Fukushima is a difficult story and BBC News has been criticised for its handling of the crisis. Some complain we have given it far too much space, especially compared to the earthquake, whilst others argue that we have been too trusting of industry reassurances.
We may annoy both sets of critics because we are torn between our multiple roles as storytellers, interpreters of public mood and purveyors of scientific and statistical 'truth'.
At the heart of this lies the paradox that Fukushima (right) is likely to deal a huge blow to the world's planned nuclear renaissance even though statistically it will probably show that nuclear power is relatively safe - especially if you are using a modern, self-cooling plant and manage to place it out of the reach of tsunamis.
This underlying truth has been constantly undermined by the dramatic nature of the crisis, unfolding in one unexpected and potentially alarming accident after the next, and constantly confounding those nuclear industry pundits who in the early days expressed cautious but consistent optimism that all would be brought under control.
Some nuclear protagonists argue that the accident was essentially under control from the moment of the earthquake when safety systems shut down live reactions. But, following on from that moment, the management of the crisis has given a good impression of chaos.
The latest reassessment of the seriousness of the accident, upgrading to level seven, based on previous radioactive releases only just analysed, is a case in point.
So are apparently contradictory statements from the Japanese government that the incident is a tenth as serious as Chernobyl compared to Tepco's acknowledgement that, ultimately, more radiation than Chernobyl might be released in the long term.
The latter sounds scary - especially as it's hard to explain to the public that radiation is measured in exposure over a period of time. That means that, if most of the radiation is being washed little by little into the mighty Pacific, it may not be significant at all if currents are favourable. But that's another IF, and news thrives on IFs and speculation.
By comparison, in news terms the tsunami looks like a terrible, terrible natural disaster - but one that is in the past, as opposed to one which will affect energy choices made all around the world.
Much of the public has already concluded that the nuclear industry's promises can't be trusted and several nations are revising or scrapping nuclear plans. The UK Government is unmoved, but has launched its own safety review which may increase the cost of new nuclear stations planned for the UK.
The World Energy Council, based in London, says countries shouldn't make major decisions for or against nuclear until the fallout has died down - literally and metaphorically. It also says Fukushima shows the nuclear issue can no longer be treated as purely national - it should be brought under globally agreed standards.
Roger Harrabin is the BBC's Environment Analyst.
