@ Muscleguy II
I'm with the other guy who said you're missing the point.
I have worked for the Nuclear Authorities and so have had first hand experience with the abuse of the term "leaks". A "leak" was always classified as simply a movement of material that "might" be radioactive to ANY degree that did not occur when it was supposed to, regardless of whether it was authorised or not.
This means that technically a pot of water that had tritium (or something equally banal in these terms) that was moved from one area to another an hour later than it was supposed to, is, technically, a "leak".
Only on the serious "definitely screwed up" scenarios was any "quantitive" feedback required, so on such a pathetic amount like this that is WELL within Enviro Agencies guidlines, no quantitive reporting was required. Nothing to do with hiding stuff, nothing to do with attitudes and "familiartiy" nor contempt. It simply was unecessary.
What Lewis is getting at (it seems to me) is not the pro-CND/Greenpeace politcal nonsense of "If SEPA ran the place they'd shut it down", which as one commenter pointed out is NOT what they said, but the grossly hysterical over reaction of pretend journos (I say pretend because a real journo is supposed to be objective) and, as I see it, a deliberate corruption of the facts.
Thank you Lewis for providing a sensible scale to this.
It is bad enough we have a govt who desperately tries to tell us to be scared of everything, I don't need unqualified f**kwit journalists telling me to be frightened , just because he hasn't a f**king clue and is scared of his own shadow. I especially don't need unqualified f**kwit journos with a grossly disproportinate bias to be telling me this.