On 01/06/2013 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?

Do you have any idea how a containment vessel is built?
You could fly a fully fuelled a380 into it and it wouldn't penetrate it.

The worst place you could crash it would be the turbine building, then
you might put it out of action for a few weeks while they fix the
generating plant.


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.


Only a madman could think such a nightmare existed in the first place.