Failure of voluntary, self-regulation; Denial of the reality of risk; Lack of safety culture; Lack of a comprehensive, consistent regulatory framework; The challenge of continuous change and the need to retrofit existing reactors; Failure to resolve important outstanding safety issues; Failure to require existing reactors to add safety measures because of cost; and Complexity, confusion and chaos in the response to a severe accident. With the global nuclear safety institutions expressing strong concerns, particularly the advanced industrial nuclear nations, and the aftermath of Fukushima likely to command attention for years as the extent of the damage and the challenge of decommissioning unfold, the issues are likely to continue to have traction. The reviews stimulated by accidents are not limited to safety issues. In the wake of Fukushima re-evaluations of energy options and nuclear risks and economics have substantially dimmed the prospects for construction of new nuclear reactors: Major policy reviews by governments have led several nations to decide to scale back or abandon their commitments to nuclear power (including important large industrial national like Japan and Germany); Financial institutions have conducted extensive reassessments of the economic prospects of nuclear power and concluded that the costs will rise (e.g. USB); Utilities with nuclear plants in several nations have been downgraded by rating agencies; and Several major firms in advanced industrial nations have abandoned the sector or been forced to scale back their activities (e.g., Shaw Group, Siemens and Areva). As the Cooper paper concludes: “As all stakeholders re-examine all aspect of energy policy, the risks of nuclear reactors increase and the attractiveness of nuclear power compared to other options decreases.”