[pessimizer]

I think the objection to your point was sufficiently clear. Your implication is that Fukushima was so safe that it took the simultaneous occurrence two statistically unlikely events to cause it to fail catastrophically i.e. unlikely x unlikely.

The objection was that this was actually a single unlikely event, because one was very likely to follow from the other i.e. describing someone squeezing a trigger as an independent event to the bullet leaving the barrel is incorrect.

Two independent unlikely events occurring at the same time is extremely unlikely. Unlikely events themselves are common.

[sjwright]

I'm not trying to impart the implication you assert, I'm not suggesting that the combination of the two events is unlikely. A one-two punch isn't "two statistically unlikely events", it's the same opponent hitting you twice.

Not all catastrophic earthquakes are followed by catastrophic tsunamis in the same area. Not all catastrophic tsunamis are preceded by catastrophic earthquakes in the same area.