[Deathridesahorse]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

The only US incident I know of on anything comparable to Chernobyl was the Three Mile Accident. Unlike Chernobyl, there were no immediate fatalities or injuries.

There are no doubt reports of other incidents in nuclear power stations and the media tends to jump on these regardless of the nature of the incident. Here's an example of what I mean:
BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Blaze hits German nuclear plant
"Blaze hits German nuclear plant" is the headline. Including the word "nuclear" is headline grabbing. The fire was in a power transformer cooling system. All major power stations have transformers to step up generated voltage to grid voltage. Regardless of primary power source. The failure was not nuclear related.

There have been scare stories too about cracked boiler tubes:
"UK nuclear generator British Energy has revealed that boiler tube cracking at its Hunterston B and Hinkley Point B power stations is such that additional inspections are required at other reactors."
This was put around as a media story relating to nuclear power stations but boiler tube cracking is a problem for any steam generating plant. There is one coal-fired power station I know of that was permanently taken out of service because of exactly that problem.

In short, I think nuclear power sometimes gets a bad rap in the media. Even when it clearly isn't deserved.

But, were the stories particularly damning of Nuclear, or simply stories relating to Nuclear perseved as riduculous propaganda?!?