And yet I don't hear anyone look at those and say "oh no, you shouldn't judge by the past, it can always be worse" :-\
> But "our repeated accidents didn't end up being too bad" isn't the way to assess them
It's a valid way to assess them.
> that should directly inform the siting of new plants and the operation of existing ones
What makes you think the new constructions don't take that into consideration? What makes you keep saying "no you shouldn't say itself because earthquake+tsunami+bad operators isn't bad luck enough, there's always worse luck around the corner"?
> But "our repeated accidents didn't end up being too bad" isn't the way to assess them
It's a valid way to assess them.
> that should directly inform the siting of new plants and the operation of existing ones
What makes you think the new constructions don't take that into consideration? What makes you keep saying "no you shouldn't say itself because earthquake+tsunami+bad operators isn't bad luck enough, there's always worse luck around the corner"?