How is that over-reacting? They under-reacted, if anything - not only was the evacuation area too small for what was happening, but had the meltdown broken loose and the wind shifted, which was entirely possible at the time, their failure to evacuate Tokyo would have been haunting. They gambled and won. As studies of TMI have shown, the fear was as much from the uncertainties and stresses of being lied to as anything else. And we can rest comfortably on supposition that casualties from the radiation will be low in part because of that evacuation along with the good luck of wind etc ( the various peaks and drifts of radiation seem to have hit many fewer people than would have been afflicted). Since this kind of official lying and stress and fear-inducing coverup is apparently inevitable during nuke accidents, we should figure it in as part of the risk of building nukes. We should also figure in another factor of Fukushima, namely the fact that the nuke problems emerged in the middle of, and added considerably to, the difficulty of responding to a natural disaster. That is obviously a likely concomitant of any nuclear mishap, and its multiplier effect should not be omitted in calculating the risk premium of nukes. As noted the waste is still on site, and the reactor has been buried at a taxpayer-financed site with serious problems, where it has to be watched and guarded and maintained at taxpayer expense. The site has not been converted to other use yet AFAIK. So we don't know what the total cost will be. The official cost so far seems to have been about 500 million. The breakdowns, shutdowns, political rehab efforts, political corruption effects, and eventual early decommissioning of the Trojan nuke.