As the horrendous after-effects of the catastrophic earthquake and tsunami in Japan continues to unravel before our disbelieving eyes, the results of any nuclear meltdown still remain uncertain.

What is known is that radiation from Japan’s quake-stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant has reached harmful levels and the plant has been rocked by a third blast which appears to have damaged one of the reactors’ containment systems for the first time. If it is breached, there are fears of more serious radioactive leaks. Ten of thousands of people are believed to have suffered from radiation.

Four years ago on this blog, I asked if our government was reviewing the impact of rising sea levels caused by global warming to our nuclear power stations in the UK. This followed a study by the Flood Hazard Research Centre at Middlesex University which reported that nuclear power stations built along the coast in East Anglia were at risk of being flooded if sea levels rise as predicted. It concluded that the cost of defending the sites from significant sea level rises and storm surges would make them “economically unsustainable”.

Although only four sites were studied for the report, all our nuclear power stations are built around the coast because of the need for an isolated position and a plentiful supply of cooling water. Ultimately, it means they could all be at risk of flooding. This was the second report in 2007 year to warn of a nuclear flood risk, with the Met Office predicting that North Sea surge levels at Sizewell could rise by 1.7 metres by the end of the century.

So I repeat the same question I asked four years ago, how has this been impacted into the government’s future plans for nuclear power? How seriously will it heed these warnings? Has it commissioned its own study to investigate this threat which scientists are warning about too?

*Update: The European Union energy chief  has decided to apply stress tests to see how its 143 nuclear plants in the European Union would react in emergencies.