On Jun 2, 9:14*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 02/06/13 16:16, harry wrote:







On Jun 2, 10:08 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 02/06/13 06:27, harry wrote: It's possible to design against such and eventuality but it adds to
the cost. Nuclear power is not cheap. And the first new one (Hinkley)
is to be built in the only place where the UK experienced a tsunami.
********. The whole dogger bank used to be a thriving community(Cf
Doggerland) Its now more or less below sea level. It got tsunami-ed.
About 10,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland

In Defras report on possible imacts of any seismic event on the UK,
noweher do they assess any risk greater than a 1m rise in sea level,
well below the level of risk to any nuclear installation,http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environm...nts/risk/tsuna...
and the overall risk is not to nuclear power plants but to low lying
areas of land - it is comscevable that large areas of the Fens and other
river estuary areas might be flooded. Having a nuclear power station
flood isd the least of our worries.

And of course post Fuku all power stains are assessed to withstand much
greater levels of flooding.

Out of the mouths of greens and eco-warriors come lies, lies, and more lies
Once more TurNiP the lying toad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol...l_floods,_1607

I am not lying. YOU said the only place the UK had EVER had a tsunami
was the Bristol channel.

I pointed you at evidence that showed that it was NOT the only place,
and you call me a liar.
I pointed opu at a stydy that shows that TSUNAMI risk was less than a meter.

Storm surge is a greaterrisk.

The 1607 flooding might have been either. Te surge was at most two
meters. This is well below anything that would bother a nuclear power
station


7.7 meters at Weston super Mare.