On 05/04/2011 18:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 05/04/2011 13:40, Bolted wrote:
On Mar 28, 12:45 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
Of course the plant is wrecked, but the point is there was no
nuclear accident.

Out of interest is that still your view? No nuclear accident at all,
not even a little one?

As I would define a nuclear accident as necessarily involving a
critical failure of the reactor, that is still my view. The reactors
shut down properly immediately the primary shockwaves from the
earthquake was detected.

There were failures is the containment of radioactive materials, but,
as I pointed out, the amounts of radiation released are not
particularly significant. They exceed the safety levels, but then we
can't build nuclear reactors in Cornwall because the natural radiation
there is already higher than the safe levels for operating a nuclear
reactor.


Is that actually true?

SFAIK, yes. Unfortunately, I cannot now find where I read it.

The average background radiation in Britain is around 0.25 microsiverets
per hour - compared to the 0.109 that has been causing concern in Tokyo.
Around half that is due to radon gas, but granite produces a lot more
radon gas than most soils and in Cornwall the background radiation is
about three times the national average.

Colin Bignell