Fukushima in America?

GRLCowan wrote:

It is likely that the nuclear power plants in Hurricane Florence's way will be turned off hours before it arrives.

Authorities love turning such plants off, for safety reasons, because in a typical working day one such plant consumes 450 kg of mined uranium. That's about $30,000 worth. Turning it off means gas-fired plants supply the electricity that is still demanded, and the gas that is burned instead costs $600,000, and of this, approximately $120,000 is royalties and/or severance taxes. This contributes to the salaries of the very same authorities in charge of turning things off.

While the Brunswick plants are vulnerable to meltdown given sufficiently many coincident failures, meltdown does not, of course, "release radioactive isotopes directly into the atmosphere and surrounding areas". The abundance of barriers in the path of such release is the reason no spring leaf or needle appears to have fallen as a result of the Fukushima meltdowns. But the Japanese government is fossil fuel tax-interested in a similar way to the American authorities, and so, at the time and since, has made quite a hypocritical fuss about Fukushima.

Power reactors that are not at meltdown risk, no matter how many things go wrong, have been built, in both Japan and the USA, but their lack of even this token vulnerability has made it hard to get permission to develop them.

This is mostly BS

That a meltdown, or partial meltdown, does not necessarily result in a loss of containment is correct, but that's deceptive tact. Loss of containment happens, and it did happened with Fukashima which (as of 2017) still had a uninhabitable Excusion Zone of 371 km/sq with a background radiation of 50mSv:
(http://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/site/portal-english/en03-08.html)

The radiation effects from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster are the observed and predicted effects as a result of the release of radioactive isotopes from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant following the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. The release of radioactive isotopes from reactor containment vessels was a result of venting in order to reduce gaseous pressure, and the discharge of coolant water into the sea.[3] This resulted in Japanese authorities implementing a 20-km exclusion zone around the power plant and the continued displacement of approximately 156,000 people as of early 2013.[4] large quantities of radioactive particles from the incident, including iodine-131 and caesium-134/137, have since been detected around the world. Substantial levels have been seen in California and in the Pacific Ocean.[5][6][7]....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiic...

Fukushima radioactive particle release was significant, says new research
Date:
May 24, 2018
Source:
University of Manchester
Summary:
Scientists say there was a significant release of radioactive particles during the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear accident. The researchers identified the contamination using a new method and say if the particles are inhaled they could pose long-term health risks to humans.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524104104.htm

As for the powering down of the plants in the US.  Yes, we hope.
Unlike Fukishima those in the path should have sufficient warning to completely power down.  

But that is not the whole picture as the cooling tanks for spent fuel need a constantly powered flow of water to keep them from catatrophic overheating and loss of containment. Backup generators should be able to handle this, if they are not themselves put out of action:

Officials are worried about radiation from the spent fuel pools in Japan because the pools are not enclosed in containment devices as reactor cores are.  

Are the spent fuel pools better protected at U.S. nuclear power plants?

The spent fuel pools at U.S. nuclear plants are also outside the primary containment, so they are no better protected than those in Japan. Spent fuel pools actually pose more of a risk in the United States, because the pools here contain more fuel than those in Japan. In 2006, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences issued a report, Safety and Security of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage, that reprimanded U.S. plants for ignoring the hazards of spent fuel, but the warnings continue to fall on deaf ears.)

For years UCS has been calling on nuclear power plants to move their older spent fuel to storage in dry casks, where spent fuel rods are enclosed in a large, cylindrical steel canister surrounded by a concrete cask with thick walls (see picture below), which greatly reduces both safety risks and those associated with terrorist attacks....

https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-power-accidents/fukushima-f...