[numpad0]

Part of the reason why some fault tolerance measures were neglected was because discussing backup plans was seen as a sign of weakness and were leveraged often by oppositions.

“You sound like you’re looking forward for some disaster coming with those plans” worked in Japan in those times. Still do to some extent.

[epistasis]

I'm going to need some of evidence of this claim, because it seems quite a bit counter to the timeline I'm familiar with.

Opposition to nuclear's safety did not start until well after construction had started on the US's reactors. And for nearly all US reactors, the utilities had already realized that they had over-ordered nuclear reactors in the 1970s, and that there were far too many construction delays and cost-overruns for nuclear to be cost effective.

This is detailed in a 1985 Forbes cover article, Nuclear Foibles, which is not anti-nuclear, but is withering about the mismanagement of nuclear in the US. Here's the only reprint I have found, which has a weird rant about Gore at the top that can be ignored:

http://blowhardwindbag.blogspot.com/2011/04/forbes-article-r...

The idea that designs from the early 1970s refused to plan for failure because of some theoretical opposition, when there was basically no opposition to our greatest period of building nuclear reactors, doesn't make much sense to me.

[numpad0]

Sorry I was trying to discuss Japanese climate but my writing wasn’t best. As for the evidences, it’s hard to find a well compiled list but Fukushima did have a number of safety issues unaddressed for reasons other than budgetary causes.

Off-site center for disaster control built 5km(3mi) off site, effectively on-site, all backup generators being at basement levels, and recently discovered issue of emergency vent lines terminating inside the containment building comes to mind.

[zepearl]

Not sure about that interpretation - usually "fault tolerance" just means "additional costs"... .