Is it just me, or are EAS Scenario Nuclear Power Plant Warnings just wrong and unrealistic?

For the past few days, I've been thinking about Nuclear Power Plant Warnings that are issued in EAS mocks. There is typically a sequence followed:
- A Civil Emergency Message for a 'radiological advisory' or site area emergency, resulting in a 10-mile radius evacuation (the emergency planning zone)

- The actual Nuclear Power Plant Warning for the general emergency, with an evacuation radius of 50, 75, 100, or even 250 mile radius of the plant, with not evacuating resulting in 'putting your life in extreme danger' or facing 'certain death.'

- A Civil Danger Warning for a fire at the plant that is melting down, with an expansion of the evacuation radius in case more radioactive materials are launched.

- The plant explodes, resulting in a National Emergency being declared due to a chain-reaction of nuclear power plant exploding.

NGL, I find this to be completely unrealistic for a nuclear power plant warning. What's more, some nuclear power plant warnings execute immediate evacuation despite hazardous conditions existing, such as severe weather damage (either from thunderstorms, hurricanes, winter weather, etc.) Wouldn't that be dangerous, given how evacuating would put yourself in more danger due to damage?

I'm not saying that the EAS scenarios are wrong, but it seems off to me how an evacuation can be mandated for a nuclear power plant warning for a large mile radius if only the 10-mile EPZ is of the most imminent danger, as well as evacuating after severe weather causes damage.

What are y'all's takes on how Nuclear Power Plant Warnings are handled in EAS scenarios?