google translate: "Has long been clear that this reactor has not already survived the earthquake, so the myth was disproved, only that the unusually high tsunami was responsible for the severe damage. Japan firmly held it long enough to have to draw any conclusions for the dangerous nuclear program."
This quote is nothing but speculation from an anti-nuclear journalist (which in Germany means almost any journalist, due to decades of fanatic propaganda against nuclear energy in that country). Here is something based on actual data.
In Japan, things are different. They require a complete revalidation of all systems before the government gives permission to restart. This can take anything up to (pre-Fukushima that is) 5 months! Quite why they take so long, when nearly every other country in the world, who operate reactors, can get the same inspections and validation done in 1 month is beyond me.
Because they're sitting on one of the most seismically active area that happens to have quite a lot of old boiler-style nuclear reactors. In their case, it's being excessively particular. If they didn't...there'd have been much more than what happened with Fukushima. (There'd have likely been at least two or more that did at least what happened there...)
Having said this... It's not nuclear power that's the problem- only the form being used.