You could have had a picnic on Three Mild Island on the day of the event and had no problems as a result. Your greater cancer risk would have been from the sunlight.
Are you really comparing deliberate nuclear weapons tests and Chernobyl to modern reactor design? Why not just bring up the black plague while you're at it?
One of you will end up here next!
Dave, is there a personal reason you hate nuclear energy? Your reaction to this topic and the information provided does not seem rational.
Actually, there is one problem that ought to scare the bejesus out of us all. If there is an earthquake on the New Madrid fault line the size of the one that occurred in 1811-12, several nuclear power stations could end up with a Fukushima type event at the same time. If that happened, then a fairly large part of the central US could be rendered uninhabitible.
The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016
1. The 1811-1812 earthquake is estimated at a 6.4-6.6 magnitude with later quakes coming in at 5.0-5.5 or being too low to adequately measure. In short it is not believed to be a very active or dangerous fault zone. Even if we did get another quake on that magnitude I'm not sure there is any reason to believe it would destroy any of our nuclear plants, it doesn't sound anywhere near strong enough. The biggest issue with Fukashima was the tsunami, not the quake itself.
2. Any quake widespread enough and violent enough to wreck our plants would already have wrought damage unprecedented in modern history with or without the plants.
3. Even if it did happen it almost certainly wouldn't render the region uninhabitable.
I've found a few research briefs and excerpts of plausible future earthquake events and while severe none seem to consider the destruction of nuclear facilities as likely events.