The one thing missing from this article is a comparison with the alternatives. While building nuclear reactors in an earthquake zone obviously has its difficulties, short of shutting up shop and going to live somewhere else, the electricity has to be generated somehow.
Hydroelectric? One significant dam burst in this event destroying hundreds of homes. There's been little detailed reporting of this, but on the face of it much more human and environmental impact than the nuclear problems.
Oil? Several refineries have been on fire (including some outside the tsunami zone). Oil handling facilities are inevitably on the coast and some must have leaked into the sea when struck by the tsunami; likewise there must have been injuries in the refinery explosions, but noone has bothered to report them separately from the general destruction (unlike the nuclear reporting). Still, nuclear again seems the winner.
Coal? Japan has limited domestic coal, and you would have thought that mining in an earthquake zone would also be hazardous. However, coal does in general seem to be less sensitive to earthquake events, especially if you import it. Shame that coal is
out of favour due to CO2. Also, coal tends to have its human cost spread over countless minor incidents rather than big disasters - big, heavy and awkward stuff to handle.