Nobody builds Chernobyl-type reactors any more. That simply can't happen with most reactors.
And you don't think they said that older reactors 'simply cant fail' when they built them?
(b) there was this tsunami that killed twenty-five thousand people going on, disrupting a whole lot of things.
Wait, if the reactor can't fail, why are you bringing up environmental/situational issues? It shouldn't matter...
My point is you can't tell me the issues that will be faced in the future and therefore can't claim a nuclear reactor is 'safe'.
The 'potential' liability of nuclear is far far far greater than anything else. Operational issues are relevant and coal has many bad things about it...but it simply can't fail catastrophically. A plant can blow up, a waste lake can collapse and flood a single valley. Both sites you can safely walk on the very next day. Nuclear can't do that....and won't every be able to do that.
And as I've said in other posts, nuclear is going to be absolutely required for the next century or so...simply because the scale of climate change damage dwarfs even nuclear's problems. Being the lesser of two evils doesn't make it less 'evil'.