As for the ubiquitous "reactor on every street corner," I am unaware that this was proposed. There has been a lot of "atoms for peace" proposals, but these were in vogue in the 1950s, not 1990s. The later designs were hyped up in certain circles, but I didn't know there was such ambitious predictions of their ubiquity.
As to the myth factor, I have studied a version of what you are saying. The myth that really has been researched and really is a thing is that the military exaggerated, sometimes to a large degree, the damage potential (short and long-term) of nuclear weapons. Somewhat mitigating this is the severe panic and you might want to cal it "psyops" that surround Fukushima Daiichi. The exclusion zone due to that relatively minor nuclear incident (compared to a bomb) is large and notorious. If such a little "explosion" can cause such widespread damage in a rural area, the surely the military of the 1940s to 1960s were correct in their assessment of how bomb would damage a city, make it uninhabitable, etc.
But not so fast. Was this a self-fulfilling prophecy of those 1950s experiments on bombs? Fukushima had so little fallout, yet a huge exclusion area. So does Chernobyl. What's the answer?
I still feel there's a myth involved here, and government misinformation. Hard to explain in a comment. :)
Hmm, I may have been reading Popular Science/Mechanics at the barbershop and it could have been post-millennium rather than pre-millennium. "Just the other day" often turns out to be a couple of decades ago (when even the remaining hair on the body has turned grey).
Still we are only heating water to create steam to turn a turbine. How complicated is that? The concern then is what if we don't need nuclear fuel at all, why not natural gas?
I am a little surprised to hear that Fukushima was relatively minor and the fear and panic was much ado about nothing. I thought the double or triple meltdown was downplayed and even blacked out and that huge levels or radiation came in by air and by sea without any safety warnings, while federal regulations were scrapped to just allow it. ¿No?
But, we are only here to learn and that is often best achieved by keeping quiet ... and listening. I'm willing to drop my preconceived notions and find out, why the devil do those rocks burn so hot and what makes them tick?
And yes, I'm still curious, would a free-market have chosen nuclear power? Do we or can we control it? Is it useful to mankind or just a dangerous boondoggle?
Good food. For. Thought. I think I will save some of my responses for a full article. I'm going to take some notes so I can get back to them.
The short version is that Fukushima is a catastrophe, but not just in the radiological sense. IF people want to live in an exclusion zone, there shouldn't be an exclusion zone. But because the governments of all nations are effectively driven by either high medical expenditures shared by taxpayers (centralized healthcare) or the industry is regulated by the long arm of the lawsuit (ad hoc class action lawsuits), the areas just have to be excluded. True enough, I wouldn't pick that place to live, but if my work took me there as a nuclear scientist, I wouldn't lose sleep over an elevated radioactive background, the occasional contaminated thing.
It's a bit over-the-top if you ask me. Now, Chernobyl is probably an order of magnitude worse, but even it's not the uninhabitable city that it's made out to be. If the same amount of work is done after a nuclear incident like it would be after a major earthquake or tsunami or hurricane... those places would be livable.
My point is that if this is such a global community, why not send all the displaced people to an uninhabited land and spend money on new infrastructure? But no, that's not what tax money is for... and we have international borders ... we can't just do that. So they don't clean it up, they don't allow anyone to live there, and they just want displaced people to live in some other crowded place. And since the government worked hand-in-hand with the reactor operators... You have articles like this: http://www.ien.com/safety/news/20855195/tepco-govt-liable-in-fukushima-lawsuit which would have happened sooner in the US. You see that both TEPCO and the government are being held responsible?
That's correct. It took two to tango.
Stupid people should not be in charge of nuclear safety. That has borne itself out numerous times.