This isn't logic, this is science. Have you done experiments with large amounts of radioactive material that verify your hypothesis?

That criticism could be directed just as well at the original article, which is attempting to logically deduce why failure is unlikely (using questionable logic and analogies). It'd be much more convincing if the article instead presented something more like evidence, which likely also exists (since of course these designs are extensively tested).

Unsurprisingly, the article isn't written by a scientist; William Tucker is a pundit and journalist who writes about energy from a popular and political perspective. In his multiple books and hundreds of articles, he has done no experiments to verify any of his hypotheses.

" ... he has done no experiments to verify any of his hypotheses."

Personal experience or experimentation are not the only means of acquiring knowledge. In fact, most of our knowledge is gained by other methods (e.g. trusted sources).

Is he getting published in the Wall St Journal?

Look, I agree with the general viewpoint that we should build more nuclear power. But his points about the article are valid, and I don't see why he should be held to a higher standard than the PR flack getting free op-ed space.