The Other Mike wrote:
On 17 Mar 2011 10:48:20 GMT, Adrian wrote:

Tim Streater gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

His point is that for the stations proposed here, such a tsunami and
earthquake would be of no consequence because:

1) they'd withstand the earthquake, as the japanese ones did
It might also be worth pointing out that there are no nuclear reactors in
the UK lying in the direct path of a tsunami originating from a massive
earthquake with an epicentre barely more than 40 miles away.

In fact, as far as a quick google finds, the only almost certain tsunami
to affect the UK was the result of a massive Norwegian landslip in about
6,000bc.

Just such an event could quite easily take out the vast majority of
coal fired generation in Yorkshire and the Trent Valley that is 30 or
more miles from the open sea. Torness, Hartlepool and Sizewell would
be toast too.

Putting nukes far inland in big cities and using the waste heat for
district heating and cooling is the only solution. Who could really
object to a nuke in Birmingham?

ITYM Nuke ON Birmingham?

I prefer Battersea. Ideal place.

It could scarcely even under total meltdown make Sarf Lunnun any more
uninhabitable than it already is.