> "In contrast to this, the subsequent decisions on 10km and 20km radii evacuation zones were not made on the basis of such knowledge. The 10km radius evacuation zone was decided solely for the reason that if venting was not implemented, and the pressure continued to build unchecked in the containment vessel, then it was not clear whether an evacuation zone with a radius of 3km would be adequate. A 10km radius zone was chosen simply because it was the maximum area for an Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) as set out in the Disaster Prevention Plan; it was not decided on the basis of any kind of concrete calculations or rational grounds. As for the 20km-radius evacuation zone, due to the progression of the situation, including the hydrogen explosion in Unit 1, a radius of 20km was decided upon simply because of some people’s subjective opinions. This can hardly be called a rational decision."

As you can see, the evacuation was entirely based on subjective opinions and lacked scientific basis. Refer to Page 63, Point 3 ("Baseless decisions on evacuation zones") of this report:

https://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/3856371/naiic.go.jp...

I suggest you read the full report as it details not only these decisions but also issues with communication, hierarchy, and more. The report highlights human fallibility and the impact of illogical fear, while saying very little about nuclear power itself.

> Please note that N. Kan was advocating nuclear energy. On March 10, 2011, he felt assured that "nuclear power was safe and vital for Japan." After Fukushima he became hostile to nuclear power.

In what way personal opinions should be relevant, besides we are talking about the same person who made the disaster, it seems human to me to point the finger at nuclear power and not himself. He is trying to defend himself.

> This is highly debatable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35521090

Your arguments are self-contradictory. You explain how the Fukushima problem is due to nuclear power, yet argue that dam-related fatalities are not the fault of dams. Either I misunderstand your argument, or you are confused. The dam directly caused those fatalities, whereas at Fukushima, the poor decisions of individuals led to unnecessary deaths. Even without an evacuation plan, the fatalities would have been fewer.

Regardless, even when adding Fukushima’s evacuation deaths to the count, nuclear remains safer than dams. So, why should dams be acceptable and nuclear not? The numbers show that nuclear is inherently safe, making the "safety of nuclear" discussion irrelevant.

> most efficient ways

Diversification has always been the most efficient way to lower costs and improve competitiveness. Nuclear industries exist and will continue to exist. Not investing in them because of ideological reasons is shortsighted; you could make the same argument about any technology, including solar and storage.

I understand that nuclear power is expensive and long to build, but most of the costs come from overregulation and low investment. Nuclear is expensive for these reasons, not because it is intrensically costly.

https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power...

Nuclear power is expensive and takes a long time to build, but much of the cost comes from overregulation and underinvestment. It's not intrinsically costly. Pretending to not invest in nuclear, doing nothing about it, and complaining on forums adds nothing to progress. The same could be said about storage, which is currently expensive and requires further investment to become affordable.

Moreover, 90% of the solar and battery supply chain is in China. Any conflict could disrupt the renewable transition plans for 2050. Given the current geopolitical climate, this is not an unrealistic concern.

Finally, I fully understand your ideology against nuclear power. No matter the arguments and data presented, your stance will likely remain unchanged. My response is for the benefit of other readers who might be more open to different perspectives.