>But Peter Bird, a geologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, doesn’t trust the PG&E report’s findings. [...] "I believe it’s biased,” said Bird.
>“The worst situation you can have is a thrust fault that would be directly under the plant at a shallow depth,” [...]. “In my best professional judgement, I would expect that there probably is a major thrust fault right along the coast, right next to the plant.”
While he believes PG&E's assessment is "biased", he has no problem with using "professional judgement" to "expect" there is "probably" the worst case scenario here. That is just as biased. I mean, why would the "worst case" exist at precisely this one location along the 850-mile California coast? And unlike Fukushima, Diablo Canyon is sufficiently elevated to not be affected by 13-meter tsunami waves.
>“The worst situation you can have is a thrust fault that would be directly under the plant at a shallow depth,” [...]. “In my best professional judgement, I would expect that there probably is a major thrust fault right along the coast, right next to the plant.”
While he believes PG&E's assessment is "biased", he has no problem with using "professional judgement" to "expect" there is "probably" the worst case scenario here. That is just as biased. I mean, why would the "worst case" exist at precisely this one location along the 850-mile California coast? And unlike Fukushima, Diablo Canyon is sufficiently elevated to not be affected by 13-meter tsunami waves.