[WS:} This is not a very rational attitude, to say the least. It seems to ignore two crucial facts: (1) that all energy production is dangerous and polluting and (2) that breach of safety is more of a function of cost cutting (or rather cost shifting) measures than the technology itself.
RE 1. Coal burning plants are by far more polluting than nuclear plants, not to mention the extremely destructive techniques of coal extraction (e.g. strip mining.) The difference is that people get used to constantly emitted pollution from coal plants, whereas nuclear accidents are extremely rare and make big news. It is similar to airplane vs cars. Cars are far more dangerous than airplanes, and more people die in car accidents than in plane crashes, but it is the plane crashes that make the news and produce fear. Likewise, more people get sick and prematurely die from constant pollution emitted by coal and gasoline burning than from nuclear pollution (both civilian and military) - but the former is considered "normal" whereas the latter is rare and thus susceptible to fear mongering.
RE 2. The reactor in question was of an old design whose safety has been long questioned, but the GE hacks have been consistently denying these concerns http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16contain.html?src=me&ref=world.
There are also much safer designs that are considered "too costly." So the problem is profitability not technology itself. FYI, France operates as many if not more nuclear power plants as Japan or the US, but it has not had a single accident - which indicates that it is possible to operate these plants in a safe manner.
I do not think that alarmist fears of the right wing fearmonegering variety are very productive. Nuclear power plants are a better alternative to coal power plants, so the focus should be on making sure that all possible safety measures are in place, and that "too costly" is not an argument in this discussion.
Wojtek