At the launch day of this nuclear plant, probably no one spoke about the probability of a disaster. Maybe yes, but ensuring to have enough security protocols for avoiding any possible damage. In this aspect it conceivably occurs similar to other nuclear power plants, with too many people believing in security. A faith that cannot be understood in an unstable planet by definition where natural phenomena of massive proportions take constantly place, with examples of tragedies that affect the entire planet and its no few inhabitants. Every human knows well what a mistake is, and its variable price.
Radioactivity it's based in recently discovered energies that take place in the atom. Other discovery was radioactive decay, after observing unstable atoms losing energy after certain periods. As this energy interacts with matter itself at the lowest known level, the time interval for losing that energy —as poisonous ionizing radiation— could sometimes reach geologic proportions. Uranium 238 loses half of its energy by radioactive decay in more than 4.000 billion years. Other isotopes like Uranium 234 have less, although more than 200.000 years. Anyone can perceive how the effects of radiation continue in time during large phases.
With water, air and creatures in motion, a spillage in a natural zone doesn't simply affect to nearby areas. Fukushima I was releasing radioactive material in the Pacific Ocean and the atmosphere, both international. After any spillage there are different opinions about the distance for security, impact and so on, some using technology others by conjectures although the reality is always more complex with too many factors to analyze.
Any human lives with natural radioactivity surrounding its everyday actions, interacting with a population of cells too extensive, probably trillions as some scientific researchers state. This risk creates health issues in dependance of aleatory elements, non easily quantifiable. As these elements change, an attempt of estimation would look like a loss of time from some view.
This mean something, very important. If unstable atoms are released toward public areas the probability of interaction with organic cells augments, and with it, the chance of deaths that appear natural. They are in some way, although not entirely.
There are devices that measure radioactivity, so you could search for news about particles found several thousand kilometers away. Trust cannot be always complete from words, nonetheless you could expect some masking of the truth for multiple purposes.
Now some straightforward conclusions. Solar power outperforms local nuclear power in several orders of magnitude. Nuclear plants surpass the consideration of risky, with the possibility of globally releasing poison that affects life during hundreds of years or sadly more, with exclusion zones. As safety never can be guaranteed due to the inherent instability of the environment (actions included) nuclear plants shouldn't be ever allowed and the same for other nuclear based devices like weapons.
Failure in the task of understanding the risks before they are statistically converted in catastrophes equals to letting chances against any representation of national, international security.
Some children are innocent and they don't think in the future, so please stay sharp on this asking for rationality. One said someday that Space is the natural place for radioactivity, not a planet that precisely has a barrier for it.