answer:I doubt this situation is unique to these plants or to Japan. There are plants in the US that are also built near fault lines. I’m not sure “outrage” is the right response. There has always been a risk, for almost every nuke plant, that a natural disaster would wipe out containment/cooling systems. It is pure randomness that these plants were the ones to fall victim to such a disaster. Also, the Daiishi plants, while crippled, do have several layers of containment that have worked, that have in fact prevented this from approaching a Chernobyl level disaster (fingers crossed). Another point of perspective: less than ten people (if that?) have died from the woes of the Daiishi plant. On the other hand, about 10,000 people have died from the earthquake/tsunami. The loss of life stemming from this structure’s vulnerability to natural disasters has not approached that of the broader population’s by several orders of magnitude. So I don’t think the takeaway should be outrage, it should be reflection. We now have a better idea of the risks of nuclear power. We certainly have a better idea of the need for passive cooling systems, but we should also be humbled and realize that a sufficiently powerful disaster could well overcome any safety system we devise. The question is, do these risks outweigh the benefits from using this energy source (which will run out in 100 years anyway)?