It's an over-reaction to an over-reaction. It's the same deal when people talk about how you're more likely to get hit by lightning than end up in a terrorist attack, yet we spend so much time, money and resources trying to prevent the terrorist attack. People are just trying to put things in perspective since people tend to treat nuclear power like some sort of mysterious spectre that might sneak into your home at night and eat your children.

Let's suppose you have two choices for a particular service--one which causes constant danger, but when it happens, it may not even end up on the local news, and even there, as a footnote, and one which is very unlikely to cause problems, but if it does, it ends up not only as a global news event, but the name of where it happens becomes synonymous with the failure.

Which choice is safer? It's the latter, because the latter causes panic, which causes safety to be ratcheted up to ridiculous extents, but nobody notices the former until they go to collect the data, and even then, cognitive bias tends to mean that people still pay attention more to the latter.

So, no, it may not be «complete safety», but at this point, it's the safest option.