On 02/06/2013 01:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/06/13 21:25, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 01/06/2013 20:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/06/13 20:36, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 01/06/2013 19:13, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/06/2013 18:28, Farmer Giles wrote:
...
What frightening complacency. Even if I accept what you say above -
which I don't - what about earthquakes (which can happen anywhere,
however unlikely it may appear from past history),

Fukushima was hit by an earthquake that was many times more powerful
than it was designed for and suffered no damage from the earthquake
itself. That earthquake was about 30,000 times more severe than
Britain's most powerful recorded earthquake, which knocked the head
off
a waxwork in Madam Tussauds.

terrorist attacks, etc?

If those are going to bother you, you may as well go and live in a
deep
cave in the middle of nowhere.

Whether they bother me, or indeed what happens to me, is of little
consequence. What happens to the world and, more importantly, what
happends to future generations, is not.

You tell me what might have happened if those aeroplanes had been
flown into nuclear power stations instead of the World Trade Centre?

Almost nothing. They are deliberately designed to withstand that.

Really? A large passenger aircraft full of fuel which ignites on impact?

and a bit more actually.

In whose opinion, certainly not this one?


"Nuclear power plants were designed to withstand hurricanes,
earthquakes, and other extreme
events. But deliberate attacks by large airliners loaded with fuel, such
as those that crashed into
the World Trade Center and Pentagon, were not analyzed when design
requirements for todays
reactors were determined.15 Concern about aircraft crashes was
intensified by a taped interview
shown September 10, 2002, on the Arab TV station al-Jazeera, which
contained a statement that
Al Qaeda initially planned to include a nuclear plant in its list of
2001 attack sites.
In light of the possibility that an air attack might penetrate the
containment structure of a nuclear
plant or a spent fuel storage facility, some interest groups have
suggested that such an event could
be followed by a meltdown or spent fuel fire and widespread radiation
exposure."
CRS Report for the US Congress, August 2012.




As I said previously, frightening complacency.

I don't wish to be offensive, but it is my firm belief that only
madmen could possibly risk such a nightmare scenario.

Funny sort of nightmare.

Glad you think so.