http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...k_3105131.html

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Well yes that would be so, but the point is nobody trusts those who tell
them its OK as so often they have been proved wrong. One needs to have
confidence in the outcome after all.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...k_3105131.html

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members
of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded
with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 31/05/2013 23:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...kushima_radiat

ion_risk_3105131.html

And in the 1600s it was witches. I imagine harry would have ben there
with the best of them, lighting the logs under the "witch" because she
floated when they dunked her.


One thing we can always rely on with the nuclear lobby is their ability
to tell lies, and I bet the next one will be to tell us you've solved
the problem of what to do with the increasing amount of nuclear waste.

Unless, that is, you try the even bigger lie that there is no problem.

But this is not smoke and mirrors this has a potential danger after all.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...kushima_radiat
ion_risk_3105131.html

And in the 1600s it was witches. I imagine harry would have ben there with
the best of them, lighting the logs under the "witch" because she floated
when they dunked her.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

On 31/05/13 23:32, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 31/05/2013 23:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...kushima_radiat


ion_risk_3105131.html

And in the 1600s it was witches. I imagine harry would have ben there
with the best of them, lighting the logs under the "witch" because she
floated when they dunked her.


One thing we can always rely on with the nuclear lobby is their
ability to tell lies, and I bet the next one will be to tell us you've
solved the problem of what to do with the increasing amount of nuclear
waste.

Unless, that is, you try the even bigger lie that there is no problem.

Of course if you start from bigotry, everything proves the case. No one
died after Chernobyl? Obviously its being covered up...

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 31/05/13 23:33, Brian Gaff wrote:
But this is not smoke and mirrors this has a potential danger after all.
Brian

What potential danger would that be then?

You will trip and break your neck falling off Hay Tor in a panic
because you discover its more radioactive than the Fukushima exclusions
zone?

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Well what I mean is that ground water at the moment is being affected by
the melted down core. No say the authorities, there is just not enough
radiation where the ground water is..
Well they would say that of course. You also have to remember that Japan
has still very much to fear from radiation and some families are still
blighted by what happened at the end of the wr.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Brian Gaff" wrote:

Well yes that would be so, but the point is nobody trusts those who tell
them its OK as so often they have been proved wrong.

When's that then - that they have been proved wrong, I mean? And about
what?

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

If you are worried about it don't become an astronaut then!
May 30, 2013

Trent J. Perrotto
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1100


Deb Schmid
Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio
210-522-2254


RELEASE: 13-165

RADIATION MEASURED BY NASA'S CURIOSITY ON VOYAGE TO MARS HAS IMPLICATIONS
FOR FUTURE HUMAN MISSIONS

WASHINGTON -- Measurements taken by NASA's Mars Science Laboratory
(MSL) mission as it delivered the Curiosity rover to Mars in 2012 are
providing NASA the information it needs to design systems to protect
human explorers from radiation exposure on deep-space expeditions in
the future.

MSL's Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD) is the first instrument to
measure the radiation environment during a Mars cruise mission from
inside a spacecraft that is similar to potential human exploration
spacecraft. The findings will reduce uncertainty about the
effectiveness of radiation shielding and provide vital information to
space mission designers who will need to build in protection for
spacecraft occupants in the future.

"As this nation strives to reach an asteroid and Mars in our
lifetimes, we're working to solve every puzzle nature poses to keep
astronauts safe so they can explore the unknown and return home,"
said William Gerstenmaier, NASA's associate administrator for human
exploration and operations in Washington. "We learn more about the
human body's ability to adapt to space every day aboard the
International Space Station. As we build the Orion spacecraft and
Space Launch System rocket to carry and shelter us in deep space,
we'll continue to make the advances we need in life sciences to
reduce risks for our explorers. Curiosity's RAD instrument is giving
us critical data we need so that we humans, like the rover, can dare
mighty things to reach the Red Planet."

The findings, which are published in the May 31 edition of the journal
Science, indicate radiation exposure for human explorers could exceed
NASA's career limit for astronauts if current propulsion systems are
used.

Two forms of radiation pose potential health risks to astronauts in
deep space. One is galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), particles caused by
supernova explosions and other high-energy events outside the solar
system. The other is solar energetic particles (SEPs) associated with
solar flares and coronal mass ejections from the sun.

Radiation exposure is measured in units of Sievert (Sv) or
milliSievert (one one-thousandth Sv). Long-term population studies
have shown exposure to radiation increases a person's lifetime cancer
risk. Exposure to a dose of 1 Sv, accumulated over time, is
associated with a 5 percent increase in risk for developing fatal
cancer.

NASA has established a 3 percent increased risk of fatal cancer as an
acceptable career limit for its astronauts currently operating in
low-Earth orbit. The RAD data showed the Curiosity rover was exposed
to an average of 1.8 milliSieverts of GCR per day on its journey to
Mars. Only about 5 percent of the radiation dose was associated with
solar particles because of a relatively quiet solar cycle and the
shielding provided by the spacecraft.

The RAD data will help inform current discussions in the United States
medical community, which is working to establish exposure limits for
deep-space explorers in the future.

"In terms of accumulated dose, it's like getting a whole-body CT scan
once every five or six days," said Cary Zeitlin, a principal
scientist at the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) in San Antonio
and lead author of the paper on the findings. "Understanding the
radiation environment inside a spacecraft carrying humans to Mars or
other deep space destinations is critical for planning future crewed
missions."

Current spacecraft shield much more effectively against SEPs than
GCRs. To protect against the comparatively low energy of typical
SEPs, astronauts might need to move into havens with extra shielding
on a spacecraft or on the Martian surface, or employ other
countermeasures. GCRs tend to be highly energetic, highly penetrating
particles that are not stopped by the modest shielding provided by a
typical spacecraft.

"Scientists need to validate theories and models with actual
measurements, which RAD is now providing," said Donald M. Hassler, a
program director at SwRI and principal investigator of the RAD
investigation. "These measurements will be used to better understand
how radiation travels through deep space and how it is affected and
changed by the spacecraft structure itself. The spacecraft protects
somewhat against lower energy particles, but others can propagate
through the structure unchanged or break down into secondary
particles."

After Curiosity landed on Mars in August, the RAD instrument continued
operating, measuring the radiation environment on the planet's
surface. RAD data collected during Curiosity's science mission will
continue to inform plans to protect astronauts as NASA designs future
missions to Mars in the coming decades.

SwRI, together with Christian Albrechts University in Kiel, Germany,
built RAD with funding from NASA's Human Exploration and Operations
Mission Directorate and Germany's national aerospace research center,
Deutsches Zentrum fur Luft- und Raumfahrt.

NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a division of the California
Institute of Technology in Pasadena, Calif., manages the Mars Science
Laboratory Project. The NASA Science Mission Directorate at NASA
Headquarters in Washington manages the Mars Exploration Program.

For more information about the findings and the Mars Science
Laboratory mission, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/msl

For more information about NASA human spaceflight and exploration,
visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration

-end-


--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...k_3105131.html

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members
of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded
with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On May 31, 10:46*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...tweigh_Fukushi...

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.Ads not by this site

If that were so why is the area still depopulated?
Just the nuclear industry propaganda trying to cover it's arse and
retrieve the situation.
http://news.malaysia.msn.com/regiona...ns-fukushima-1

On May 31, 11:40*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
*Farmer Giles wrote:









On 31/05/2013 23:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...tweigh_Fukushi....
iat

ion_risk_3105131.html

And in the 1600s it was witches. I imagine harry would have ben there
with the best of them, lighting the logs under the "witch" because she
floated when they dunked her.

One thing we can always rely on with the nuclear lobby is their ability
to tell lies, and I bet the next one will be to tell us you've solved
the problem of what to do with the increasing amount of nuclear waste.

Unless, that is, you try the even bigger lie that there is no problem.

You're nodding off worse than harry. As was discussed on "The Life
Scientific" on R4 back on January sometime, waste from today's reactors
(and future ones) is a *solved * issue, and the small amount of high
level waste is converted to glass blocks and the like. This solution has
been in place and in use for 20 years.

The waste from *bomb* production is another matter and is a problem. But
it will be a problem WHETHER OR NOT we build new reactors.

What I write here should be understandable even by you dimwits.

--
Tim

If it was a solution, why hasn't it been done?
Obviously, it is not a solution. The truth is they still haven't a
clue what to do with all this waste.

As I have pointed out any solution is going to cost billions and may
fail and all the work undone and another solution attempted.

As someone else pointed out, there have been so many lies and coverups
in the past, no-one trusts the *******s any more.

On Jun 1, 3:30*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 31/05/13 23:32, Farmer Giles wrote:







On 31/05/2013 23:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...tweigh_Fukushi....

ion_risk_3105131.html

And in the 1600s it was witches. I imagine harry would have ben there
with the best of them, lighting the logs under the "witch" because she
floated when they dunked her.

One thing we can always rely on with the nuclear lobby is their
ability to tell lies, and I bet the next one will be to tell us you've
solved the problem of what to do with the increasing amount of nuclear
waste.

Unless, that is, you try the even bigger lie that there is no problem.

Of course if you start from bigotry, everything proves the case. No one
died after Chernobyl? Obviously its being covered up...


You are a lying toad TurNiP' Full of ****. Are you in the pay of
someone?
Thirty one people died shorty after the disaster and many more will
die.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects

As usual the disaster was not reported it was covered up.
Evacuation did not start until 36 hours after the disaster.
(Ha Ha As if they thought they could deny it! But it was the
instinctive response of the nuclear industry. Denial),
It was detected in Sweden first, they thought they had a leak in
their own reactors

On Jun 1, 3:32*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 31/05/13 23:33, Brian Gaff wrote: But this is not smoke and mirrors this has a potential danger after all.
* Brian

What potential danger would that be then?

You will trip and break your neck falling off Hay Tor in a panic
because you discover *its more radioactive than the Fukushima exclusions
zone?



The predicted number of people to die is 4000 due to the Chernobyl
disaster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob...l_Forum_report

On 31/05/2013 23:40, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Farmer Giles wrote:

On 31/05/2013 23:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS..._Fukushima_rad

iat

ion_risk_3105131.html

And in the 1600s it was witches. I imagine harry would have ben there
with the best of them, lighting the logs under the "witch" because she
floated when they dunked her.


One thing we can always rely on with the nuclear lobby is their
ability to tell lies, and I bet the next one will be to tell us you've
solved the problem of what to do with the increasing amount of nuclear
waste.

Unless, that is, you try the even bigger lie that there is no problem.

You're nodding off worse than harry. As was discussed on "The Life
Scientific" on R4 back on January sometime, waste from today's reactors
(and future ones) is a *solved * issue, and the small amount of high
level waste is converted to glass blocks and the like. This solution has
been in place and in use for 20 years.

The waste from *bomb* production is another matter and is a problem. But
it will be a problem WHETHER OR NOT we build new reactors.

What I write here should be understandable even by you dimwits.


Yep, just as I thought, more lies.

If it's all so simple perhaps you could advise Sellafield, they seem to
be having a spot of bother.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21298117#

In article
..com, harry scribeth thus
On Jun 1, 3:32*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 31/05/13 23:33, Brian Gaff wrote: But this is not smoke and mirrors this
has a potential danger after all.
* Brian

What potential danger would that be then?

You will trip and break your neck falling off Hay Tor in a panic
because you discover *its more radioactive than the Fukushima exclusions
zone?



The predicted number of people to die is 4000 due to the Chernobyl
disaster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob...l_Forum_report

I expect thats less than what the death rate is on Russia's roads for a
week!;!.

Nothing quite like Ivan with a drop of pop toi warm him up;!(....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C_yVh-OqYw


--
Tony Sayer

On 01/06/2013 07:26, harry wrote:
On Jun 1, 3:32 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 31/05/13 23:33, Brian Gaff wrote: But this is not smoke and mirrors this has a potential danger after all.
Brian

What potential danger would that be then?

You will trip and break your neck falling off Hay Tor in a panic
because you discover its more radioactive than the Fukushima exclusions
zone?



The predicted number of people to die is 4000 due to the Chernobyl
disaster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob...l_Forum_report


It is predicted that *up to* 4000 people will die or suffer early deaths
as a result of the radiation. However:

Known deaths that can be directly attributed to radiation are 47
emergency workers who died of acute radiation syndrome and 9 children
who died of thyroid cancer. The latter could have been avoided had the
Soviet authorities admitted to the accident sooner and distributed
iodine tablets immediately. There has been no statistically significant
change in the number of cancer deaths in the area to support the estimate.

The estimate is based upon the linear no-threshold model, which is
always used because it gives the worst possible case. However;

The French Academy of Science report in 2005 states: 'In conclusion,
this report raises doubts on the validity of using LNT for evaluating
the carcinogenic risk of low doses ( 100 mSv) and even more for very
low doses ( 10 mSv)'

The Health Physics Society's position stated in 1996 and restated in
2010 is: 'In accordance with current knowledge of radiation health
risks, the Health Physics Society recommends against quantitative
estimation of health risks below an individual dose of 5 rem (50 mSv) in
one year or a lifetime dose of 10 rem (100 mSv) above that received from
natural sources.'

The American Nuclear Society states: 'There is substantial and
convincing scientific evidence for health risks at high dose. Below 10
rem or 100 mSv (which includes occupational and environmental exposures)
risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are
non-existent.'

Taking 100mSv as the threshold will approximately halve the number in
the estimate, as it will only leave the 2,200 early deaths that might
occur among the liquidators, who are estimated to have received doses
averaging around 165mSv. Even those are far from certain. Note that
'early death' includes a fairly high proportion who are statistically
likely to lose a few months off their lives, rather than years.

The same WHO report also found that 'Poverty, “lifestyle” diseases now
rampant in the former Soviet Union and mental health problems pose a far
greater threat to local communities than does radiation exposure.' and
'Persistent myths and misperceptions about the threat of radiation have
resulted in “paralyzing fatalism” among residents of affected areas.' In
other words, the fear of radiation is far worse than the radiation itself.

Even including 4,000 deaths from Chernobyl, a one off event that was due
to a design flaw that will never be repeated, nuclear energy is still
the safest form of energy generation by far.

Colin Bignell

On 01/06/2013 07:04, harry wrote:
....
As usual the disaster was not reported it was covered up.
Evacuation did not start until 36 hours after the disaster.
(Ha Ha As if they thought they could deny it! But it was the
instinctive response of the nuclear industry. Denial),...

It was the instinctive response of people who had grown up under Stalin.
Even under Gorbachov, both the Chief Engineer and the Plant Director
were sentenced to labour camps.

Colin Bignell

On 01/06/13 05:45, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well what I mean is that ground water at the moment is being affected by
the melted down core. No say the authorities, there is just not enough
radiation where the ground water is..

which is essentially correct.

Well they would say that of course. You also have to remember that Japan
has still very much to fear from radiation and some families are still
blighted by what happened at the end of the wr.

Odd that outside France, Japan is the most 'nuclear' electricity
industry in the world IIRC.

And the post Hirsohima and Nagasaki figures are also a nail in the
coffin of 'long term low level radiation gives you cancer'

If you want to believe that there is some vast global conspiracy to
conceal deaths from radiation, be my guest.

There is FAR more evidence for a vast global conspiracy to demonise
nuclear power...

Brian



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 01/06/13 06:44, harry wrote:
On May 31, 10:46 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...tweigh_Fukushi...

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.Ads not by this site
If that were so why is the area still depopulated?

because the authorities pander to people like you harry.

Just the nuclear industry propaganda trying to cover it's arse and
retrieve the situation.
http://news.malaysia.msn.com/regiona...ns-fukushima-1
More ;lefty ********.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 01/06/13 07:04, harry wrote:
On Jun 1, 3:30 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 31/05/13 23:32, Farmer Giles wrote:







On 31/05/2013 23:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...tweigh_Fukushi...
ion_risk_3105131.html
And in the 1600s it was witches. I imagine harry would have ben there
with the best of them, lighting the logs under the "witch" because she
floated when they dunked her.
One thing we can always rely on with the nuclear lobby is their
ability to tell lies, and I bet the next one will be to tell us you've
solved the problem of what to do with the increasing amount of nuclear
waste.
Unless, that is, you try the even bigger lie that there is no problem.
Of course if you start from bigotry, everything proves the case. No one
died after Chernobyl? Obviously its being covered up...

You are a lying toad TurNiP' Full of ****. Are you in the pay of
someone?
Thirty one people died shorty after the disaster and many more will
die.

78 people have died. Thatsit. over 100,000 were preduicted/.

http:

The same people who write global warmning ****e in wiki write anti
nuclear ****e.

Show me the hundred thousand corpses harry.

The final chernobyl death toll is 78 confirmed deaths from radiation.
Mostly firefighters.
The AVERAGE radiation level in Pripyat is similar to Dartmoor.
As usual the disaster was not reported it was covered up.

oh harry can i sell you a tinfoil hat?

Even the russians cant cover up 100,000 + deaths spread out across NW
Europe.


Evacuation did not start until 36 hours after the disaster.
(Ha Ha As if they thought they could deny it! But it was the
instinctive response of the nuclear industry. Denial),
It was detected in Sweden first, they thought they had a leak in
their own reactors

And that's why 3000 non fatal thyroid cancers were caused. No iodine
pills and no temporary evacuation. However I-131 is gone in weeks.




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 01/06/13 07:26, harry wrote:
On Jun 1, 3:32 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 31/05/13 23:33, Brian Gaff wrote: But this is not smoke and mirrors this has a potential danger after all.
Brian
What potential danger would that be then?

You will trip and break your neck falling off Hay Tor in a panic
because you discover its more radioactive than the Fukushima exclusions
zone?


The predicted number of people to die is 4000 due to the Chernobyl
disaster.

Show me the corpses.

wiki is biassed in this area. That's a prediction. Not a fact. And its
based on a debunked model. Now decades later, show me the corpses. They
don't show up in ANY statistics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob...l_Forum_report


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 01/06/13 08:07, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 31/05/2013 23:40, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Farmer Giles wrote:

On 31/05/2013 23:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS..._Fukushima_rad


iat

ion_risk_3105131.html

And in the 1600s it was witches. I imagine harry would have ben there
with the best of them, lighting the logs under the "witch" because
she
floated when they dunked her.


One thing we can always rely on with the nuclear lobby is their
ability to tell lies, and I bet the next one will be to tell us you've
solved the problem of what to do with the increasing amount of nuclear
waste.

Unless, that is, you try the even bigger lie that there is no problem.

You're nodding off worse than harry. As was discussed on "The Life
Scientific" on R4 back on January sometime, waste from today's reactors
(and future ones) is a *solved * issue, and the small amount of high
level waste is converted to glass blocks and the like. This solution has
been in place and in use for 20 years.

The waste from *bomb* production is another matter and is a problem. But
it will be a problem WHETHER OR NOT we build new reactors.

What I write here should be understandable even by you dimwits.


Yep, just as I thought, more lies.

If it's all so simple perhaps you could advise Sellafield, they seem
to be having a spot of bother.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21298117#


1/. That is a legacy from the bomb era.
2/. That is the BBC, chief organ of the "we love windmills/hate
nuclear" lobby.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 08:07:45 +0100, Farmer Giles wrote:

If it's all so simple perhaps you could advise Sellafield, they seem to
be having a spot of bother.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21298117#

The problem at Sellafield is mainly of the making of succesive
governments giving into the fing greenie lobby and not getting on
with the hard decisions that need to made as consequence of previous
governmental decisions, like making material for bombs.

On the repository, they went about that arse about face find some
where that may host it and hope they could find the correct geology
there. Rather than look for the geology, then build it. The goverment
seem quite happy to bash HS2 through the countryside...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 01/06/13 11:58, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar wrote:

On 01/06/2013 07:26, harry wrote:
On Jun 1, 3:32 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 31/05/13 23:33, Brian Gaff wrote: But this is not smoke and
mirrors this has a potential danger after all.

What potential danger would that be then?

You will trip and break your neck falling off Hay Tor in a panic
because you discover its more radioactive than the Fukushima
exclusions
zone?

The predicted number of people to die is 4000 due to the Chernobyl
disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob...byl_Forum_repo
rt

It is predicted that *up to* 4000 people will die or suffer early
deaths as a result of the radiation. However:

[snip analysis]

In short, harry cherry-picks a quote without having a ****ing clue
what he's talking about.

Standard tactics of bigots.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 01.06.2013 00:40, Tim Streater wrote:
What I write here should be understandable even by you dimwits.

Those who want to know more about radiation should buy this book:
http://www.radiationandreason.com/index.php?faq
Why is radiation not dangerous at low doses?

Biology is very clever. Through evolution it has learnt to repair and
clean up after a low dose of radiation, using the same mechanisms
that protect against chemical damage to cells. This is known from
laboratory studies.
--
jo
"We should never so entirely avoid danger as to appear
irresolute and cowardly. But, at the same time, we should
avoid unnecessarily exposing ourselves to danger, than
which nothing can be more foolish. [Cicero]"

On 01/06/2013 15:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 15:18:04 +0200, Jo Stein
wrote:

On 01.06.2013 00:40, Tim Streater wrote:
What I write here should be understandable even by you dimwits.

Those who want to know more about radiation should buy this book:
http://www.radiationandreason.com/index.php?faq
Why is radiation not dangerous at low doses?

Biology is very clever. Through evolution it has learnt to repair and
clean up after a low dose of radiation, using the same mechanisms
that protect against chemical damage to cells. This is known from
laboratory studies.

+1

Wade Allison makes a very credible, science based argument for
re-assessing the current safety levels for human radiation exposure.
These were set decades ago, when little was known about the effects of
exposure to low levels of radiation, and the Linear No-Threshold (LNT)
model was assumed, to be on the safe side. The evidence against the
LNT model is now substantial, with plenty of examples proving that the
human body is quite capable of tolerating and repairing any damage
done by radiation doses about a thousand times higher than the current
safety limits.

See also http://www.radiationandreason.com/

Get a copy and read it, Harry! (I bet you won't).

And as I have pointed out before, lower doses might be worse than
slightly higher ones. This has been one of the lessons of radio-active
iodine ablation of thyroid glands. Never as simple as it first seems.

--
Rod

On 01/06/2013 11:16, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

On May 31, 11:40 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Farmer Giles wrote:

On 31/05/2013 23:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...tweigh_Fukushi...

iat

ion_risk_3105131.html

And in the 1600s it was witches. I imagine harry would have ben
there
with the best of them, lighting the logs under the "witch"
because she
floated when they dunked her.

One thing we can always rely on with the nuclear lobby is their
ability
to tell lies, and I bet the next one will be to tell us you've solved
the problem of what to do with the increasing amount of nuclear
waste.

Unless, that is, you try the even bigger lie that there is no
problem.

You're nodding off worse than harry. As was discussed on "The Life
Scientific" on R4 back on January sometime, waste from today's reactors
(and future ones) is a *solved * issue, and the small amount of high
level waste is converted to glass blocks and the like. This solution
has
been in place and in use for 20 years.

The waste from *bomb* production is another matter and is a problem.
But
it will be a problem WHETHER OR NOT we build new reactors.

What I write here should be understandable even by you dimwits.

If it was a solution, why hasn't it been done?

What part of "This solution has been in place and in use for 20 years"
is hard for you to understand?

Obviously, it is not a solution. The truth is they still haven't a
clue what to do with all this waste.

As I have pointed out any solution is going to cost billions and may
fail and all the work undone and another solution attempted.

What part of "The waste from bomb production is another matter" is hard
for you to understand?

As someone else pointed out, there have been so many lies and coverups
in the past, no-one trusts the *******s any more.

No there haven't.

Looks like I was wrong. harry and Farmer Giles are thicker than even I
thought possible.

Right, so those who are not happy to see this toxic legacy passed on to
future generations are 'thick'? If that is the true definition, then I
happily plead guilty.

However, I think the quick resort to personal insults - as demonstrated
by you here - gives a much better indication of the inability to reason
logically and sensibly.

On 01.06.2013 17:29, polygonum wrote:

And as I have pointed out before, lower doses might be worse than
slightly higher ones. This has been one of the lessons of radio-active
iodine ablation of thyroid glands. Never as simple as it first seems.

It is very simple. A dose of 7 sievert during 30 days will kill 50% of
rats. A dose of 8 sievert will kill all the rats. When the dose is 3.5
sievert more than 99% of the rats are still alive.

Some people study theology. They get a job as a priest with salary from
the government. If the priest one day discover that there is no God, he
may have a problem. I think he solves the problem by continuing his job
as a priest.

Some people study environmental physics. They get a job in a radiation
protection agency with their salary paid by the government. One day they
discover that the LNT theory is wrong. I think they continue their
job and do not talk loud about their new discovery.
--
jo
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its
way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the
false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just
as good as your knowledge.'" -- Isaac Asimov

On 01/06/13 16:59, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 01/06/2013 11:16, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

On May 31, 11:40 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Farmer Giles wrote:

On 31/05/2013 23:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...tweigh_Fukushi...


iat

ion_risk_3105131.html

And in the 1600s it was witches. I imagine harry would have ben
there
with the best of them, lighting the logs under the "witch"
because she
floated when they dunked her.

One thing we can always rely on with the nuclear lobby is their
ability
to tell lies, and I bet the next one will be to tell us you've
solved
the problem of what to do with the increasing amount of nuclear
waste.

Unless, that is, you try the even bigger lie that there is no
problem.

You're nodding off worse than harry. As was discussed on "The Life
Scientific" on R4 back on January sometime, waste from today's
reactors
(and future ones) is a *solved * issue, and the small amount of high
level waste is converted to glass blocks and the like. This solution
has
been in place and in use for 20 years.

The waste from *bomb* production is another matter and is a problem.
But
it will be a problem WHETHER OR NOT we build new reactors.

What I write here should be understandable even by you dimwits.

If it was a solution, why hasn't it been done?

What part of "This solution has been in place and in use for 20 years"
is hard for you to understand?

Obviously, it is not a solution. The truth is they still haven't a
clue what to do with all this waste.

As I have pointed out any solution is going to cost billions and may
fail and all the work undone and another solution attempted.

What part of "The waste from bomb production is another matter" is hard
for you to understand?

As someone else pointed out, there have been so many lies and coverups
in the past, no-one trusts the *******s any more.

No there haven't.

Looks like I was wrong. harry and Farmer Giles are thicker than even I
thought possible.

Right, so those who are not happy to see this toxic legacy

what toxic legacy?


passed on to future generations are 'thick'? If that is the true
definition, then I happily plead guilty.

However, I think the quick resort to personal insults - as
demonstrated by you here - gives a much better indication of the
inability to reason logically and sensibly.








--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 01/06/2013 17:09, Jo Stein wrote:
On 01.06.2013 17:29, polygonum wrote:

And as I have pointed out before, lower doses might be worse than
slightly higher ones. This has been one of the lessons of radio-active
iodine ablation of thyroid glands. Never as simple as it first seems.

It is very simple. A dose of 7 sievert during 30 days will kill 50% of
rats. A dose of 8 sievert will kill all the rats. When the dose is 3.5
sievert more than 99% of the rats are still alive.

Some people study theology. They get a job as a priest with salary from
the government. If the priest one day discover that there is no God, he
may have a problem. I think he solves the problem by continuing his job
as a priest.

Some people study environmental physics. They get a job in a radiation
protection agency with their salary paid by the government. One day they
discover that the LNT theory is wrong. I think they continue their
job and do not talk loud about their new discovery.

It is not so very simple. In the case of RAI attempts to reduce the dose
to the absolute minimum have been associated with increased harm to the
patients.


"Properly administered, radioactive iodine remains an ideal form of
treatment for Graves disease in the pediatric population. Because of
the increased risk of thyroid cancer associated with low-dose thyroid
irradiation in children, larger, rather than smaller, doses of 131I
should be given."

http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/92/3/797.long

--
Rod

On 01/06/2013 17:36, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Farmer Giles wrote:

On 01/06/2013 11:16, Tim Streater wrote:

Looks like I was wrong. harry and Farmer Giles are thicker than even I
thought possible.

Right, so those who are not happy to see this toxic legacy passed on
to future generations are 'thick'? If that is the true definition,
then I happily plead guilty.

What toxic legacy is that then?

1) Waste from power reactors. I've already pointed out a number of times
how that is being handled TODAY and has been so for the last 20 years.

The result of that process can safely be stored underground without
leakage. I fail to see how you can describe it as "toxic". Unless you're
in the habit of eating glass, perhaps.

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), terrorist attacks, etc?

These products will need to be stored for hundreds, if not thousands, of
years. They will be added to and added to, because no-one knows how to
detoxify them. Why are you so happy to see this problem handed down to
your children and grandchildren?



2) Waste from the bomb program of, presumably, the 50s and 60s or so.
This is a more serious problem which can probably only be handled by
spending money. The spending of this money will happen WHETHER OR NOT we
build new power reactors.

However, I think the quick resort to personal insults - as
demonstrated by you here - gives a much better indication of the
inability to reason logically and sensibly.

You'll get what you deserve.

As in disagreeing with you.

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.

These products will need to be stored for hundreds, if not thousands, of
years. They will be added to and added to, because no-one knows how to
detoxify them.

We have known how to do that for more than half a century. Storing them
is cheaper.

Colin Bignell

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?



These products will need to be stored for hundreds, if not thousands, of
years. They will be added to and added to, because no-one knows how to
detoxify them.

We have known how to do that for more than half a century. Storing them
is cheaper.

Really? I may be wrong, but my understanding is that we are no closer to
detoxifying nuclear wastes now than we were 70 years ago.

On 01/06/13 18:28, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 01/06/2013 17:36, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Farmer Giles wrote:

On 01/06/2013 11:16, Tim Streater wrote:

Looks like I was wrong. harry and Farmer Giles are thicker than
even I
thought possible.

Right, so those who are not happy to see this toxic legacy passed on
to future generations are 'thick'? If that is the true definition,
then I happily plead guilty.

What toxic legacy is that then?

1) Waste from power reactors. I've already pointed out a number of times
how that is being handled TODAY and has been so for the last 20 years.

The result of that process can safely be stored underground without
leakage. I fail to see how you can describe it as "toxic". Unless you're
in the habit of eating glass, perhaps.

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), terrorist attacks,
etc?

These products will need to be stored for hundreds, if not thousands,
of years. They will be added to and added to, because no-one knows how
to detoxify them. Why are you so happy to see this problem handed down
to your children and grandchildren?


shows how very little you understand about radioactivity.

What about - lets say - the mercury used in eco lightbulbs.

That will have to be stored forever. It never decays.




2) Waste from the bomb program of, presumably, the 50s and 60s or so.
This is a more serious problem which can probably only be handled by
spending money. The spending of this money will happen WHETHER OR NOT we
build new power reactors.

However, I think the quick resort to personal insults - as
demonstrated by you here - gives a much better indication of the
inability to reason logically and sensibly.

You'll get what you deserve.

As in disagreeing with you.




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

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.



These products will need to be stored for hundreds, if not
thousands, of
years. They will be added to and added to, because no-one knows how to
detoxify them.

We have known how to do that for more than half a century. Storing them
is cheaper.

Really? I may be wrong, but my understanding is that we are no closer
to detoxifying nuclear wastes now than we were 70 years ago.




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

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?

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.






These products will need to be stored for hundreds, if not
thousands, of
years. They will be added to and added to, because no-one knows how to
detoxify them.

We have known how to do that for more than half a century. Storing them
is cheaper.

Really? I may be wrong, but my understanding is that we are no closer
to detoxifying nuclear wastes now than we were 70 years ago.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/06/13 20:36, Farmer Giles wrote:


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.

just as well. The Lockerbie air crash only missed Chapelcross by a few
miles.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

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.

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.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On Jun 1, 8:36*pm, 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?



These products will need to be stored for hundreds, if not thousands, of
years. They will be added to and added to, because no-one knows how to
detoxify them.

We have known how to do that for more than half a century. Storing them
is cheaper.

Really? I may be wrong, but my understanding is that we are no closer to
detoxifying nuclear wastes now than we were 70 years ago.

You are exactly right. It's lack of political will that is the
problem.
There's a lot of people here living in the past. They think we can
carry on (irresponsibly) as before.

On Jun 1, 8:56*pm, The Natural Philosopher

Right, so those who are not happy to see this toxic legacy passed on
to future generations are 'thick'? If that is the true definition,
then I happily plead guilty.

What toxic legacy is that then?

1) Waste from power reactors. I've already pointed out a number of times
how that is being handled TODAY and has been so for the last 20 years.

The result of that process can safely be stored underground without
leakage. I fail to see how you can describe it as "toxic". Unless you're
in the habit of eating glass, perhaps.

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), terrorist attacks,
etc?

These products will need to be stored for hundreds, if not thousands,
of years. They will be added to and added to, because no-one knows how
to detoxify them. Why are you so happy to see this problem handed down
to your children and grandchildren?

shows how very little you understand about radioactivity.

What about - lets say - the mercury used in eco lightbulbs.

That will have to be stored forever. It never decays.

As usual you are full of crap as always. .The mercury from CFLs can
be recovered and reused and will always be useful.
The important thing is that defunct CFLs are disposed of properly Ie
in the recycle centre not just chucked away.

On Jun 1, 9:25*pm, 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?

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.









These products will need to be stored for hundreds, if not
thousands, of
years. They will be added to and added to, because no-one knows how to
detoxify them.

We have known how to do that for more than half a century. Storing them
is cheaper.

Really? I may be wrong, but my understanding is that we are no closer
to detoxifying nuclear wastes now than we were 70 years ago.

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.