake, right? That's like saying the airliners didn't take down the World Trade Center, the fire did. There wouldn't have been a fire if it weren't for the airliners.
The earthquake and subsequent effects of the earthquake destroyed these reactors. It's a pointless distinction to say otherwise, designed to soften the blow to nuclear power's reputation.
Of course, but I find your analogy quite poor. All I meant was that the plant [apparently] suffered no damage from the earthquake (which was quite a bit stronger than it had been designed to withstand). It was the tsunami--also larger than the sea wall was designed to withstand--knocking out power that got the plant into its current state. A cache of compatible backup generators that were kept high enough or remotely enough could have prevented this disaster.
The earthquake and subsequent effects of the earthquake destroyed these reactors. It's a pointless distinction to say otherwise, designed to soften the blow to nuclear power's reputation.