Finally, an article on the reactors in Japan that actually puts it in perspective. Thank you sir! 

You're ignoring the fact that we would not even have to consider the threat of nuclear devastation if Japan were powered by alternative energy sources. 

For example, if a tornado were to strike a wind farm in, say, Nebraska, we'd be, for the most part, just fine.

But if a natural disaster strikes a nuclear power plant, well, significant portions of the entire planet can be covered in radioactive material. Huge swaths of land become uninhabitable for decades, if not centuries. Thousands, and potentially millions, of people, animals and life are threatened by cancer. 

And let's not forget that nuclear power is the most expensive form of energy known to man! This nuclear power plant in Japan, in all likelihood, did not even pay back its construction and operating costs before it was destroyed. A wind farm pays itself off in just a matter of weeks.

Nuclear power is dirty, expensive, and bad for all living things on the only planet we have. Let's explore safer, and clear and more cost-efficient sources first. 

From Democracy Now!: 

"Japan’s Tokyo Electric Power Company said it has pulled out 800 workers from the nuclear power facility due to safety concerns. Some 70,000 residents have been forced to evacuate their homes. Another 140,000 people have been ordered not to step outside. Low levels of radiation are now floating toward Tokyo. Earlier today, Japanese Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano issued a frank warning about the crisis."

A real triumph! 

Given Ron Paul's support for optimal self-sufficiency I'd like to point out that the USA is the world's leading nation with an over-abundance of untapped geothermal energy.

There is currently an interesting debate, who will become the world's technology leader in harvesting this energy and create more jobs: Iceland, the US or Japan.

What the Fukushima disaster reveals is not a triumph but a collosal failure: Though they must have been aware of earthquakes and tsunamis, they didn't have a necessary Plan B or C how to keep their rods cool and prevent these from overheating.

Wes, I think you might have jumped too quickly to defend this. While I agree that this is not as bad as it seems, alot can change in a matter of hours.

This is the problem with a 24 hr news cycle, you expect to know everything instantly yet despite all of our communication technology we are usually unable to know exactly whats going on.

As to the nuclear power debate, this event does not sway me any to either side of the debate. Like you said it was a 41 year old planted hit by a 9.1 earthquake and a tsunami, we should be happy that it isn't floating our way across the pacific. To me though the real debate should be how do we deal with energy, though market or government forces. Perhaps if we had a true free market we would either have made these plants completely safe or had newer, safer ways of producing power for us.

I disagree with this article because of the title. Information about the plant would be great, but it is certainly too early to claim anything a triumph. There is no triumph when the EU's energy chief claims the reactor is out of control, or when our own energy chief is asking all US citizens within 80 km of the plant to evacuate, or when Britian also urges all nationals in Tokyo or north of Tokyo to evacuate the region.

I also agree with Frank B. in that there was no plan and is no plan when it comes to cooling down the rods. Even if everything does ultimately turn out ok, which I highly doubt, this is too soon.

@Wesley

I wholeheartedly disagree with this article. Nuclear powerplants are a state-subsidized threat to civilization. Firstly, they don't have to ensure against the potential damages that their being in business brings with it. Secondly, the final disposal of the very dangerous materials used in the process is also usually done by the state. Thirdly, the states and its courts protect the owners of these plants by simply lying about some of the consequences of their existence. For example, in Germany a study found that the risk of children having blood cancer is more than 100% increased when they're living in a 1,6 mile distance to the power plants. A corralation can still be found even if children live 30 miles away from the power plant. There is something rotten with these power plants and every other form of energy (except for oil drilling companies like BP, who had limited liability guaranteed and then not given to them in the oil spill disaster) has to insure against its inherent risks.

Your defense of nuclear power plants does more harm than good for liberty in your country and around the world. This technology would not survive in a free market, since insurance against its risks would be extremely expensive, if not impossible to acquire. The risks are small but uncontrollable and potentially disastrous. 

In my home country, Germany, there are still some areas where entire animal populations still show dangerous radiation levels that stem from the events of Chernobyl in April of 1986. If governments won't make these plants insure against its risks, the only acceptable alternative would be to shut them down. Everything else is just irresponsible behaviour that would have to be paid for by innocent people, who have nothing to do with these time-bombs.