Bullshit.And he thinks he's joking.
Realistically, that would be an improvement, as would coin flipping or a roulette wheel - we would avoid the extra risk of false confidence. It's much less likely that six reactors would have been built at Fukushima if coin flips had decided the matter. But simple reasoning, applied to the record and risk of the employment of scientific expertise in an area of great scientific uncertainty, and incorporating the common understanding of human failings (the complacency effect, the influence of money, Challenger Logic, etc), would be my recommendation.
I'm an optimist: We can do better than chance, here.
Or we can do worse, by pretending we know what we don't: See the problem?
I'll stick with fact based assesments over panic based speculation, thankyou very much.
:Yawn:He's completely correct. Nothing in the high tech, specialized world of geological science predicted that earthquake.
On the other hand, a ten year old with a map and a few pins could have told you that any nuclear reactor built on anything like the Fukushima site - let alone a complex of six of them - needs to be able to withstand a 9+ level quake with associated tsunami, plus a safety margin for human error. And plenty of non-geologists, people with a more sensible outlook on the uses of geological expertise at the current state of such expertise, have been saying that for decades now.