[WS:] I made the cost cutting claim based on a specific NYT article reporting that newer and safer reactor designs were available, but the older designs were used because of lower cost. While I do not know why the Fukushima plant was designed in a way that did not offer sufficient protection against tsunami, I would not be inclined to attribute it to stupidity. I would be more inclined to believe that it was an unintended consequence of collective decision making - perhaps the underlings pulled a Vasa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship)#Causes_of_sinking) and did not want to cross the boss, or perhaps 3 meters was all the key players could agree upon, but of course these are pure conjectures. Perhaps the Japanese will launch an investigations and shed some light on the issue.
Andy: "I wonder if this odd faith has something to do with the expectation of nukes saving our butts from ourselves."
[WS:} I am a mere sociologist and I do not possess, nor am I expected to possess, sufficient background knowledge in engineering and physics to decide between competing claims regarding safety of nuclear power plants. However, as such I have some understanding how the credibility of various bodies of knowledge is socially constructed - meaning that it is accepted or rejected based on how it fits what sociologists call "stock knowledge" or beliefs whose truth or falsehood are taken for granted by most members of a group and seldom questioned or critically examined. It does not a bit surprise me that nuclear power tends to be viewed as "safer" by physicists or engineers than by general public. In the same vein, turbulence is not a big deal to airline pilots, but it scares the living shit out of the passengers.
Wojtek