posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:09 PM
Originally posted by cosmicpixie
PS) Your thread title has changed ? I think your previous one might have eventually gotten this thread more attention
I'd like to think you're right, but I got the impression a non-sensational thread title was going to quickly drop down the page and no-one would
read the link, so I changed it
I'm not qualified to say what the UK Chief Scientist and his coeagues has said is correct or not, but my money on it not being far off the mark.
Though circumstances may of course change. I certainly don't think the situation is going to end up anything like as serious as Chernobyl. Of which
I was directly affected.
As an aside, I also find it sad there's been little attention given to the fact that these 40 year old reactors withstood an earthquake thousands of
times stronger than they had been built to survive. It was simply the incredible bad luck of the tsunami knocking out the diesel generators - and
surrounding infrastructure making it impossible to get spares in quickly - that did for them. If the earthquake had been under land, they'd have