Well, look at it another way. Every human action carries risk. Standing up from your chair after reading this, and you might get a brain aneurism and die right there. No countermeasure against a risk is perfect. So to be fair, with nuclear it's not about trying to make the risks zero, but to make the risks (translated to dollars) significantly less than the value of the energy created. Now, a 100 billion clean kind of ruins the value proposition for nuclear. In fact this one accident might push the net balance of value (compared to alternatives) for nuclear in Japan all the way into the negative. Or not.
As for "slimy PR stunt", I guess. I'm not going to dispute that the nuclear industry in japan has the same problem that the oil industry in the USA has. The wealthy companies have too much power compared to the regulators who are supposed to oversee them.
Remember, nobody has been killed directly from Fukushima, and probably only a handful of people who were wading in that dirty water in the basement picked up enough of a dose that they have a noticeably higher chance of eventual cancer. Oil industry gets people killed all the time. And the net effect of decades of the oil industry operating is devaluing real estate all over the planet. Fukushima only really contaminated the nearby town and some of the water right off the coast.
All I'm saying is, it doesn't mean nuclear was a bad decision. Remember, just now, 40 years later, are solar panels starting to not suck.