If society doesn't consider this comparatively small loss of life acceptable given the benefits, then society is stupid. But we already knew society is stupid, and terrible at risk analysis. If that weren't the case, we'd have many many more nuclear reactors, and no one would want to get in their cars, ever.
If anyone is stupid and terrible at risk analysis it's the people who still spew that party line. It was already stupid when there had been only one complete failure of nuclear plant safety, and it happened to the "bad guys" whom everyone could just assume must have been more stupid and careless than we "good guys" could ever possibly be. But fact is, people have acted stupid and careless handling nuclear plants everywhere, and a risk analysis that assumes all risks are foreseeable and perfect execution of safety measures is just incredibly idiotic.
Who claimed that nuclear safety and contingency planning handled every single forseeable risk? Who claimed that operators and officials react in a perfect manner during a crisis? I don't think anyone has. I certainly haven't. Putting words in other people's mouths is stupid (see, I can make oblique insults too).
The bottom line is that nuclear power is still safer than many activities/environments that regular people encounter on a daily basis, and is certainly safer and cleaner than other, much more prevalent sources of power generation. It's obviously not the safest or cleanest, but it's up there.
Can you say how many lives have been saved because of the nuclear power plants over the past 30-40 years? This would include cleaner air in the meantime, costs which were saved and re-deployed to social welfare programs, cheaper power for individuals and businesses, meaning cheaper goods and more money available to feed and house love ones and spend on health care, and hell, even more money to spend on the expensive construction codes which undoubtably saved many thousands of lives during this tragedy.
I really can't say how many lives are enhanced or saved by simply being more efficient. And I can't predict the future, so neither do I know if nuclear power will ultimately be our downfall. But the question is far more complex than "society considers the loss of life acceptable." Society makes these choices to support and sustain better (and more numerous) lives.
Calculate, how many lives are already saved and will be saved in future by nuclear reactors in comparison to other sources of energy. Calculate how many lives will be lost in worstests scenarios. Multiple number by probability and sum up.
For example:
* nuclear reactor can save 1000 lives per year in 100 years of it life with 0.9999 probability;
* in worstest case, with 0.0001 probability, it can kill 10000 humans per year in 1000 years.
0,0001 probability is too optimistic - we already have Chernobyl and few other smaller nuclear disasters while number of nuclear stations is much smaller than 1K.
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)
Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
But I don't think it does.
It's not just engineers who are responsible, in any event.