'Nuclear repository is a threat to the Lakes'

The Westmorland Gazette: Bill Jefferson Bill Jefferson

A NATIONAL park boss claims plans for a nuclear waste dump beneath Cumbria would ‘damage the Lake District’s national and international brand image’.

Bill Jefferson, chairman of the Lake District National Park Authority (LDNPA), revealed his fear in a letter to the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Mr Jefferson, an Allerdale councillor, has been criticised by anti-nuclear cam-paigners for not opposing the nuclear storage proposal, currently under consultation by the West Cumbria Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MWRS) partnership, which includes the LDNPA.

But in a letter to DECC minister Baroness Verma of Leicester, he writes of ‘growing and increasingly widespread concerns’ over the repository plan.

Mr Jefferson claims that even ‘a perception of such a proposal would not be in the long term interests of the Lake District, its farming and resident communities and visitor economy’.

“Evidence suggests a potential risk to the Lake District’s brand image, and on communities that rely on this brand,” he said.

“While we do not know what precise impacts a repository under the national park would have on its special qualities, I am concerned such a proposal could adversely affect the Lake District’s national and inter-national standing, reputation and integrity, prejudicing the delivery of the authority’s vision to the detriment of the Cumbrian tourism economy.”

Anti-nuclear campaigner Marianne Birkby, of Radiation Free Lakeland, said she was not convinced by Mr Jefferson’s comments.

“This is a purely tactical move to try to save face while not actually changing their position. Bill Jefferson is from Silloth, an area which has angrily woken up to the reality that they are being eyed up for having the world’s nuclear waste be-neath them.

“Mr Jefferson is looking to appease his constituents and show ‘concern’ while actually toeing the line and going along with the plan.

“The only caveats in the letter are that the above surface facilities should not be in view from the national park and that the dump doesn’t interfere with the brand too much.

“We know the geology is wrong and the national park should say a strong and vehement ‘no’ now.”

Comments (30)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:48pm Fri 30 Nov 12

Gilly Fraser says...

Yes, we in the Silloth area have indeed 'angrily woken up' to this atrocious plan - leading scientists have spoken out against it, yet apparently our councillors are prepared to consider it. THINK AGAIN ALLERDALE!
Yes, we in the Silloth area have indeed 'angrily woken up' to this atrocious plan - leading scientists have spoken out against it, yet apparently our councillors are prepared to consider it. THINK AGAIN ALLERDALE! Gilly Fraser

1:48pm Fri 30 Nov 12

colandvanfull says...

not wanting to sound like nimby .i sugest they be told where to stick thier
SUPOSATORY.
If it were that good an idea to bury toxic waste in a big hole in the ground.
forget about it for six hundred years or so while they figure out what to do with an under ground nuclear waste mountain.
they won't mind putting it under the houses of parliment will they????
not wanting to sound like nimby .i sugest they be told where to stick thier SUPOSATORY. If it were that good an idea to bury toxic waste in a big hole in the ground. forget about it for six hundred years or so while they figure out what to do with an under ground nuclear waste mountain. they won't mind putting it under the houses of parliment will they???? colandvanfull

3:10pm Fri 30 Nov 12

marianneb says...

In Bill Jefferson's letter to DECC he concludes with:

"Although we remain wholly committed to working with the DMBs and other partners to
improve our collective understanding of the facts, I believe that it is important
that partners and other interested organisations understand these concerns and our
starting position if any decision is taken to proceed to Stage 4. I support the
on-going brand management work and stress its importance. I also reiterate our
support for nuclear new build at Sellafield whilst re-emphasising that attention
must be given to the rapid improvement
of the current storage facilities"

So the National Park remain committed to the government agenda and have merely stated "concerns" with detriment to the "brand" image of Lakeland. They acknowledge that the industry has neglected to look after the existing waste safely but bizarrely the National Park is prepared to go way beyond its remit and SUPPORTS dangerous new build and the production of even more dangerous new waste which would require cooling with our fragile freshwater resource for over 150 years.

When asked where the fresh water would come from to cool additional wastes, the NDA said that was the developer's responsibility.
In Bill Jefferson's letter to DECC he concludes with: "Although we remain wholly committed to working with the DMBs and other partners to improve our collective understanding of the facts, I believe that it is important that partners and other interested organisations understand these concerns and our starting position if any decision is taken to proceed to Stage 4. I support the on-going brand management work and stress its importance. I also reiterate our support for nuclear new build at Sellafield whilst re-emphasising that attention must be given to the rapid improvement of the current storage facilities" So the National Park remain committed to the government agenda and have merely stated "concerns" with detriment to the "brand" image of Lakeland. They acknowledge that the industry has neglected to look after the existing waste safely but bizarrely the National Park is prepared to go way beyond its remit and SUPPORTS dangerous new build and the production of even more dangerous new waste which would require cooling with our fragile freshwater resource for over 150 years. When asked where the fresh water would come from to cool additional wastes, the NDA said that was the developer's responsibility. marianneb

6:37pm Fri 30 Nov 12

Footewalker says...

For a county so dependent on tourism of a green nature, I can't understand why spoiling through offshore wind farms and this waste dump are even considered. Furthermore wasn't there a minor earthquake in the vicinity yesterday and a rather larger one in the Ulverston area a couple of years ago?
For a county so dependent on tourism of a green nature, I can't understand why spoiling through offshore wind farms and this waste dump are even considered. Furthermore wasn't there a minor earthquake in the vicinity yesterday and a rather larger one in the Ulverston area a couple of years ago? Footewalker

8:48pm Fri 30 Nov 12

Ursula B says...

Many people in the Lakes are totally against a repository in Cumbria. This must never happen, for the future of this area and future generations.
Can you tell me who actually supports this and have they totally lost their minds?
We must all become personally responsible for using less power by laws from the Government. That is the only way we can be sustainable in the future.
Many people in the Lakes are totally against a repository in Cumbria. This must never happen, for the future of this area and future generations. Can you tell me who actually supports this and have they totally lost their minds? We must all become personally responsible for using less power by laws from the Government. That is the only way we can be sustainable in the future. Ursula B

8:50pm Fri 30 Nov 12

Ursula B says...

colandvanfull wrote:
not wanting to sound like nimby .i sugest they be told where to stick thier
SUPOSATORY.
If it were that good an idea to bury toxic waste in a big hole in the ground.
forget about it for six hundred years or so while they figure out what to do with an under ground nuclear waste mountain.
they won't mind putting it under the houses of parliment will they????
Totally agree with colandvanfull.
[quote][p][bold]colandvanfull[/bold] wrote: not wanting to sound like nimby .i sugest they be told where to stick thier SUPOSATORY. If it were that good an idea to bury toxic waste in a big hole in the ground. forget about it for six hundred years or so while they figure out what to do with an under ground nuclear waste mountain. they won't mind putting it under the houses of parliment will they????[/p][/quote]Totally agree with colandvanfull. Ursula B

9:01pm Fri 30 Nov 12

onelocal says...

Ursula B wrote:
Many people in the Lakes are totally against a repository in Cumbria. This must never happen, for the future of this area and future generations.
Can you tell me who actually supports this and have they totally lost their minds?
We must all become personally responsible for using less power by laws from the Government. That is the only way we can be sustainable in the future.
Any suggestions as to what to do with the waste? Better sealed underground than on the surface.
[quote][p][bold]Ursula B[/bold] wrote: Many people in the Lakes are totally against a repository in Cumbria. This must never happen, for the future of this area and future generations. Can you tell me who actually supports this and have they totally lost their minds? We must all become personally responsible for using less power by laws from the Government. That is the only way we can be sustainable in the future.[/p][/quote]Any suggestions as to what to do with the waste? Better sealed underground than on the surface. onelocal

2:23pm Sat 1 Dec 12

hemyfan says...

"onelocal"; an underground dump may be the only answer but time and money is still being wasted on discredited but politically convenient west cumbria options . This link explains in convincing detail one option that is still on the table but should have been dismissed ages ago.
http://www.davidsmyt
he.org/nuclear/enner
dale%2031oct12.pdf
"onelocal"; an underground dump may be the only answer but time and money is still being wasted on discredited but politically convenient west cumbria options . This link explains in convincing detail one option that is still on the table but should have been dismissed ages ago. http://www.davidsmyt he.org/nuclear/enner dale%2031oct12.pdf hemyfan

6:35pm Sat 1 Dec 12

dontdumpcumbria says...

Interesting comments. Cumbria is supposed to be volunteer community all decided by Copeland, Allerdale and Cumbria County Councils. This has been confirmed by an IPSO MORI opinion poll without any reference to the electorate.

Alarmingly, two professors of geology have publically stated that West Cumbria would be one of the worst places in the UK to bury nuclear waste. The is now an epetition on the Government petitions web site for those who like me understand that we Cumbrians are being duped by our elected representatives.

As to who did this you have to ask why Copeland Borough Council "volunteered" days after the MRWS white paper was introduced in 2008. - coincidentally, the leader of Copeland now gets an extra £6K/year for her "nuclear responsibilities".

I think Tim Farron is bang on the money when he calls for National Park members to be elected by residents from within the National Park. Had this been the case from the outset of this daft process then the National Park would have said a megaphone NO from the start.

As to why Silloth and Ennerdale are worried. It is because the Cumbria MRWS consultant geologist Dr Jeremy Dearlove confirmed the Mercia Mudstone Group and the Ennerdale and Eskdale Granites (the latter being within the National Park) could be worth further investigation. – Forthcoming advertorials will of course attempt to deny this but the Nuclear Decommissioning Authorities Repository director Alun Ellis in an email to me has not sought to deny this.
Interesting comments. Cumbria is supposed to be volunteer community all decided by Copeland, Allerdale and Cumbria County Councils. This has been confirmed by an IPSO MORI opinion poll without any reference to the electorate. Alarmingly, two professors of geology have publically stated that West Cumbria would be one of the worst places in the UK to bury nuclear waste. The is now an epetition on the Government petitions web site for those who like me understand that we Cumbrians are being duped by our elected representatives. As to who did this you have to ask why Copeland Borough Council "volunteered" days after the MRWS white paper was introduced in 2008. - coincidentally, the leader of Copeland now gets an extra £6K/year for her "nuclear responsibilities". I think Tim Farron is bang on the money when he calls for National Park members to be elected by residents from within the National Park. Had this been the case from the outset of this daft process then the National Park would have said a megaphone NO from the start. As to why Silloth and Ennerdale are worried. It is because the Cumbria MRWS consultant geologist Dr Jeremy Dearlove confirmed the Mercia Mudstone Group and the Ennerdale and Eskdale Granites (the latter being within the National Park) could be worth further investigation. – Forthcoming advertorials will of course attempt to deny this but the Nuclear Decommissioning Authorities Repository director Alun Ellis in an email to me has not sought to deny this. dontdumpcumbria

10:20am Sun 2 Dec 12

dontdumpcumbria says...

Government e petition is here http://epetitions.di
rect.gov.uk/departme
nts/7 currently at position no 2 on the DECC list.
Government e petition is here http://epetitions.di rect.gov.uk/departme nts/7 currently at position no 2 on the DECC list. dontdumpcumbria

10:34am Sun 2 Dec 12

marianneb says...

Radiation Free Lakeland also has an online petition, we Agree with the Rock Solid? Scientific review by Dr Helen Wallace that the science is not adequately advanced to dump nuclear waste underground ANYWHERE


The Petition
To Whom it May Concern,

The world is being told that the UK has a solution to the nuclear waste problem. 

The proposal is to bury hot radioactive waste in Lakeland's leaky geology in a hole(s) 1000m deep by 25km square.  

This is called Managing Radioactive Waste Safely and there is a timetable for first burial of waste deep under Lakeland by 2029.

The world is being told that a telephone poll shows Cumbrians are willing  volunteers for this "solution" to the nuclear waste problem.    

A majority of Cumbrian Parish and Town Councils have voted NO to the Dump.  We the undersigned agree and say end this process now.  
Radiation Free Lakeland also has an online petition, we Agree with the Rock Solid? Scientific review by Dr Helen Wallace that the science is not adequately advanced to dump nuclear waste underground ANYWHERE The Petition To Whom it May Concern, The world is being told that the UK has a solution to the nuclear waste problem.  The proposal is to bury hot radioactive waste in Lakeland's leaky geology in a hole(s) 1000m deep by 25km square.   This is called Managing Radioactive Waste Safely and there is a timetable for first burial of waste deep under Lakeland by 2029. The world is being told that a telephone poll shows Cumbrians are willing  volunteers for this "solution" to the nuclear waste problem.     A majority of Cumbrian Parish and Town Councils have voted NO to the Dump.  We the undersigned agree and say end this process now.   marianneb

10:35am Sun 2 Dec 12

marianneb says...

Radiation Free Lakeland Petition here
http://www.ipetition
s.com/petition/save-
lakeland-no-nukiller
-dump/
Radiation Free Lakeland Petition here http://www.ipetition s.com/petition/save- lakeland-no-nukiller -dump/ marianneb

11:13am Sun 2 Dec 12

marianneb says...

Contact Bill Jefferson, Chair of the LDNPA asking him to act on the National Park's concerns and write again to DECC with the LDNPA's strong opposition to going to Stage 4 of the geological disposal program in Cumbria. Anything less is meaningless and keeps the door open ...the door needs to be slammed shut!
Contact Bill Jefferson, Chair of the LDNPA asking him to act on the National Park's concerns and write again to DECC with the LDNPA's strong opposition to going to Stage 4 of the geological disposal program in Cumbria. Anything less is meaningless and keeps the door open ...the door needs to be slammed shut! marianneb

5:07pm Sun 2 Dec 12

blade stall says...

That is one absolutely collosal hole.... surely they should have started mining years ago then the stone extracted could have been used for all manner of road and infra structure projects.

As usual i know nothing of the background to this case but will stick my head above the parapit unarmed.. i have worked in the national park all my life and eeked a living from it... i am sick to death of masses of unelected pressure groups urging us to 'protect the lakes'.... a lovely pricipal to which i am an advocate... but protect it from whom???? what is the big deal... protecting things and preserving them while honourable will not put food on the table of the thousands of people in north west cumbria who rely on nuclear... where were all these objectors when our landscape was being blighted by wind turbines???

It appears that such projects in scandinavia have been a great successs and as a contributor earlier said what else do we do with the waste?? There is talk of preserving the lakeland brand?? All fine and well but a few b and bs and coffee shops are not REAL, well paid jobs. And what about the thousands of workers who will work on the store, fall in love with the area and return with their families. Ok so its not on my door step and if it was i may feel different but my gut feeling is start making some tough decisions, stop endless committees talking, and get digging. West cumbria is already desperately poor without nuclear it would cease to exist. All this talk of promoting tourism is honourable but west cumbria needs sustainable well paid jobs NOW.
That is one absolutely collosal hole.... surely they should have started mining years ago then the stone extracted could have been used for all manner of road and infra structure projects. As usual i know nothing of the background to this case but will stick my head above the parapit unarmed.. i have worked in the national park all my life and eeked a living from it... i am sick to death of masses of unelected pressure groups urging us to 'protect the lakes'.... a lovely pricipal to which i am an advocate... but protect it from whom???? what is the big deal... protecting things and preserving them while honourable will not put food on the table of the thousands of people in north west cumbria who rely on nuclear... where were all these objectors when our landscape was being blighted by wind turbines??? It appears that such projects in scandinavia have been a great successs and as a contributor earlier said what else do we do with the waste?? There is talk of preserving the lakeland brand?? All fine and well but a few b and bs and coffee shops are not REAL, well paid jobs. And what about the thousands of workers who will work on the store, fall in love with the area and return with their families. Ok so its not on my door step and if it was i may feel different but my gut feeling is start making some tough decisions, stop endless committees talking, and get digging. West cumbria is already desperately poor without nuclear it would cease to exist. All this talk of promoting tourism is honourable but west cumbria needs sustainable well paid jobs NOW. blade stall

6:40pm Sun 2 Dec 12

marianneb says...

Sustainable is not a word that can be applied to the nuclear industry...which is not a genuine wealth creator as every facet is underwritten by the taxpayer. No where in the world has buried high level waste in a custom built deep mine, areas have been dug like Yucca Mountain but abandoned before burial of waste because of the risks to water supplies. in Finland there is a big hole being dug in a remote area of granite bigger than the whole of Cumbria ...we have not got any such large areas of granite. I suspect the Scandinavians will come to the same conclusion as the Japanese and the Americans that geological dumping is just too dangerous.
Sustainable is not a word that can be applied to the nuclear industry...which is not a genuine wealth creator as every facet is underwritten by the taxpayer. No where in the world has buried high level waste in a custom built deep mine, areas have been dug like Yucca Mountain but abandoned before burial of waste because of the risks to water supplies. in Finland there is a big hole being dug in a remote area of granite bigger than the whole of Cumbria ...we have not got any such large areas of granite. I suspect the Scandinavians will come to the same conclusion as the Japanese and the Americans that geological dumping is just too dangerous. marianneb

6:42pm Sun 2 Dec 12

marianneb says...

there are more jobs in repacking the wastes into eternity than dumping them.
there are more jobs in repacking the wastes into eternity than dumping them. marianneb

7:04pm Sun 2 Dec 12

dontdumpcumbria says...

Suggest "blade stall" learns....15 years ago NIREX ( the then UK govt agency charged with nuclear waste responsibility disposal) investigated West Cumbria and found.. (after spending £400M of our money) that West Cumbria was unsuitable and their planning appeal was turned down by the Sec of State for the Environment.

Reason: - Geology was heavily fractured and therefore no good.

Has the geology changed in 15 years? NO.

The case for not proceeding is not a NIMBY one, it’s a safety case, pure and simple. It will though damage the Lake District Brand in any event.

One councillors in West Cumbria has publically stated he does'nt care what the rest of Cumbria thinks. – Draw your own conclusions from that.

Right as you are "blade" we need the nuclear industry and more so if we are to transition to a low carbon economy before climate change wreaks havoc on our environment. But you have to understand what the effects of a radioactive leakage from a sealed nuclear repository would be to future generations. Increased cancer rates, no farming, and some areas of Northern Britain being uninhabitable.

Very dangerous to stick head above parapet without knowledge. – Still at least you have admitted it above. Go and find out more and then come back and tell us what you have learned! And, by the way I belong to no Anti Nuclear group, or environmental group.

If Sellafield were made less dangerous ( as identified by the recent National Audit Committee) that would mean many more jobs for West Cumbrian’s, than building a fatally flawed geological disposal facility (GDF), no brand damage and no ticking time bomb for future generations of Cumbrians and much of Northern Britain.
Suggest "blade stall" learns....15 years ago NIREX ( the then UK govt agency charged with nuclear waste responsibility disposal) investigated West Cumbria and found.. (after spending £400M of our money) that West Cumbria was unsuitable and their planning appeal was turned down by the Sec of State for the Environment. Reason: - Geology was heavily fractured and therefore no good. Has the geology changed in 15 years? NO. The case for not proceeding is not a NIMBY one, it’s a safety case, pure and simple. It will though damage the Lake District Brand in any event. One councillors in West Cumbria has publically stated he does'nt care what the rest of Cumbria thinks. – Draw your own conclusions from that. Right as you are "blade" we need the nuclear industry and more so if we are to transition to a low carbon economy before climate change wreaks havoc on our environment. But you have to understand what the effects of a radioactive leakage from a sealed nuclear repository would be to future generations. Increased cancer rates, no farming, and some areas of Northern Britain being uninhabitable. Very dangerous to stick head above parapet without knowledge. – Still at least you have admitted it above. Go and find out more and then come back and tell us what you have learned! And, by the way I belong to no Anti Nuclear group, or environmental group. If Sellafield were made less dangerous ( as identified by the recent National Audit Committee) that would mean many more jobs for West Cumbrian’s, than building a fatally flawed geological disposal facility (GDF), no brand damage and no ticking time bomb for future generations of Cumbrians and much of Northern Britain. dontdumpcumbria

7:28pm Sun 2 Dec 12

blade stall says...

Very balanced post dont dump i enjoyed reading it precisely because i know nothing of the background to this case. Im making a broader point about being so tired of hearing debates/consultation
s/pressure groups etc... because im not qualified to debate the pros and cons of the storage facility, i just like seeing well executed decisions and well paid jobs. It appears from my little research on this that the geology is totally unsuitable for it so why are we hearing about it??? If its unsuitable that must be end of debate, surely?? Find somewhere else for it???

However if there is a suitable place in cumbria for it, by suitable i mean safe and viable, then id love to see the machines start digging and the pub tills ringing. If there isnt then why are people pushing for it??

As for brand damage i find that a desperately weak argument,, lets get real west cumbria although naturally beautiful is hardly defined by a vibrant tourism economy. Its hanging by a thread, and for what its worth i dont think the storage facility would damage that brand anyway.
Very balanced post dont dump i enjoyed reading it precisely because i know nothing of the background to this case. Im making a broader point about being so tired of hearing debates/consultation s/pressure groups etc... because im not qualified to debate the pros and cons of the storage facility, i just like seeing well executed decisions and well paid jobs. It appears from my little research on this that the geology is totally unsuitable for it so why are we hearing about it??? If its unsuitable that must be end of debate, surely?? Find somewhere else for it??? However if there is a suitable place in cumbria for it, by suitable i mean safe and viable, then id love to see the machines start digging and the pub tills ringing. If there isnt then why are people pushing for it?? As for brand damage i find that a desperately weak argument,, lets get real west cumbria although naturally beautiful is hardly defined by a vibrant tourism economy. Its hanging by a thread, and for what its worth i dont think the storage facility would damage that brand anyway. blade stall

7:53pm Sun 2 Dec 12

marianneb says...

1900 pre Sellafield

"Tour of the Lakes

Seascale –
the air is magnificent and its bracing and invigorating qualities are unequalled on the West Coast…..
There is one objection to Seascale as a holiday resort. The mixture of sea and mountain air creates an appetite that taxes the resources of a man of moderate means to allay. Some people perhaps, would regard this as a recommendation, since it is a sign of vigourous health. There are people who tire of attempting to discover the secret of what the ‘sad sea waves are saying.’ To such we recommend Seascale, for a walk or a drive inland speedily brings them into the wildest and romantic scenery that England can boast….Not that the waves at Seascale reveal much of sadness. They are rather frisky…even at times passionate..”
1900 pre Sellafield "Tour of the Lakes Seascale – the air is magnificent and its bracing and invigorating qualities are unequalled on the West Coast….. There is one objection to Seascale as a holiday resort. The mixture of sea and mountain air creates an appetite that taxes the resources of a man of moderate means to allay. Some people perhaps, would regard this as a recommendation, since it is a sign of vigourous health. There are people who tire of attempting to discover the secret of what the ‘sad sea waves are saying.’ To such we recommend Seascale, for a walk or a drive inland speedily brings them into the wildest and romantic scenery that England can boast….Not that the waves at Seascale reveal much of sadness. They are rather frisky…even at times passionate..” marianneb

7:59pm Sun 2 Dec 12

blade stall says...

Marianne i read your latest post with interest but but i cant put it into a relevant context.... re your earlier post i get it underground dumping is frighteneing stuff but what is the alternative???? We all like our lights on at night!!!
Marianne i read your latest post with interest but but i cant put it into a relevant context.... re your earlier post i get it underground dumping is frighteneing stuff but what is the alternative???? We all like our lights on at night!!! blade stall

8:01pm Sun 2 Dec 12

dontdumpcumbria says...

Your getting there Blade. Recently two professors of geology, David Smythe and Stuart Haszeldine gave two science based public presentations in West Cumbria - Very well attended to explain why all of West Cumbria is geologically unsuitable. Incidentally Professor Smythe worked for NIREX in the 1990’s on the West Cumbria site.

The reason as to why people are pushing for it is twofold:

1) The much needed new nuclear. You have to cost the supply chain from start to finish so that companies can be sure of costs from beginning to end. - End being disposal and or transmutation of harmful radionuclides. This will enable HMG to set a contract for difference price accurately and allow the investment into new nuclear with visibility on return on Investment.

2) As to why the Nuclear Industry in West Cumbria wants it is because ... to quote the Copeland MP Jamie Reed... "The benefits will be phenomenal" - That's the community benefits package (as yet undefined by central government) but probably in the region of several billon quid.

"Band damage a desperately weak argument”. Not so I’m afraid. If the Ennerdale Granite is selected ( an area identified by the MRWS consultant geologist) that’s the Lake District. - Suggest you ask the tourism operators in Keswick as to what they think? It’s all about international perceptions... Try telling a Japanese Tourist from Fukershima Datchi thinking of taking a vacation in the Lakes what he/she thinks?
Your getting there Blade. Recently two professors of geology, David Smythe and Stuart Haszeldine gave two science based public presentations in West Cumbria - Very well attended to explain why all of West Cumbria is geologically unsuitable. Incidentally Professor Smythe worked for NIREX in the 1990’s on the West Cumbria site. The reason as to why people are pushing for it is twofold: 1) The much needed new nuclear. You have to cost the supply chain from start to finish so that companies can be sure of costs from beginning to end. - End being disposal and or transmutation of harmful radionuclides. This will enable HMG to set a contract for difference price accurately and allow the investment into new nuclear with visibility on return on Investment. 2) As to why the Nuclear Industry in West Cumbria wants it is because ... to quote the Copeland MP Jamie Reed... "The benefits will be phenomenal" - That's the community benefits package (as yet undefined by central government) but probably in the region of several billon quid. "Band damage a desperately weak argument”. Not so I’m afraid. If the Ennerdale Granite is selected ( an area identified by the MRWS consultant geologist) that’s the Lake District. - Suggest you ask the tourism operators in Keswick as to what they think? It’s all about international perceptions... Try telling a Japanese Tourist from Fukershima Datchi thinking of taking a vacation in the Lakes what he/she thinks? dontdumpcumbria

8:10pm Sun 2 Dec 12

dontdumpcumbria says...

I think Marianne spelt it out Blade. Repackaging. I'd go further and suggest also an onsite bomb proof surface store designed for at least 100 years. Many in West Cumbria want this option.

Also who is to say that science won’t come up with the answers to render the stuff harmless within a couple of generations anyway? - There are already some interesting and emerging technologies under development.
If you’re going to bury Rad Waste then do as other nations have done. Firstly, identify the safe geological areas (West Cumbria isn't one) and then ask for volunteer communities. - It’s not rocket science; it’s called putting the horse before the cart, not the other way round! To paraphrase Bill Clinton..... "It’s the geology stupid"
I think Marianne spelt it out Blade. Repackaging. I'd go further and suggest also an onsite bomb proof surface store designed for at least 100 years. Many in West Cumbria want this option. Also who is to say that science won’t come up with the answers to render the stuff harmless within a couple of generations anyway? - There are already some interesting and emerging technologies under development. If you’re going to bury Rad Waste then do as other nations have done. Firstly, identify the safe geological areas (West Cumbria isn't one) and then ask for volunteer communities. - It’s not rocket science; it’s called putting the horse before the cart, not the other way round! To paraphrase Bill Clinton..... "It’s the geology stupid" dontdumpcumbria

8:20pm Sun 2 Dec 12

blade stall says...

Ive got you... thats what repackaging means... and yeah on my own micro scale i have often undertaken engineering work that years later technology has deemed unnecessary.

I saw the ennerdale proposal but thought it was an april fools joke being in the heart of the national park... i assumed it was nearer sellafield. Id just love to see a viable solution thats all it drives me mad how people endlessly talk about things and do nothing. Why cant we export it to finland!!!! Thank you for your comments i watched the two scientists on you tube!!!
Ive got you... thats what repackaging means... and yeah on my own micro scale i have often undertaken engineering work that years later technology has deemed unnecessary. I saw the ennerdale proposal but thought it was an april fools joke being in the heart of the national park... i assumed it was nearer sellafield. Id just love to see a viable solution thats all it drives me mad how people endlessly talk about things and do nothing. Why cant we export it to finland!!!! Thank you for your comments i watched the two scientists on you tube!!! blade stall

8:31pm Sun 2 Dec 12

dontdumpcumbria says...

Happy to help blade.
Happy to help blade. dontdumpcumbria

9:59pm Sun 2 Dec 12

OnSiteGeologist says...

The letter from Councillor Jefferson, helpfully raises the issue of radioactive waste disposal beneath the Lake District Park. Gases and water from such a repository can leak to the surface within the Park. Do we want this ? Readers may wish to discover more on the potential landscape damage and the compelling arguements against this crazy scheme should look at

http://groupspaces.c
om/SPAND/

and

http://www.davidsmyt
he.org/nuclear/nucle
ar.htm

This wilful ignoring of the scientific facts, and Plan to industrialise an dumps ite under our most treasured National Park would never be considered in other European nations. Why us?
The letter from Councillor Jefferson, helpfully raises the issue of radioactive waste disposal beneath the Lake District Park. Gases and water from such a repository can leak to the surface within the Park. Do we want this ? Readers may wish to discover more on the potential landscape damage and the compelling arguements against this crazy scheme should look at http://groupspaces.c om/SPAND/ and http://www.davidsmyt he.org/nuclear/nucle ar.htm This wilful ignoring of the scientific facts, and Plan to industrialise an dumps ite under our most treasured National Park would never be considered in other European nations. Why us? OnSiteGeologist

10:30pm Sun 2 Dec 12

marianneb says...

The science doesn't stack up even in "perfect" geological conditions .. For the teccys
http://www.stralsake
rhetsmyndigheten.se/
Global/Publikationer
/Rapport/Avfall-tran
sport-fysiskt-skydd/
2012/SSM-Rapport-201
2-11.pdf
The science doesn't stack up even in "perfect" geological conditions .. For the teccys http://www.stralsake rhetsmyndigheten.se/ Global/Publikationer /Rapport/Avfall-tran sport-fysiskt-skydd/ 2012/SSM-Rapport-201 2-11.pdf marianneb

10:13am Mon 3 Dec 12

marianneb says...

From the above Swedish Radiation Safety Authority report...  It has known that the canister temperature will be high enough to evaporate adjacent groundwater and hence the canister will be in contact with steam for much of the resaturation period. If this condition exists, then the canister will suffer low pressure steam corrosion, which is a form of atmospheric corrosion. In order to assess whether this scenario is likely, it will be necessary to estimate the pressure in the repository, which is located 500m below the surface and to investigate the phenomenon experimentally.
 There is lack of information about the steam corrosion of pure copper in the available literature. Therefore, some experimental needs to be performed, in order to address the corrosion mechanism and rate of copper canister corrosion in contact with steam.
From the above Swedish Radiation Safety Authority report...  It has known that the canister temperature will be high enough to evaporate adjacent groundwater and hence the canister will be in contact with steam for much of the resaturation period. If this condition exists, then the canister will suffer low pressure steam corrosion, which is a form of atmospheric corrosion. In order to assess whether this scenario is likely, it will be necessary to estimate the pressure in the repository, which is located 500m below the surface and to investigate the phenomenon experimentally.  There is lack of information about the steam corrosion of pure copper in the available literature. Therefore, some experimental needs to be performed, in order to address the corrosion mechanism and rate of copper canister corrosion in contact with steam. marianneb

8:45pm Mon 3 Dec 12

marianneb says...

Graphic novel sent to LDNPA ..... http://www.blurb.co.
uk/books/3822161
Graphic novel sent to LDNPA ..... http://www.blurb.co. uk/books/3822161 marianneb

11:06am Tue 4 Dec 12

ukmann says...

I can only wonder why there isn't half the amount of opposition against the Nuclear power station itself. I would rather see a thousand wind turbines spread across the Lakes as have one Atomic reactor there. If there was ever any major problem at Selafield, the whole of the lakes would be a no go area. A few thousand canisters full of radioactive waste buried somewhere seems quite minor in comparison ..... !!
I can only wonder why there isn't half the amount of opposition against the Nuclear power station itself. I would rather see a thousand wind turbines spread across the Lakes as have one Atomic reactor there. If there was ever any major problem at Selafield, the whole of the lakes would be a no go area. A few thousand canisters full of radioactive waste buried somewhere seems quite minor in comparison ..... !! ukmann

11:27am Tue 4 Dec 12

marianneb says...

ukmann wrote:
I can only wonder why there isn't half the amount of opposition against the Nuclear power station itself. I would rather see a thousand wind turbines spread across the Lakes as have one Atomic reactor there. If there was ever any major problem at Selafield, the whole of the lakes would be a no go area. A few thousand canisters full of radioactive waste buried somewhere seems quite minor in comparison ..... !!
ukmann is right that the proposed Moorcide plant (supported by the National Park!!) would be disastrous - geological dumping would be equally disastrous
[quote][p][bold]ukmann[/bold] wrote: I can only wonder why there isn't half the amount of opposition against the Nuclear power station itself. I would rather see a thousand wind turbines spread across the Lakes as have one Atomic reactor there. If there was ever any major problem at Selafield, the whole of the lakes would be a no go area. A few thousand canisters full of radioactive waste buried somewhere seems quite minor in comparison ..... !![/p][/quote]ukmann is right that the proposed Moorcide plant (supported by the National Park!!) would be disastrous - geological dumping would be equally disastrous marianneb

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree