That's a great insight.

Maybe if some technologist approaches you and says "this is a great tech but we can't possibly recreate the worst case scenario, even in an expensive simulation" then that tells you that this is a straight "no".

Fukushima is evidence that the worst case cannot be sufficiently modelled and mitigated, at least in a commercial market.

Not saying "don't build nuclear", just that pro-nuclear lobbies should have been able to predict this situation (with a small chance of occurrence) and model it. If not, don't build. If you can predict it, but govt doesn't care about the risks, publicly document it, and that's OK.

OT, but at this point the nuclear debate looks irrelevant - direction of travel is that renewables win.

[ further OT ...moment of wild speculation: the idea that energy will be scarce will, within the 21st century, become as crazy as the idea that food could be scarce in rich nations right now. The race to renewables will look irrelevant as solar costs hit rock bottom, and no-one will remember why coal/nuclear plants were ever a thing. Within our lifetimes. I genuinely think that scenario is more likely than not. ]