I don't really believe a discussion like this is something you should be aiming to 'win'. Besides, quantifying complex arguments would produce difficulties in the scoring system.
The post is long because I try to be as comprehensive as possible. Not addressing parts of his argument would be to dismiss them, in ways.

Shutting down their plant was necessary mainly due to the people that would have complained, not because the owners actually believed themselves prone to similar incidents.

I think it's been quite well established that however intelligent people are in person, in a group they drop to lemming level. So while if you asked one or two of them individually "Is it safe to operate that reactor because we have no natural disasters going on?", they would agree that it is, if you asked a whole group, they would panic and demand the plants be torn down.