There are more than 600 power plants in the US that use fossil fuels, the 600 is just for coal.

As for the severity of the earthquake, it's far more important to consider proximity than absolute magnitude. A smaller one closer or right under could have been catastrophic. A few of us consider building plants in active tectonic zones to be the height of insanity. Building it right by the shore, in historical tsunami zones? Incomprehensibly stupid.

Of course, the alternative to nuclear isn't just coal. Renewables and efficiency should be considered first. Safer than both coal and nuclear, they also create more jobs.

While I generally agree with your assessment, I'll make the small point that the radioactive-isotope contamination of the areas surrounding Fukushima will have subtler human and environmental effects over the course of the next 50+ years. Sure, these won't result in death, and perhaps not even serious illness, but they are effects that last long after everything is repaired.

Do I really have to point at the logical fallacy you're using here? You're basically saying nuclear power doesn't suck because coal sucks.

Let me tell you about how many people die each year from the hydroelectrics that power 90% of my country.

If an earthquake causes a bridge to collapse, killing people, do we blame the bridge or the earthquake? If an earthquake causes a dam to fail (which happened due to the Tohoku quake), killing people, do we blame the dam or the earthquake? If an earthquake causes a tall building to topple, should we build shorter buildings?

The Fukushima reactors were the most dangerous design currently still in operation in G-7 countries, and handling of the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami was one of the most disorganized and most mismanaged in history. And yet for all of that the nuclear disaster still resulted in far fewer deaths than occurred in coal mining in that year.