On Mar 19, 11:59*am, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
On 19/03/2011 09:44, harry wrote:
...

I seem to remember there was one in Indonesia, boxing day or
something? Just so happened they didn't have a reactor in the
vicinity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Indonesia

But they were close.
So that's two in five years not one in a thousand years.

That is two tsunami, not two tsunami of similar size and intensity. The
one in Japan was about 10m high. The one in Indonesia was about 3m high
and seismologists are still discussing why it was as big as that, given
the size of the earthquake that triggered it.

There *is California, Arizona Argentina Mexico Greece Taiwan Iran
Pakistan to name a few in earthquake zones.
Do really suppose they are as well built as theJapanese ones?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...icy_by_country
So where does this leave your 1 in a 1000?

Exactly where it started: A seismologist says that tsunami similar to
this one seem to hit Japan about once in 1,000 years. You seem to have
problems understanding that it is the size and intensity of this tsunami
that makes it a one in 1,000 year event, not simply that it was a tsunami..

Colin Bignell

The problem is that if you take into account the whole world as
opposed to some particular place the chances are in favour of another
chernobyl or fukushima soon. Not 1000/1 against.