OK, I'll address your #2 and #3:

Myth # 2. “Earthquakes can’t be predicted. They are completely random events. Every scientist on the planet agrees with that.”
**I don't think most seismologists or good earthquake geologists would say they are random events. What we say is that useful prediction is an incredibly difficult problem. So, your premise for what the community thinks is incorrect.

Myth # 3. “Nuclear power plants are now so safe that nothing could ever happen to cause an accident.”

**OK, I agree with you on this one, and this is an interesting thing to discuss. See my several posts on this subject on threads below. the Japanese nuclear people probably believed they were safe. I posted below that this M9 and tsunami should have been designed for: having 20 m of maximum slip in a thrust earthquake and that long a rupture should not have been unexpected. It could have ruptured another 100 km and been a catastophe for Tokyo also.

Who is paying you corrupts in my opinion. I think it is sub-conscious. Half the earth Scientists working for the petroleum industry in USA believe that man does not affect climate.

So, yes, be very skeptical when USA nuclear power people say that Japan could not happen here. You are not going to have a massive tsunami take out backup systems in the midwest. But, they may fail for another reason. My brother in law works on safety in the French nuclear EDF (electricity de la France). I'll have to discuss with him. He had a very rough time getting them to replace a bunch of valves or something.

The technology is USA technology: is Westinghouse/General Electric boiling water reactors.

I saw on TV that they have these in the heartland, in the general area of the Mississippi River. Might want to look at where these are specifically compared to New Madrid seismic zone. But, I think the hazard maps for New Madrid are likely to be misleading: it is liable to be another area, perhaps on strike, that goes someday. The areas that failed in 1811-1812 may be less likely, not more likely, to fail: they are not being reloaded.

Sure, in restrospect the M7.2 was a precursor and lead to the great quake. I suspect that when careful seismologic studies are done, they will find something that would have told that the 7.2 was not done: that there would be some tremor or migration of seismicity or something, But, this area is offshore and you would need Ocean Bottom Seismometers to image this well. But, these have to be retrieved: is not "real time". You would need a massive series of cabled underwater observatories. This would be expensive. But, the Japanese are spening 1/2 billion $ to do multiple core holes into the Nankai subduction zone. They hope to actually core into the tsunamigenic fault at 6 km depth.

So, there are a lot of M 6 and M7 quakes that are not followed by something worse. There were swarms of quakes over the last years offshore east coast Honshu. I think I heard that in Japan only 25% of quakes have significant foreshocks. Do you want to evacuate on every one of these> What if there is a M5.0 on the San Andreas fault near Bombay Beach Salton Sea? Do you evacuate Los Angeles or at least close the tall buildings? What about a M4 where the San Andreas and San Gregorio fault intersect just off the Golden Gate. Do you evacuate San Francisco? I think the answers are "No" and "No".

One thing that may be surprising is that this massive tsunami is from a fault that is very flat: 14 deg dip. For Nankai I have heard a talk where they assume that the larger tsunamis are from steeper faults that merge downward into the megathrust (plate boundary).

Chris