I felt a bit of that sentiment, but it didn't seem ham-handed. If you are interested in reading about nuclear accidents and the things we can learn from them, I highly suggest Atomic Accidents by James Mahaffey (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20820098-atomic-accident...). He's pro-nuclear, but acknowledges that there are still things to learn about safe containment. His focus is mainly, and rightly, on the unrelenting power of steam, and how a reactor going prompt critical can tear down even the strongest safety mechanisms when it causes a huge spike in pressure.
He also says - "The disaster could have been forseen and prevented. As in the Chernobyl case, it was a human, not technology, that was mainly responsible for the disaster."
I'd say his stance is pretty nuanced and more to do with the care taken by people when designing and operating nuclear technology than being anti nuclear technology.
Except that excerpt is ridiculous, looking for an emotional hook where one doesn't exist. Humans were not responsible, a major earthquake and tsunami were responsible. Few structures of any kind would stand up to that.
The structure stood up fine, we know how to build for that, it was the placement of the air fed diesel generators in a floodable basement that screwed Fukashima.
Structure was probably the wrong word, I meant more the plant as a whole. I think my point still remains... it would be a very rare structure that wouldn't have a design flaw exposed by such a large earthquake/tsunami one-two punch.
How about Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant, the closest nuclear plant to the epicenter, which remained almost undamaged after the 14 meter seawall kept out the tsunami.
edit - also, if you design for tsunami, the two-punch scenario is your design brief.
"Silence, lack of cries, laughter, tears and only the wind answers... Have we learnt anything since then?"
I would say the framing of that question makes his stance pretty clear.