Or with the appearance of safety, which is much more important.

Unless you live in Fukushima.

Fukushima had neither the appearance nor practice of nuclear safety.

It had both.

The tsunami that disrupted its power systems was well outside design parameters. The controversy around the plant's operation was around whether the parameters should have been altered given proximity to the ocean, not whether the plant (given the parameters) was well-built or well-maintained.

To this day, Fukushima's meltdown is responsible for zero deaths (in contrast to the tsunami that instigated the meltdown, which killed over 15,000).

It had neither, it had routine maintenance that was not done, and covered up. This is a big Nono in nuke world.

Re: I attended Naval Nuclear Power School

> Re: I attended Naval Nuclear Power School

I fail to see the relevance. Were you on-site? Do you have first-hand knowledge of a cover-up or are you extrapolating from naval nuclear regulatory standards to the standards of a different country?

All engineering is tradeoffs. At multiple layers, the risk assessment of how much flooding the plant should withstand was deemed acceptable... Until the day it wasn't.