If I have to do it, well...

All right. Normally I don't pay attention to news reports about nuclear energy in foreign countries, but this one's worth looking at since the British media here sounds a lot like the media here twenty years ago or so.

Here is the article.

First; why does any fire anywhere at a nuclear power plant have to be a "blaze?" Doesn't "fire" work well enough? Would they use "conflagration" or "pre-apocalyptic inferno" if it wouldn't reduce the headline's font size to unreadability? Probably, if the general average anti-nuclear alarmist could understand it, which in itself is highly unlikely. So "blaze" is the best choice to express near-total disaster with one word if you have to, which of course we all know is exactly what you must have when there's any kind of a fire at a nuclear power plant. Right? Well isn't it? I mean, you can't have a "blaze" at a Ford plant, can you?

Second, a statement by some anti-nuclear organization leader: "Making electricity from nuclear energy is a highly-dangerous (sic) process."

Counterpoint- a statement by an experienced person who spent years on board a submarine operating a nuclear plant: Wrong.

Notice how the "Level 0 emergency" event status is buried waaaay down in the article, right above pointless statements about how many fire companies were called to respond. At the end, we find out the most important fact: No evacuations, and so nothing happened.

Yawn.