Anyway, debating how a nuclear catastrophe fared is always a nice thing, because we know it was a catastrophe.
The fossil fuel catastrophe is still ongoing, yet people just ignore it, because... well, because who knows why.
There were people evacuated because mine fires, because refinery fires, because power plant fires. But that's not as big news as Fukushima.
We have the harrowingly beautiful Chernobyl series, but we also know that the total toll on human lives were/are still lower than the fossil powered equivalent.
Anyway. Dangerous is relative. Just as environment catastrophe. (The Russian Navy does what it does under thousands of meters of water, hardly a serious health risk.)
And any new reactors, breeders or not, are by default safer than anything else we have currently running, coal or not. Because we have improved standards and technology.
Finally, the whole problem of cost is that it neglects the cost of health harm. Factor that in and it becomes irrelevant what kind of reactor, because all are better than other forms of power generation.
Only few. Most of the politicians and industry had no complaints. Protest movements were largely not existing.
The general corruption in the nuclear&political&industrial complex is known.
> And any new reactors, breeders or not, are by default safer than anything else we have currently running, coal or not. Because we have improved standards and technology.
That's not the case. Many principal problems of breeders are not solved. For example the need for very problematic fuel processing plants.
> Finally, the whole problem of cost is that it neglects the cost of health harm. Factor that in and it becomes irrelevant what kind of reactor, because all are better than other forms of power generation.
I don't think that's the case. See the extreme costs of nuclear power plants in the UK.
The Russian navy does have reactors, too. They are creating environmental catastrophes...
> We do, actually. Breeder reactors.
Breeder reactors are even more dangerous than our typical reactors. There have been only few built and those were extremely costly and problematic (for example those in russia).
> It was a decades old design that had a design flaw which was documented AND IGNORED.
They had many design&engineering flaws. Yet the japanese thought they were perfectly save. The large earthquake exposed several severe design flaws.
> And yet, it survived a major Earthquake AND a Tsunami
It didn't.
After the earth quake basically all japanese reactors were shutting down. After several years of downtime only a few are running. some will never be running again.
Basically it's a total loss of several dozen reactors (and other nuclear installation) and a damage going into zillions. But you claim they 'survived'.