Julian Glover says of the Fukushima crisis: "This accident may prove nothing but could signify everything: the illogical fear that the nuclear genie can never be controlled" (The world's nuclear fate rests in Japan, 14 March).

I carried out a research project that examined how extreme climatic events impact nuclear power plants. Glover, like many other supporters, claims nuclear power can help our fight against climate change: "Without more nuclear plants there is no chance of this country ridding itself of fossil fuels." But I wonder how nuclear power would handle a changing climate. As a result of my research, I hold my breath every time a hurricane approaches a nuclear power plant.

Reading incident reports from nuclear power plants has provided no reassurance. I've read about safety doors being left open during a hurricane, communication problems, access roads flooding and, of all things, algae regularly causing reactors to shut down. After I heard about the devastating earthquake in Japan, I immediately thought about the nuclear power plants. I knew the situation was serious when I heard that the site had lost off-site power and that the back-up generators were flooded.

No matter how well they build them, nuclear power plants require lots of water. As such, the plants need to be either on the coast or near a large body of water at an inland site. The loss of off-site power commonly happens during storms, particularly at coastal locations. So a strong storm, probably stronger than the historical records used in the estimates for design, could cause flooding that leads to an accident similar to the one we are witnessing.

Flooding can be an issue at inland sites as well. So when Glover says "Climate change should still trump the remote prospect of nuclear calamity", that prospect is probably far more likely than he believes.

And what about the people who live near these plants? Do they feel safe? Actions speak louder than words, and the evacuations trumped any reassurances provided by authorities.

The accident isn't over, yet already the blame has been placed on the strong earthquake, without any thought to how a similar situation could happen anywhere. To really learn from mistakes one must look for similarities and not for obvious differences.

Chernobyl was blamed on the Soviets and the design of their reactors. Fukushima will be blamed on the sheer scale of the disaster and perhaps the design too. The nuclear industry will address the design issues in some patchwork way and then reassure us that everything will be fine. They'll also claim that new reactors will be safer than the older models at Fukushima: Glover himself says engineers are not "making it up when they say modern designs are better".

I put a lot of trust in science and the work of scientists, but that trust does not extend to nuclear power. Every time an accident happens, exceptional circumstances get blamed. What will be the next exceptional circumstance?