"The probability of containment failure, given core damage, is about 0.1"

That's from MIT's 2003 report "The Future of Nuclear Energy" describing US reactors.
A 0.1 probability means a 1 in 10 chance.
There are at least 2 reactors in Japan with core damage, and there may be more.
Some people seem to think the containment structures are made of indestructible unobtanium,
they're not, they're just concrete and steel.
Some people think it's "alarmist" for Japan to evacuate hundreds of thousands of people from the area.

From the MIT report:

By the explosion of the rest of the building surrounding it. Yes, I recognize that the authorities on the scene are saying otherwise, that containment hasn't been weakened, but we are talking about a major explosion here, which could leave the structure intact and standing, but still weaken structural integrity.

One is that this is a forty-year-old plant we're talking about. Given that this report was written in 2003, and that obviously hundreds of pages have been left out in order for you to post it here, what did it say BEFORE this clip and AFTER this clip? Were they discussing future plants with more modern designs? Were they talking about containment failure due to the earth splitting wide open under the plant? I heard one Japanese official saying they were pumping in seawater as fast as they could yet they weren't seeing any increase in the water level of the containment building. What could that mean? Your comforting clip only assumes that the containment building survived the meltdown itself, not a meltdown in a building compromised on so many levels at once.

It all boils back to my current rant: The "it can't happen here" cliche is getting old! It seems like whenever the experts line up to tell us "Don't worry, it can't happen here!", it happens. Your MIT snippet just gives us more of that. Since the events are still unfolding, I'll have to wait and see whether or not "it" can indeed happen here.

(Edited to fix clipped last sentence)

The MIT report has pro-nuclear bias, that snippet describes the existing 104 reactors in the U.S.

Obviously even a 0.1 chance means it could happen here. My reply was more a general rant about the state of the current debate, after reading yet another "don't worry, it can't happen here!" thread elsewhere in the forum. Sorry if I sounded like I was going off on you. Wasn't my intention (oh, and I edited some of the snark out of the headline).

... any governor named Scott (e.g, Wisconsin, Florida).