You seem to be somewhat misinformed about Dr. Josef Oehman. You are correct, he does not have a PhD in Nuclear Engineering. And yes, he is currently teaching English in Japan. He is not a English Teacher by training, he is a research scientist "working on working on product development processes with MIT's Lean Advancement Initiative and the MIT-KFUPM Center for Clean Water and Energy." His undergraduate schooling is in Mechanical Engineering (looks like a focus on process design).
To be honest, the scorn you are heaping on English Teachers is misplaced to begin with, but if you're going to mock him, mock him as "Mr. Research Scientist". It's more accurate, and since you seem to be concerned with accuracy and titles, it would be appropriate.
Which facts that he posted were inaccurate? And note that I'm not talking about his opinions based on the facts, but rather the facts that he used as evidence?
UPDATE: I'm not trying to be snarky here. I'm very interested in this situation and want a clearer picture of it, and it would be nice if someone who understands the complexities of this matter would comment, as the facts in the original post (which is now being slammed) seemed to indicate at the very least cautious optimism.
(FYI, the post that was originally on the FP has moved here: http://mitnse.com/)
Apparently at least reactor 1 at Dai-ichi (which was the primary one to make trouble at the time he wrote the text, AFAIR) is too old a model to have the "core catcher" that he was saying would contain the corium in the case of a full meltdown.
I could be wrong, but based on news this morning it was my understanding that it in fact had a concrete "tertiary" containment including a dry and wet-well.
There were apparently some minor inaccuracies in what he wrote, which were pointed out by HN readers.
