I'm butting in a bit, but I doubt Sjoyce will mind. I'll answer a few of your points.
Do you mean that Three Mile Island wasn't an accident? And don't forget that nuclear waste lasts millennia, even if the Fukushima exclusion area can be repopulated in two decades, something about I have certain reservations. I think you were a bit unsuccessful mentioning Hiroshima and Nagasaki, given the terrible consequences that suffered the survivors, called hibakusha. Not only the incidence of cancer and other ailments, also the discrimination that they have suffered on the part of the rest of the Japanese population
I mentioned in the Legislature that Climate Change will increase the frequency of natural disasters in the future (I gave the examples of floods and hurricanes). Don't be so sure about the unlikelihood of an accident. The probability of seeing these things passing from being hypothesis to terrible realities will increase with the time.
Essentially, Three Mile Island WASN'T a real nuclear accident. It was just startlingly close to one, with enough human error and potential risk involved to make it a disaster for the industry. As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that was the point. To compare a nuclear power plant which ESPECIALLY post Three Mile Island and Fukishima will put the prevention of accidents as the highest priority to a deliberate weapon for killing is comparing apples and oranges. Radiation sickness IS awful, and was has happened to those in Japan is an awful human tragedy; but its not something that can happen except in the most exceptional circumstances. Even if there are more natural disasters because of global warming, it took the 5th largest earthquake in recorded history to cause a disaster in 1 of the several nuclear power plants in the area. If we are getting disasters of that magnitude we have much more to worry about than nuclear power. We also have both an extremely strict building safety code for building nuclear plants and an additional mandatory safety review in place since Fukishima.
