So the advantage of living in a place that has relatively frequent earthquakes, like California, is that people KNOW they have to build for earthquakes.

The current nuclear disaster in Japan has everyone considering the risks of nuclear power right here at home. Our current energy dependence on coal, oil and nuclear power basically is focused on some of the most toxic, nasty energy sources around. The nuclear industry is arguing that even in the worst case scenario, nuclear power is still overall not as bad as coal and oil when you take into account all risks. I am pretty sure they are ignoring the whole mining and transport of the fuel, but they have a point that oil and coal are pretty damned bad too. So to me the solution is avoiding BOTH and focus on cleaner, safer energy sources like wind, solar, methane from waste, etc.

But be that as it may, America has 104 nuclear power plants, mostly from the 1960's and 1970's. These plants are built pretty well. But as was shown in Japan, even when you know the risks it is hard to plan for the worst case scenario. The combination of a 9.0 earthquake and massive tsunami were too much for even fairly well built plants in Japan.

So we all know that California is an earthquake zone. No news there. They knew that when they built the nuke plants out there. Which means they built them to stand up to quakes (assuming we don't get a 9.0...). But we know that there are other places in the US that get quakes. Just because they don't happen often doesn't mean that other places don't get big earthquakes. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has estimated the risk of a core problem happening due to an earthquake for all US nuclear plants. The latest study takes into account more recently discovered faults as well as how the plants were built compared to the risk.

Top of the list...New York's own Indian Point nuclear plant. From MSNBC, the top ten list:

Here are the 10 nuclear power sites with the highest risk of suffering core damage from an earthquake, showing their NRC risk estimates based on 2008 and 1989 geological data.

1. Indian Point 3, Buchanan, N.Y.: 1 in 10,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 17,241. Increase in risk: 72 percent.

2. Pilgrim 1, Plymouth, Mass.: 1 in 14,493. Old estimate: 1 in 125,000. Increase in risk: 763 percent.

3. Limerick 1 and 2, Limerick, Pa.: 1 in 18,868. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 141 percent.

4. Sequoyah 1 and 2, Soddy-Daisy, Tenn.: 1 in 19,608. Old estimate: 1 in 102,041. Increase in risk: 420 percent.

5. Beaver Valley 1, Shippingport, Pa.: 1 in 20,833. Old estimate: 1 in 76,923. Increase in risk: 269 percent.

6. Saint Lucie 1 and 2, Jensen Beach, Fla.: 1 in 21,739. Old estimate: N/A.

7. North Anna 1 and 2, Louisa, Va.: 1 in 22,727. Old estimate: 1 in 31,250. Increase in risk: 38 percent.

8. Oconee 1, 2 and 3, Seneca, S.C.: 1 in 23,256. Old estimate: 1 in 100,000. Increase in risk: 330 percent.

9. Diablo Canyon 1 and 2, Avila Beach, Calif.: 1 in 23,810. Old estimate: N/A.

10. Three Mile Island, Middletown, Pa.: 1 in 25,000. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 82 percent.

Notice that the risks are still considered pretty low...though I do wonder if the risk estimates were as low for the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant.