Sure :) I probably came across as a bit argumentative.
I also meant to add that this was caused by a natural disaster as well, unlike Chernobyl. So nuclear is arguably even safer.
Again, drawing a parallel with fossil fuels - when a hurricane strikes the Gulf of Mexico and causes some sort of oil slick and kills wildlife, it barely hits the news.
Also, whilst writing this, I wondered what the fossil fuel toll was for the Japanese tsunami, and the Boxing Day one, for that matter. It's not something that seems to have concerned people despite the sheer number of cars, bikes, lorries etc. that contained oil, and were destroyed. And that's just the first thing that comes to mind. Oil refineries on the Asian coasts must have been hit. What happened there?
I guess my rambling point is, we really need to compare nuclear to fossil fuels, like-for-like.
And "we", in particular the media, don't do that, because it's hard work to tally up a distributed fossil fuel infrastructure versus one big nuclear power station that was very visibly destroyed.
Fukushima was an ancient nuclear plant, WAY over its projected lifetime.
And still we only got one direct death.
However, when I said costs, I meant it more literally. Aside from the obvious cost of relocating all of those people, cleanup efforts, and so forth, it's also only fair to include the psychological toll as well. It certainly didn't help atop the massive tragedy that was already sweeping away lives and homes.