Well it's good to see a person who doesn't just talk out their ass for once 
I completely agree that this example is a monstrosity, but could I also point out the fact the facility in that example was constructed in 1978, a time in which safety protocols where much more relaxed; no excuse however, but I feel I can "justify" this happening with the development of fossil fuel power plants....
When we first started to mass burn coal and oil for producing power, we did not in any way filter the emissions from these plants. It was only when scientists realised the effect of those emissions on the environment (Not the climate, cannot stand global warming scams given clear evidence that the atmosphere isn't anywhere near any kind of "danger point") that power plants where forced to correct the issues, something which is still an on-going campaign in many developing countries.
The nuclear power industry is following a similar course to find the safest operating standards possible, something which Norway is taking wholeheartedly with the production of a dedicated, concrete lined cavern to hold nuclear waste securely for a few thousand years. Greenpeace officials have themselves said (and I can't for the life of me find the evidence, so take it or leave it
) that nuclear power is something they should have supported from day 1 given the adverse effects fossil fuel's have had to date. It's is major setbacks in development that have led to NPP companies to skip updating health and safety guidelines in order to stay in business, look at Chernobyl, a disaster caused by lack of clear guidelines which allowed a junior operator to directly control a reactor.
One last thing, I can't agree with your comment on Fukushima, it's like saying that the trade centres collapsed because there wasn't enough fire insulation. Fukushima is a rare incident caused by two major natural disasters one after the other, not because of any lack of safety regulations: Storing spent fuel in "baths" is common at every reactor, and must be done in order to cool the fuel sufficiently enough for long term storage. These baths have multiple backup systems, just like at Fukushima, and loosing all of them at once is something unpredictable.
I completely agree that this example is a monstrosity, but could I also point out the fact the facility in that example was constructed in 1978, a time in which safety protocols where much more relaxed; no excuse however, but I feel I can "justify" this happening with the development of fossil fuel power plants....
When we first started to mass burn coal and oil for producing power, we did not in any way filter the emissions from these plants. It was only when scientists realised the effect of those emissions on the environment (Not the climate, cannot stand global warming scams given clear evidence that the atmosphere isn't anywhere near any kind of "danger point") that power plants where forced to correct the issues, something which is still an on-going campaign in many developing countries.
The nuclear power industry is following a similar course to find the safest operating standards possible, something which Norway is taking wholeheartedly with the production of a dedicated, concrete lined cavern to hold nuclear waste securely for a few thousand years. Greenpeace officials have themselves said (and I can't for the life of me find the evidence, so take it or leave it
) that nuclear power is something they should have supported from day 1 given the adverse effects fossil fuel's have had to date. It's is major setbacks in development that have led to NPP companies to skip updating health and safety guidelines in order to stay in business, look at Chernobyl, a disaster caused by lack of clear guidelines which allowed a junior operator to directly control a reactor.One last thing, I can't agree with your comment on Fukushima, it's like saying that the trade centres collapsed because there wasn't enough fire insulation. Fukushima is a rare incident caused by two major natural disasters one after the other, not because of any lack of safety regulations: Storing spent fuel in "baths" is common at every reactor, and must be done in order to cool the fuel sufficiently enough for long term storage. These baths have multiple backup systems, just like at Fukushima, and loosing all of them at once is something unpredictable.