I do not know the current data, but previously the catastrophy rate was by design below 1 in 10000 years. But this is per plant, we have about 400 plants, so 1 catastrophy per 25 years on average; this values agrees with experiment.
About your statistics: that it is safer was pure luck. In the fukushima incident there were depending on the season two prevalent wind direction either towards the ocean or towards Tokyo. So with a high chance in the range around 50% Tokyo would have been to be evacuated. If anybody has better numbers let me know.
To me not counting this in, is like crossing the street with eye closed and arguing it if not hit so far so good with dismissing close encounters.
Can you elaborate? Do you mean having a Tsunami is pure bad luck in Japan? (With Tsunami actually beiing a japanese word...)
I see your point though, one shouldnt go too much into 'what ifs', because all accidents are in a sense accidents/bad luck. But I still feel we can apply the what if on the outcome of the disasters, especially if it is that seasonal clear cut with high propability.
Related hypothetical: if a hydroelectricity dam failed when hit by an earthquake stronger than the one it was designed for, how much of a pass would we give Hydroelectricity?
About your statistics: that it is safer was pure luck. In the fukushima incident there were depending on the season two prevalent wind direction either towards the ocean or towards Tokyo. So with a high chance in the range around 50% Tokyo would have been to be evacuated. If anybody has better numbers let me know.
To me not counting this in, is like crossing the street with eye closed and arguing it if not hit so far so good with dismissing close encounters.
I would like to see numbers including this.