They also compare their estimated activity level of 300,000 Bq/l with the limit set for liquids after treatment, 50 Bq/l.

The first report is actually totally unrelated: it was released just ahead of the incident by chance. It discusses their research into illegal/improper dumping of nuclear waste at the site. There is an earth mound on the site that is the apparent source of high radiation levels that hides nuclear waste from 1969-76, improperly (no groundwater shielding, defense against erosion), but it appeared in the national registry of nuclear waste only in 2002, with lacking detail, and the nuclear authority carries out no checks just trusts the owner.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

However, it wouldn't have to be much worse to become a major problem, one where a government would have difficulty putting the jhin back in the back. We know that, as the Finnish can agree, even with the best will in the world, governments cannot enusre that things are as they should be.

And when nuclear goes wrong, it is catastrophic.

And just cos the government pays, it still doesn't mean that dismantling and making safe is effectively costed into the current price of the electricity. Nasty legacy to leave for a civilisation that will probably be struggling with the post-oil mess we bequeath it.

So i'm just voincing my skepticism about the safety and economics.

keep to the Fen Causeway