On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:59:50 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 17/03/2011 09:32, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote in message
...
On 17/03/2011 01:02, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote in message
news On 16/03/2011 17:25, harry wrote:
...
It was the tsunami really f***d things up. We have had tsunamis in
the
UK. We have nuclear power stations on the coast. too. Don't
think it
couldn't happen here.

So what? If we build more stations they will be third generation
and will not need the generators that were the critical things
destroyed by the tsunami.

This man is barking mad.

Errm, could you kindly explain why? I don't see it myself.

"We have nuclear power stations on the coast. too. Don't think it
couldn't happen here." He replies: "So what?"

Clearly barking.

Perhaps, instead of waving your hands in the air and shouting we are
all doomed,

I am not saying we are all doomed. I am advocating an international body
to control all this with planning permission and building regs attached.

Do you think such a body would have required greater precautions than
the Japanese put in place? If so, please justify that claim with facts
that would have been known at the time it was built.

I note you feel unable to answer my question about exactly what you
think would happen to a UK plant if hit by a tsunami or tidal surge.


Well probably nothing for the east coast plans, since the north sea at
most might provide a couple of meters.

Probably wipe all the wind turbines out of course.

If a wind turbine hit a nucleur power station would that count against
nucleur or wind power?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.