The real something for nothing

[Paleophyte]

All three disasters had profit and cost-cutting as major contributors:
 - Three Mile Island had a poor design and poor training because the alternatives would have cost money.
 - Fukushima was built in where they knew tsunami was a serious risk because it offered cheap access to coolant water. Various design flaws were flagged decades before the incident but never fixed because it would have cost money. Both TEPCO and the Japanese government has admitted their failings in this respect.
 - Chernobyl is the epitome of cost-cutting leading to disaster. Corners were cut so ridiculously that the reactor lacked primary containment and had graphite moderators wed to the control rods. It was designed to fail.

Ostensibly, these things could be argued, but they are not the direct cause of any of those issues.  The designs used were the industry standard at the time.  You can't argue that a design was used to save money when it's the RAGAGEP, Recognized And Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices.

It can be argued because it's factually accurate. All three incidents included critical design flaws that were bad engineering, cost saving measures that were proximal causes of the disasters.

Fukushima's issue was NOT where it was located; it was the emergency cooling system design. It was designed such that if the pumps were flooded, they would fail and emergency cooling water would fail to flow.

Like any good disaster Fukushima had a laundry list of things that went wrong. Building a reactor on the coast in a tsunami-prone area should have been easy to avoid. It wasn't because ocean water provided cheap coolant. Levelling the coast from 30 m high to 10 m high to allow for easier equipment installation during construction exacerbated the problem. TEPCO then ignored at least two internal studies that predicted exactly this type of disaster even after one of the emergency generators flooded and failed.

And no, Chernobyl was not due to cost cutting.  Read about it.  It was a procedural mistake.

I have read about it. Chernobyl was also a number of different problems that combined to produce disaster. One of those was a procedural mistake. Many of the rest were Soviet era cost cutting, sloppiness, and general disregard for safety. The RBMK design is regarded as one of the worst reactors ever built due to lack of primary containment, the use of graphite as a neutron moderator, positive void coefficient, and graphite accelerators at the ends of the control rods. Chernobyl was then rushed into operation before safety testing was completed, leading to the reactor being run at full power on the fateful night of the incident. Other egregious errors included a lack of proper training, a flammable tar roof on the reactor, and the lack of usable dosimeters at Chernobyl. That last meant that the Soviets grossly underestimated the seriousness of the disaster and were unaware that the reactor's core was exposed and burning.

Basically you're just arguing that if a plant is not always fitted with the most recent technology that it's because of costs and that's not a realistic way of looking at it.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying hat they were rubbish for the era in which they were built. They have not improved with age.