Recent content by Caniche

Cheers for the colourful bit ,which fact do you refute? Espionage;forced labour or slavery?

Balance from the Telegraph , a novel idea. In the UK it is most commonly referred to as the Torygraph , who knows how such an impartial publication acquired such a reputation for bias

Hang about, failure to anticipate a statistically predictable regular occurrence is just stoopid,which is more than disappointing . I mean,the old guard even stuck marked rocks at the maximum height of previous inundations. "How were we to know?" "look there's a stone that tell's you"

:biggrin:That's a big bear pit ,and they keep falling in. Sad

Have no fear ,I'm sure that next time,just like last time ,we will have learned all the relevant lessons and the causes of disaster will be entirely new and totally unpredictable:redface:

Just how do you work out the cost of a statistically predictable catastrophic accident? Any loss adjusters out there?

Oh for the gift of seeing ourselves as others see us. Just a thought

Hmm ,more than a little disconcerting.

Worth a second look and more

Any updates on the levels of seawater contamination? The regular info seems to have dried up.

But that would hit profits and bonuses and dividends ,risky.

"human beings in general":smile:More like " oops there goes my performance related bonus" Unless I can shift this ****:biggrin:

Thermal cycling and high winds have been a constant worry for me:smile:

Again ,not really cos that is not how the insurance industry operates . The commonly held perception of shared risk does not impact upon the corporate manifest of profit/bonus/ dividend maximisation. So clearly "everyone " does not decide what insurance should cost,not quite "above board" is...

All fine and dandy ,but when a statistically predictable larger than average nuclear disaster occurs ,how do you tell the 1,000,000 victims this is acceptable?