Exactly what IS the situation?

In March, The country of Japan was shaken by a major quake.  Then they were hit by a Tsunami (commonly, but incorrectly, called a tidal wave).  Thousands were killed, thousands more left homeless.  They'll be cleaning up the rubble for a long time.

But there's a complication:  The electricity-generating nuclear reactors have been knocked off line.  The water is not getting through to the reactor cores.  There are 6 reactors; 3 of them are in danger of a melt-down.

Information is still hard to come by on the situation.  But it is believed that the 3 reactors have suffered at least a partial meltdown.  But now comes a word that one of the three may have reached a worse stage:  A melt-through.  Completely out of the containment building and into the earth, this is likely to cause problems beyond anything ever imagined.

A Japanese Govt. Official (I don't know name, sorry) thinks this is going to render Japan uninhabitable.

Japan is the 10th most populated nation in the world.  If the islands become uninhabitable, where are those people going to go?  That's 127 MILLION people.  Where are they going to go?  While the US can take some refugees, I don't believe that they'd open the doors to 127 million more people!  Since the Japanese are of an Island, would they want to stay near water?  Can you imagine 127 million moving into California?  Or splitting between the ocean states such as Florida, Texas, California,  or along the East Coast?

The population of Australia is (at last count) about 22 Million.  But this continent is good deal of desert.

I'm getting ahead of myself.  They haven't even confirmed meltdowns, yet, let alone a melt through.

Is this going to spell DOOM for nuclear energy?  You can't plan for every contingency.  People are always going to take short-cuts, try to save costs (Unless it's the Federal Govt, and even they are suspect if you ask me!, or fudge about what's been done or how safe something is.

The problem still exists, AS I SEE IT.  You need energy.  You need electric power.  But if you can't use fossil fuels (polluting), Nuclear (radiation), wind (Turbines believed to be killing eagles) or Solar (Takes up a lot of space and can't use it at night), what's left?

Right now, there seems to be 127 million reasons to ban nuclear energy.  And yet there are 6 billion plus reasons to keep it.

Has this in any way changed my opinion on nuclear energy?  No.  But we must continue to make it even more safe.  That's not going to be easy to do.  And we can't do it at the cost of 127 million people -- Japanese, Muslim, or Marxist...We cannot use humanity as guinea pigs.  But we can't do without what we have.  And we can't let it go to waste.

It's a tough dilemma.  And the question must be answered soon:  Are we going to sacrifice certain things, or are we going to use what we have in the way of resources and intellect -- to discover other ways?  And if it's the latter, are we willing to sacrifice something else?  It's the 6 Billion reason question -- or 127 Million, as you prefer -- As I see it!