We used this in our original illustration of the AP1000 reactor, to match the style of the "Toytown" depiction above.  
Presumably a style used by the developers to enable the capture of the hearts if not the minds of children.

Measured concentrations of Cs-137, tritium, Tc-99, Pu-239+240 and Am-241 in representative materials from the Irish Sea were investigated with reference to continuing remobilisation from sediments.

Long time series of monitoring data since the 1960s were employed.Cs-137 in sea water and fish shows peaks in concentrations normalised to discharge rate (NACs) from 1985 to 1989. This is consistent with the time needed for dispersion in sea water following the preceding reductions in discharges; continuing enhancements of NACs above pre-1970s levels follow, consistent with the effect of activity remobilised from sediment.

It is estimated that about 300 TBq of Cs-137 was remobilised from the immediate tidal area around Sellafield from 1989 to 2009.

The enhancements in concentrations continue to this day, with the effect of remobilisation at present being ~6 TBq y(-1), approximately doubling the effect of direct discharges.

To provide an indication for the future, the rate of Cs-137 remobilisation is decreasing with a half-time of ~6 years.   The data for tritium and Tc-99 were examined in view of the interest in these radionuclides. The concentrations broadly reflect the levels of discharges and the need for dispersion.

As expected, there is no evidence of sustained remobilisation of tritium, due to its mobility (or low Kd). The same lack of evidence was found to apply for Tc-99 despite known sorption of a small proportion of the discharged activity by Irish Sea sediments.Pu-239+240, by contrast, shows much evidence of the effect of remobilisation; concentrations in sea water near Sellafield have reduced much more slowly than discharges. At Southerness, ~50 km away, there was no significant reduction in sea water concentrations from 1985 to 1996, and winkles showed an increase then decrease in concentrations over this period, consistent with a spreading of activity. This effect was replicated in mud at Garlieston, ~70 km from Sellafield.For Am-241, the rate of grow-in from Pu-241 has dominated direct discharges since the late 1970s.

Grow-in continues today in the Irish Sea at the rate of ~8 TBq y(-1), ~200 times the rate of direct discharge. Winkles at Southerness show evidence of a spreading effect of Am-241, with an increase then decrease from 1985 to 1996.   At Garlieston there was an increase in concentrations in mud from 1985 to 1997, and at Carlingford in Northern Ireland the concentration of Am-241 in mud appears to be increasing still.   This effect of the spread of activity away from Sellafield may continue, at least in the near future.

"The depth to bedrock beneath the superficial deposits varies from 3m to 60m due to the presence of "channels" in the buried bedrock surface, probably representing pre-glacial valleys that were infilled with sediments during the Ice Age.   The main buried channel or valley lies to the north west of the site, roughly associated with the route of the River Ehen.   A side buried channel from this extends east to run under the Separation Area in the middle of the site.   These channel features are possibly partially aligned with faults or zones of weakness in the bedrock, and the top of the sandstone generally can be weathered and in place broken up."

"There is a mass of very hazardous [nuclear] waste onsite in storage conditions that are extraordinarily vulnerable, and in facilities that are well past their designated life."

"We’ve come a long way from the uncertain early months of 2017, when events unconnected with the Moorside Project caused NuGen’s parent companies to take a decision to leave the project, and sell the company. Now, the certainty increases by the day as Toshiba, NuGen and KEPCO move steadily towards concluding a deal which will see the South Korean utility become the shareholder of NuGen."

"The consortium behind the plans to build a giant 3.8GW nuclear power plant in Moorside in Cumbria was forced to defend the future of the £10bn project after the Japanese conglomerate said it would scale back its work outside of Japan after booking a 712.5bn yen (£5bn) writedown in its nuclear power business."

Nothing to do with us, guv, honest.   We've never met him.

In July 2012 a YouGov survey found that 63% of Britons supported the use of nuclear power, and only 22% opposed building new plants on brownfield sites.   Twice as many supported electricity market reform as opposed it (35% and 18% respectively) and interest in global warming was low – 59% compared with 72% in 2008.  A YouGov survey in October 2012 found that 40% of the 1734 people polled felt that the UK government should use more nuclear power than at present, up from 35% in November 2011.   Maintaining current levels was preferred by 21%, while 20% felt that there should be less nuclear power than at present (down from 27% in 2011). 54% of men, and only 26% of women, felt that there should be more nuclear.   Of women, 23% supported the status quo, 25% called for a reduction in nuclear and 25% were unsure. Apart from nuclear, 72% were in favour of increasing solar provision, 55% in favour of more wind farms, and 45% wanted less coal-fired generation.

Read Between the Lines

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) data for 2014 indicated only 15,500 direct jobs in nuclear power compared with 43,500 direct jobs in renewables –  i.e. renewable energy companies provided about  three times more direct jobs than nuclear.

This is important as a few large trade unions and the TUC use the jobs argument as their main reason for defending nuclear power.   These unions influence Labour Party policies.

Recently, the ONS published a new updated study “UK environmental accounts: Low carbon and renewable energy economy survey, final estimates: 2015”.

This study reveals that in 2015 the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) direct jobs in nuclear had declined to 12,400, while the number of FTE direct jobs in the renewable forms of electricity generation had increased to 48,900 – in total about four times more than in nuclear.   The disparity between them is increasing.

[Note:  These data are not printed physically in the report, but they are electronically.   Go to Figure 2 in the online version of the ONS report and place one’s cursor on the relevant bars of the histogram.   The revealed percentage figures can easily be converted to absolute numbers.]

In fact, the ONS figure for nuclear energy is inaccurate and misleading, as about 9,400 of the 12,400 nuclear workers do not produce electricity at all.   They are engaged at Sellafield in Cumbria, mostly in nuclear reprocessing.   The reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel is a filthy, dangerous, polluting and essentially useless activity which produces no electricity: instead, it consumes a great deal of it.   Reprocessing accounts for much of NDA’s annual operating bill of approximately £3 billion for which taxpayers pick up the tab.

Conclusion:  In round terms, in 2015 nuclear electricity generation provided about 3,000 direct jobs and the renewable electricity generation provided about 49,000 direct jobs, i.e. about 16 times more.