I'd like to add to your commentary on the lessons not fully learned. At the time of the accident there were pockets of small but rather vocal and visible anti-nuclear activists. For all practical purposes, they had little effectiveness in terms of achieving their goals, and public opinion was then (and continues to be) majority pro-nuclear. The hysteria that resulted was fueled by other factors. Two weeks before the accident the film China Syndrome opened and became a global hit. Its plot mirrored TMI somewhat, at least enough for people to draw direct comparisons, except there was no WIlford Brimley at TMI to keep a meltdown from happening. Secondly, as you noted, the plant management was both clueless about what was happening in the plant and, coming from the Rickover School of Communications, had no business talking to reporters. But most importantly was the role the NRC played in creating hysteria. At the time of the accident the only NRC voice came from DC and not from the plant. If reporters talked to the onsite NRC person, they could get a different story than from DC because neither knew what the other knew. NRC HQ was not getting instant information from the site, so when an operator said one thing and reporters asked HQ, they would deny it. Public officials had no idea what was happening and no confidence in what they were being told, so by Friday morning (30 March) evacuations were recommended. And then came the NRC HQ's baffling announcement Friday night regarding the possibility of a hydrogen explosion within the primary cooling loop, a possiblity any high chool chemist could quickly dismiss using Boyle's Law. A H2 explosion did ultimately occur, but inside containment, resulting in no external release.
I'd like to add another lesson not yet learned: it costs a lot more than you think to cleanup and accident and/or decomission a reactor. Before TMI decontamination insurance was limited to $300 million. Getting TMI to its current state, which is somewhat akin to the NRC entombment case but not quite (more interior decontamination would have to occur) cost a little over $1.2 billion. Decommissioning of the first generation reactors that had no accidents are costing about that amount. The NRC,however, is still approving site specific decommissioning cost estimates at around $300 million.
And then there's the lesson the industry thinks it learned: the 30 year hiatus in reactor construction occurred because of public fears resulting from TMI and Chernobyl. Public perception in the US (I think the EU is a different story) had nothing to do with the hiatus. It was all about cost and it is still all about cost. The last few reactors commissioned in the US in the mid 80's cost over $5,000/kW. That's $11,000/kW in 2014 dollars. The reactors now in construction are likely to come in at a little over $7,000/kW. Nuclear advocates haranguing the press about public risk perception and attacking non-baseloaded renewables are simply trying to divert attention from the real problem faced by nuclear: why would a plant owner risk the investment in a technology that is not competitive?