Get a grip. About 20,000 people died in the tsunami but there may be no statistically observable radiation caused deaths from the nuclear event. The part about the fuel rods catching fire could be true but it could also be true that jumbo jets full of happy families will plunge into the ground when the engines fail. It's called managed risk.

Meanwhile coal fired power stations that do the same job as nukes continue to spew not only low level radiation but respiratory hazardous particles and greenhouse gases. Let's have some equal alarmism on them.

I'm with Taswegian.

There's at least 20,000 people who don't give a damn what the power station does, & a few hundred thousand who reckon nature is a damn site more dangerous than any nuclear power plant, even old ones.

I'm also with Taswegian!
Yes one of the holding tanks is leaking. It could be managed with a few catchment containers, pumps and membrane filter technology, that even filter out the radioactive particles, until the affected tank is finally empty.
The filtered particles can then be safely stored in special containers, designed specifically to store nuclear waste safely.
The ground water can be managed by the creation of a lateral tunnel uphill above the power station.
This will allow the authorities to interrupt all the underground critical water flows and reroute it/them around the damaged facility.
The ex filter water safely relived of its nuclear load, can then be safely disposed of back into the environment or reused as cooling water?
As per usual, the antinuclear industry continue to beat up a still manageable situation, which needs to be managed for a few years, or until the fuel rods are finally cool enough to be removed and safely stored.
Rhrosty.

Rhosty:

...Pack your bag son, there’ll be a big black “Limo” arrive at your front gate shortly bearing Japanese flags on the front fenders; out will step a couple of oriental looking gentlemen dressed in “spick” suits and wearing dark shades; they will escort you directly to Tokyo: You’ve got yourself a job.

The exclusion area around the plant is excessive.

Studies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors have shown that subsequent deaths due to Leukemia and solid cancers were not higher for those who had been exposed to less than 200mSv of instantaneous radiation. For solid cancers the cancer rates for survivors who received radiation doses between 200 and 500 mSv the cancer death rate was about 11% higher.

There are many places in the world where natural radiation levels are multiples of the likely nuclear fallout from a further Fukuyama event and the people in those naturally high radiation locations are every bit as healthy as people in low natural radiation areas.

The variable costs of nuclear disasters and fixed but very high costs of spent fuel make nuclear power an undesirable energy option for Australia.

Coal, oil and gas are far less dangerous and also cheaper.

Nuclear power has value if its part of a dual-use option in the direction of nuclear weapons choice. But that's another medium-long term debate for Australia.