A nuclear waste dump in West Cumbria would harm Lake District's image, according to survey of visitors

Radiation Free Lakeland stage anti-nuclear waste vigil at Brockhole

Radiation Free Lakeland stage anti-nuclear waste vigil at Brockhole

First published in News

NUCLEAR protesters in Cumbria have stepped up their campaign against proposals to store radioactive waste under the western Lake District.

Although a decision whether to site the dump in the county has yet to be made, the prospect that a decision will be made in the coming weeks is galvanising opposition.

In the latest move, campaigners released the findings of survey of more than 500 visitors to Keswick.

Conducted jointly by Friends of the Earth (FoE), Save Our Lake District - Don’t Dump Cumbria and Radiation Free Lakeland, the survey asked whether the presence of a nuclear dump either next to the national park or underneath it would affect the Lake District's image.

Results released this week show that 89 per cent of people thought a dump would have a negative impact on how people perceived the Lake District.

The West Cumbria Managing Radioactive Waste Safely Partnership (MRWSP) is currently consulting on the nuclear dump proposal.

Dr Ruth Balogh, nuclear issues campaigner for West Cumbria and North Lakes FoE, said: “This survey shows how detrimental these plans are to the image of the Lake District, and how damaging they would be to the tourist industry.

“The MRWS Partnership conducted a study about how the dump might affect the Lake District 'brand', and this also showed how detrimental it would be. But they think it can be 'mitigated'. This survey shows they might have to recruit a miracle worker to succeed. And once an image has been tainted - as the nuclear industry itself knows to its cost - it's extremely difficult if not impossible to repair.”

'We urge local people to make their views known to their local councillors, who are going to take the crucial decision in the coming weeks.”

Meanwhile, protesters from Radiation Free Lakeland held an anti-nuclear ‘vigil’ at the LDNPA’s visitor centre at Brockhole near Windermere.

Wearing protective suits, the protesters lit a candle at the site where a landmark monkey puzzle tree that was recently felled.

The group’s spokeswoman Marianne Birkby said: "The monkey tree has become a symbol of what could happen to the rest of Cumbria," said Mrs Birkby. "Even if the public doesn't something those in authority will go ahead and do it anyway."

Radiation Free Lakeland has also produced a ‘graphic’ book - Swallows and Amazons - which has been sent to LDNPA chairman Bill Jefferson, who has also expressed concern over a nuclear dump’s potential effect on the Lake District’s ‘brand image’.

Ms Birkby said: “The book - the latest in the series of the Wastwater Chronicles - charts the continuing journey of a gentle unassuming couple called Tom and Ellen who are trying to make sense of the Government proposal to bury high level radioactive waste deep within their beloved Lakeland.”

Comments (38)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:05pm Sat 15 Dec 12

life cycle too says...

Protective suits?

Just what exactly do they protect against?

I worked in a hotel when we were told radiation from Chernobyl had polluted our countryside - but I don't remember a reduction in the number of visitors, or any undue concern of the danger then.
Protective suits? Just what exactly do they protect against? I worked in a hotel when we were told radiation from Chernobyl had polluted our countryside - but I don't remember a reduction in the number of visitors, or any undue concern of the danger then. life cycle too
  • Score: 0

5:54pm Sat 15 Dec 12

dontdumpcumbria says...

Try telling that to prospective Japanese Visitors to the lakes.
Try telling that to prospective Japanese Visitors to the lakes. dontdumpcumbria
  • Score: 0

7:22pm Sat 15 Dec 12

Moonbase says...

I wonder what the LDNPA think?
Joke and bent yet again!
Why do we pay taxes to fund these toss*rs.
Utter brain deads .
I wonder what the LDNPA think? Joke and bent yet again! Why do we pay taxes to fund these toss*rs. Utter brain deads . Moonbase
  • Score: 0

7:27pm Sat 15 Dec 12

dontdumpcumbria says...

Moonbase... They don't think thats just the point. We are supposed to have an "Authority" to protect the Park. That's what the A is in LDNPA .. Still they won't have to change the N. N=Nuclear
Moonbase... They don't think thats just the point. We are supposed to have an "Authority" to protect the Park. That's what the A is in LDNPA .. Still they won't have to change the N. N=Nuclear dontdumpcumbria
  • Score: 0

7:37pm Sat 15 Dec 12

Moonbase says...

Surely the Cumbrian Tourist Board. have something to.say?
Anyway bring back speedboats!
Surely the Cumbrian Tourist Board. have something to.say? Anyway bring back speedboats! Moonbase
  • Score: 0

7:47pm Sat 15 Dec 12

dontdumpcumbria says...

I'm sure they are concerned but they can't say too much Moonbase. The Chairman of the Tourist Board is part of the same PR company that advises the Managing Radioactive Safely Partnership Cumbria. - Work it out for yourself. I guess the speedboats issue is for another day but would bring back much needed employment and high value visitors.
I'm sure they are concerned but they can't say too much Moonbase. The Chairman of the Tourist Board is part of the same PR company that advises the Managing Radioactive Safely Partnership Cumbria. - Work it out for yourself. I guess the speedboats issue is for another day but would bring back much needed employment and high value visitors. dontdumpcumbria
  • Score: 0

8:38pm Sat 15 Dec 12

onelocal says...

life cycle too wrote:
Protective suits?

Just what exactly do they protect against?

I worked in a hotel when we were told radiation from Chernobyl had polluted our countryside - but I don't remember a reduction in the number of visitors, or any undue concern of the danger then.
You are right, DEFRA just removed the movement restrictions on sheep fed on the Lake District fells, because of radiation fall out from Chernobyl, over 25 years after the event. Herd wick sheep meat is more popular today than ever in the past.
We have had a nuclear power station, reprocessing plant and whatever on our border for over 50 years and I don't see any impact on tourism. In fact it's increasing.
Once an underground storage is built with all the controls in place, it will be forgotten, just like the monkey puzzle tree is now.
[quote][p][bold]life cycle too[/bold] wrote: Protective suits? Just what exactly do they protect against? I worked in a hotel when we were told radiation from Chernobyl had polluted our countryside - but I don't remember a reduction in the number of visitors, or any undue concern of the danger then.[/p][/quote]You are right, DEFRA just removed the movement restrictions on sheep fed on the Lake District fells, because of radiation fall out from Chernobyl, over 25 years after the event. Herd wick sheep meat is more popular today than ever in the past. We have had a nuclear power station, reprocessing plant and whatever on our border for over 50 years and I don't see any impact on tourism. In fact it's increasing. Once an underground storage is built with all the controls in place, it will be forgotten, just like the monkey puzzle tree is now. onelocal
  • Score: 0

9:01pm Sat 15 Dec 12

dontdumpcumbria says...

funny that "one local" when I asked a couple of Japanese Tourists at Bowness what they thought... Well, they just laughed. Your right though to a point, in that Tourism and Nuclear have coexisted for sixty odd years, but a nuke dump... bit like the Japanese tourists.... " .. your having a laugh.."

As to proper controls..These wouldn't be the same controls that built a 5.7 meter Tsunami wall on the Pacifc Ring of Fire at Fukershima when the 13Meter wave arrived? If you think "controls" we are in trouble. Never mind about the tourists, when it leaks, we'll be tourists somewhere else.

I'd love to know your facts on Toursim Increasing.
funny that "one local" when I asked a couple of Japanese Tourists at Bowness what they thought... Well, they just laughed. Your right though to a point, in that Tourism and Nuclear have coexisted for sixty odd years, but a nuke dump... bit like the Japanese tourists.... " .. your having a laugh.." As to proper controls..These wouldn't be the same controls that built a 5.7 meter Tsunami wall on the Pacifc Ring of Fire at Fukershima when the 13Meter wave arrived? If you think "controls" we are in trouble. Never mind about the tourists, when it leaks, we'll be tourists somewhere else. I'd love to know your facts on Toursim Increasing. dontdumpcumbria
  • Score: 0

10:57pm Sat 15 Dec 12

onelocal says...

Why, is tourism decreasing? Don't think so, but your evidence would be interesting.
As for tsunamis, volcanos, rings of fire, don't recall anything in the 60+ years I have been here.
By the way we have had nuke dumps for many years without problems
Why, is tourism decreasing? Don't think so, but your evidence would be interesting. As for tsunamis, volcanos, rings of fire, don't recall anything in the 60+ years I have been here. By the way we have had nuke dumps for many years without problems onelocal
  • Score: 0

4:44am Sun 16 Dec 12

Moonbase says...

It will leek after 25 years,let's face it,all this is to create a few jobs to the detrement of our siblings.
It will leek after 25 years,let's face it,all this is to create a few jobs to the detrement of our siblings. Moonbase
  • Score: 0

4:38pm Sun 16 Dec 12

dontdumpcumbria says...

onelocal - I know we aint had tsunamis. The point I was illustrating is, if you let the engineers get too arrogant your in trouble as unfortunately history Hey moonbase if it leaks they will clean it up and we can all come back 25 years later. No worries.
onelocal - I know we aint had tsunamis. The point I was illustrating is, if you let the engineers get too arrogant your in trouble as unfortunately history Hey moonbase if it leaks they will clean it up and we can all come back 25 years later. No worries. dontdumpcumbria
  • Score: 0

5:13pm Sun 16 Dec 12

Moonbase says...

Why make something so potent and not be able to get rid of it??????
Actually, it's a bit like the wife's cooking,create food that looks like nuclear fall out and i can't chuck it in the bin.
Anyway I'm lucky too have her.........so she tells me.
Why make something so potent and not be able to get rid of it?????? Actually, it's a bit like the wife's cooking,create food that looks like nuclear fall out and i can't chuck it in the bin. Anyway I'm lucky too have her.........so she tells me. Moonbase
  • Score: 0

11:21pm Sun 16 Dec 12

marianneb says...

Prior to Sellafield the Seascale area was a thriving resort and fishing coast.

Tourism would be the least of Cumbria's worries if this is allowed to go ahead, the equivalent of fracking with radioactive bells on.....
"Emplacement of hot wastes will force rock to expand, with the strong probability that new fractures will be created. The fractures can allow radioactive gas to rapidly leak to the surface. Land users and housing at the land surface will be uplifted."
http://101-uses-for-
a-nuclear-power-stat
ion.blogspot.co.uk/2
012/04/use-no-39-upl
ifting-land-with.htm
l
Prior to Sellafield the Seascale area was a thriving resort and fishing coast. Tourism would be the least of Cumbria's worries if this is allowed to go ahead, the equivalent of fracking with radioactive bells on..... "Emplacement of hot wastes will force rock to expand, with the strong probability that new fractures will be created. The fractures can allow radioactive gas to rapidly leak to the surface. Land users and housing at the land surface will be uplifted." http://101-uses-for- a-nuclear-power-stat ion.blogspot.co.uk/2 012/04/use-no-39-upl ifting-land-with.htm l marianneb
  • Score: 0

1:33pm Mon 17 Dec 12

Ladyxxmacbeth says...

Why don't they do what they always do in this area and make it into it's own tourist attraction? Sell it to the comic book guys as a way to get super powers.
It would solve the house price and tourist house problem because no one would want to visit or live here.
and...
You'd have your own personal streetlighting solving the council funding problems...
it's a win win situation.

Personally I don't actually care they should just bury it and in 20 years time when it leaks and giant zombie fish come out of the ocean then you can say I told you so !
Why don't they do what they always do in this area and make it into it's own tourist attraction? Sell it to the comic book guys as a way to get super powers. It would solve the house price and tourist house problem because no one would want to visit or live here. and... You'd have your own personal streetlighting solving the council funding problems... it's a win win situation. Personally I don't actually care they should just bury it and in 20 years time when it leaks and giant zombie fish come out of the ocean then you can say I told you so ! Ladyxxmacbeth
  • Score: 0

6:24pm Mon 17 Dec 12

marianneb says...

Supermen and Superwomen battling zombie fish sounds better than the reality of damage to the dna of unborn and young children - would you take your unborn child/infant baby on a tour of Sellafield's B30 plant?
Supermen and Superwomen battling zombie fish sounds better than the reality of damage to the dna of unborn and young children - would you take your unborn child/infant baby on a tour of Sellafield's B30 plant? marianneb
  • Score: 0

6:26pm Mon 17 Dec 12

life cycle too says...

marianneb wrote:
Prior to Sellafield the Seascale area was a thriving resort and fishing coast.

Tourism would be the least of Cumbria's worries if this is allowed to go ahead, the equivalent of fracking with radioactive bells on.....
"Emplacement of hot wastes will force rock to expand, with the strong probability that new fractures will be created. The fractures can allow radioactive gas to rapidly leak to the surface. Land users and housing at the land surface will be uplifted."
http://101-uses-for-

a-nuclear-power-stat

ion.blogspot.co.uk/2

012/04/use-no-39-upl

ifting-land-with.htm

l
LOTS of towns were once thriving resorts - and fishing towns.
Whitby, Scarborough, Silloth, and numerous small villages in Devon and Cornwall - the fishing there was not spoiled by adjacent nuclear activity...
nor has Scarborough declined as a resort because of it!
[quote][p][bold]marianneb[/bold] wrote: Prior to Sellafield the Seascale area was a thriving resort and fishing coast. Tourism would be the least of Cumbria's worries if this is allowed to go ahead, the equivalent of fracking with radioactive bells on..... "Emplacement of hot wastes will force rock to expand, with the strong probability that new fractures will be created. The fractures can allow radioactive gas to rapidly leak to the surface. Land users and housing at the land surface will be uplifted." http://101-uses-for- a-nuclear-power-stat ion.blogspot.co.uk/2 012/04/use-no-39-upl ifting-land-with.htm l[/p][/quote]LOTS of towns were once thriving resorts - and fishing towns. Whitby, Scarborough, Silloth, and numerous small villages in Devon and Cornwall - the fishing there was not spoiled by adjacent nuclear activity... nor has Scarborough declined as a resort because of it! life cycle too
  • Score: 0

6:40pm Mon 17 Dec 12

marianneb says...

I don't imagine Whitby, Scarborough, Silloth and numerous small villages in Devon and Cornwall would be complacent about a nuclear dump under them.
I don't imagine Whitby, Scarborough, Silloth and numerous small villages in Devon and Cornwall would be complacent about a nuclear dump under them. marianneb
  • Score: 0

7:13pm Mon 17 Dec 12

Ladyxxmacbeth says...

Im a real fan of nuclear and renewable energy. I was taken round nuclear power plants as a child and I grew up very close to Bradwell power station...Nothing bad happened to me...hang on that might explain that second head I have growing from my neck!
Im a real fan of nuclear and renewable energy. I was taken round nuclear power plants as a child and I grew up very close to Bradwell power station...Nothing bad happened to me...hang on that might explain that second head I have growing from my neck! Ladyxxmacbeth
  • Score: 0

7:16pm Mon 17 Dec 12

twitchy says...

Ladyxxmacbeth wrote:
Im a real fan of nuclear and renewable energy. I was taken round nuclear power plants as a child and I grew up very close to Bradwell power station...Nothing bad happened to me...hang on that might explain that second head I have growing from my neck!
Yeah that would explain it!!
[quote][p][bold]Ladyxxmacbeth[/bold] wrote: Im a real fan of nuclear and renewable energy. I was taken round nuclear power plants as a child and I grew up very close to Bradwell power station...Nothing bad happened to me...hang on that might explain that second head I have growing from my neck![/p][/quote]Yeah that would explain it!! twitchy
  • Score: 0

7:24pm Mon 17 Dec 12

craggy says...

All the rhetoric and garbage spouted by the anti-nuclear ignorati sounds impressive but how much of their doom-laden internet based drivel is actually tried and tested?

Think about this-
How many deaths have been caused by the production of energy from a nuclear source and how many by non-nuclear methods (including coal mining).

I would also suggest that we think about who or what is doing the most damage to the Lake District at the moment.
All the rhetoric and garbage spouted by the anti-nuclear ignorati sounds impressive but how much of their doom-laden internet based drivel is actually tried and tested? Think about this- How many deaths have been caused by the production of energy from a nuclear source and how many by non-nuclear methods (including coal mining). I would also suggest that we think about who or what is doing the most damage to the Lake District at the moment. craggy
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Mon 17 Dec 12

craggy says...

We can all find pages that support our belief, a 5 minute search via google and I found this -

...radiation due to nuclear technology should eventually increase our cancer risk by 0.002% (one part in 50,000), reducing our life expectancy by less than one hour. By comparison, our loss of life expectancy from competitive electricity generation technologies, burning coal, oil, or gas, is estimated to range from 3 to 40 days.

found here -http://www.physics.
isu.edu/radinf/np-ri
sk.htm
We can all find pages that support our belief, a 5 minute search via google and I found this - ...radiation due to nuclear technology should eventually increase our cancer risk by 0.002% (one part in 50,000), reducing our life expectancy by less than one hour. By comparison, our loss of life expectancy from competitive electricity generation technologies, burning coal, oil, or gas, is estimated to range from 3 to 40 days. found here -http://www.physics. isu.edu/radinf/np-ri sk.htm craggy
  • Score: 0

7:46pm Mon 17 Dec 12

twitchy says...

craggy wrote:
All the rhetoric and garbage spouted by the anti-nuclear ignorati sounds impressive but how much of their doom-laden internet based drivel is actually tried and tested?

Think about this-
How many deaths have been caused by the production of energy from a nuclear source and how many by non-nuclear methods (including coal mining).

I would also suggest that we think about who or what is doing the most damage to the Lake District at the moment.
And how many nuclear depositories under leaky geology have been tried and tested?
How many people have died just mining the raw material for the nuclear industry?
How many people have died or have children born with serious malformations after exposure to nuclear radiation?
Ask them how safe it is.
[quote][p][bold]craggy[/bold] wrote: All the rhetoric and garbage spouted by the anti-nuclear ignorati sounds impressive but how much of their doom-laden internet based drivel is actually tried and tested? Think about this- How many deaths have been caused by the production of energy from a nuclear source and how many by non-nuclear methods (including coal mining). I would also suggest that we think about who or what is doing the most damage to the Lake District at the moment.[/p][/quote]And how many nuclear depositories under leaky geology have been tried and tested? How many people have died just mining the raw material for the nuclear industry? How many people have died or have children born with serious malformations after exposure to nuclear radiation? Ask them how safe it is. twitchy
  • Score: 0

7:54pm Mon 17 Dec 12

craggy says...

twitchy wrote:
craggy wrote:
All the rhetoric and garbage spouted by the anti-nuclear ignorati sounds impressive but how much of their doom-laden internet based drivel is actually tried and tested?

Think about this-
How many deaths have been caused by the production of energy from a nuclear source and how many by non-nuclear methods (including coal mining).

I would also suggest that we think about who or what is doing the most damage to the Lake District at the moment.
And how many nuclear depositories under leaky geology have been tried and tested?
How many people have died just mining the raw material for the nuclear industry?
How many people have died or have children born with serious malformations after exposure to nuclear radiation?
Ask them how safe it is.
Good questions, but how about answers?
[quote][p][bold]twitchy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]craggy[/bold] wrote: All the rhetoric and garbage spouted by the anti-nuclear ignorati sounds impressive but how much of their doom-laden internet based drivel is actually tried and tested? Think about this- How many deaths have been caused by the production of energy from a nuclear source and how many by non-nuclear methods (including coal mining). I would also suggest that we think about who or what is doing the most damage to the Lake District at the moment.[/p][/quote]And how many nuclear depositories under leaky geology have been tried and tested? How many people have died just mining the raw material for the nuclear industry? How many people have died or have children born with serious malformations after exposure to nuclear radiation? Ask them how safe it is.[/p][/quote]Good questions, but how about answers? craggy
  • Score: 0

8:31pm Mon 17 Dec 12

twitchy says...

4,000 fatalities – Chernobyl disaster, Ukraine, April 26, 1986. 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and it is estimated that there were 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.

Estimates of the total number of deaths potentially resulting from the Chernobyl disaster vary enormously: Thirty one deaths are directly attributed to the accident, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers. A UNSCEAR report places the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008. The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests it could reach 4,000 civilian deaths, a figure which does not include military clean-up worker casualties. A 2006 report predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl fallout. A Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more. A Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 premature cancer deaths occurred worldwide between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl.

That is just one example from Wikipedia "List of nuclear and radiation accidents by death toll"
4,000 fatalities[1][2] – Chernobyl disaster, Ukraine, April 26, 1986. 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and it is estimated that there were 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.[3] Estimates of the total number of deaths potentially resulting from the Chernobyl disaster vary enormously: Thirty one deaths are directly attributed to the accident, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers.[4] A UNSCEAR report places the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008. The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests it could reach 4,000 civilian deaths, a figure which does not include military clean-up worker casualties.[5] A 2006 report predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl fallout.[6] A Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more.[7] A Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 premature cancer deaths occurred worldwide between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl.[8] That is just one example from Wikipedia "List of nuclear and radiation accidents by death toll" twitchy
  • Score: 0

9:08pm Mon 17 Dec 12

twitchy says...

Hydropower, greater investment in solar and wave power......clean, sustainable and you don,t have to bury it.
Hydropower, greater investment in solar and wave power......clean, sustainable and you don,t have to bury it. twitchy
  • Score: 0

9:42pm Mon 17 Dec 12

life cycle too says...

marianneb wrote:
I don't imagine Whitby, Scarborough, Silloth and numerous small villages in Devon and Cornwall would be complacent about a nuclear dump under them.
What has that got to do with your implied cause for the decline of the fishing industry in Seascale, and it's decline as a resort town?

THEY have declined in these industries WITHOUT any nuclear presence close by!
[quote][p][bold]marianneb[/bold] wrote: I don't imagine Whitby, Scarborough, Silloth and numerous small villages in Devon and Cornwall would be complacent about a nuclear dump under them.[/p][/quote]What has that got to do with your implied cause for the decline of the fishing industry in Seascale, and it's decline as a resort town? THEY have declined in these industries WITHOUT any nuclear presence close by! life cycle too
  • Score: 0

9:45pm Mon 17 Dec 12

life cycle too says...

twitchy wrote:
craggy wrote:
All the rhetoric and garbage spouted by the anti-nuclear ignorati sounds impressive but how much of their doom-laden internet based drivel is actually tried and tested?

Think about this-
How many deaths have been caused by the production of energy from a nuclear source and how many by non-nuclear methods (including coal mining).

I would also suggest that we think about who or what is doing the most damage to the Lake District at the moment.
And how many nuclear depositories under leaky geology have been tried and tested?
How many people have died just mining the raw material for the nuclear industry?
How many people have died or have children born with serious malformations after exposure to nuclear radiation?
Ask them how safe it is.
I'm FAR more concerned at the thought of some nutcase going berserk with a gun, than the possible risk of a depository leaking dangerous chemicals into the environment!

Put it into perspective.
How many people die each year from peanut allergies, compared to those who have or might have died from exposure to nuclear materials?
[quote][p][bold]twitchy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]craggy[/bold] wrote: All the rhetoric and garbage spouted by the anti-nuclear ignorati sounds impressive but how much of their doom-laden internet based drivel is actually tried and tested? Think about this- How many deaths have been caused by the production of energy from a nuclear source and how many by non-nuclear methods (including coal mining). I would also suggest that we think about who or what is doing the most damage to the Lake District at the moment.[/p][/quote]And how many nuclear depositories under leaky geology have been tried and tested? How many people have died just mining the raw material for the nuclear industry? How many people have died or have children born with serious malformations after exposure to nuclear radiation? Ask them how safe it is.[/p][/quote]I'm FAR more concerned at the thought of some nutcase going berserk with a gun, than the possible risk of a depository leaking dangerous chemicals into the environment! Put it into perspective. How many people die each year from peanut allergies, compared to those who have or might have died from exposure to nuclear materials? life cycle too
  • Score: 0

10:15pm Mon 17 Dec 12

Ladyxxmacbeth says...

I looked into that peanut thing you said and I think we should ban peanuts !
I looked into that peanut thing you said and I think we should ban peanuts ! Ladyxxmacbeth
  • Score: 0

10:40pm Mon 17 Dec 12

craggy says...

twitchy wrote:
4,000 fatalities – Chernobyl disaster, Ukraine, April 26, 1986. 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and it is estimated that there were 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.

Estimates of the total number of deaths potentially resulting from the Chernobyl disaster vary enormously: Thirty one deaths are directly attributed to the accident, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers. A UNSCEAR report places the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008. The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests it could reach 4,000 civilian deaths, a figure which does not include military clean-up worker casualties. A 2006 report predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl fallout. A Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more. A Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 premature cancer deaths occurred worldwide between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl.

That is just one example from Wikipedia "List of nuclear and radiation accidents by death toll"
As I suspected, "facts" are being taken from Wikipedia!
[quote][p][bold]twitchy[/bold] wrote: 4,000 fatalities[1][2] – Chernobyl disaster, Ukraine, April 26, 1986. 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and it is estimated that there were 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.[3] Estimates of the total number of deaths potentially resulting from the Chernobyl disaster vary enormously: Thirty one deaths are directly attributed to the accident, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers.[4] A UNSCEAR report places the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008. The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests it could reach 4,000 civilian deaths, a figure which does not include military clean-up worker casualties.[5] A 2006 report predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl fallout.[6] A Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more.[7] A Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 premature cancer deaths occurred worldwide between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl.[8] That is just one example from Wikipedia "List of nuclear and radiation accidents by death toll"[/p][/quote]As I suspected, "facts" are being taken from Wikipedia! craggy
  • Score: 0

10:44pm Mon 17 Dec 12

craggy says...

Even your own highly dubious sources can only attribute 56 actual deaths caused by Energy derived from a Nuclear Source.
Now how about answering the original question, how does this compare to deaths as a result of non-nuclear energy production?
Even your own highly dubious sources can only attribute 56 actual deaths caused by Energy derived from a Nuclear Source. Now how about answering the original question, how does this compare to deaths as a result of non-nuclear energy production? craggy
  • Score: 0

10:48pm Mon 17 Dec 12

craggy says...

Judging by the spread of comments above, it would appear that the majority have no problem with nuclear power and that it is just a miguided, rather simple and easily fooled minority that have a problem!
Judging by the spread of comments above, it would appear that the majority have no problem with nuclear power and that it is just a miguided, rather simple and easily fooled minority that have a problem! craggy
  • Score: 0

10:51pm Mon 17 Dec 12

ukmann says...

Nuclear power generation is great till it goes tits up. The Japanese were always extolling the cleanliness and safety of theirs right up until Fukushima. The only way forward is to do as the Germans are doing and get rid of them all. In the long run its a very, very expensive form of energy, when the secure long term storage of radioactive waste is taken into consideration ......
Nuclear power generation is great till it goes tits up. The Japanese were always extolling the cleanliness and safety of theirs right up until Fukushima. The only way forward is to do as the Germans are doing and get rid of them all. In the long run its a very, very expensive form of energy, when the secure long term storage of radioactive waste is taken into consideration ...... ukmann
  • Score: 0

10:53pm Mon 17 Dec 12

marianneb says...

No other industry has the dubious honour of a history of bodysnatching, radioactive poisoning and infanticide.
http://www.indymedia
.org.uk/en/regions/m
anchester/2009/09/43
7335.html

Ignore that if you can for a moment and just regard the plan for geological disposal from the point of view of a big hole in the ground on the scale of an enormous mine in Namibia. The big hole and miles of tunnels to reach the big hole would be dug by enormous 60ft high earth boring machines - the spoil would be the equivalent of several great pyramids and would need to be above ground for decades (leaching carcinogenic toxins as mega slag heaps tend to do) http://www.davidsmyt
he.org/nuclear/spoil
%2011oct11.pdf
No other industry has the dubious honour of a history of bodysnatching, radioactive poisoning and infanticide. http://www.indymedia .org.uk/en/regions/m anchester/2009/09/43 7335.html Ignore that if you can for a moment and just regard the plan for geological disposal from the point of view of a big hole in the ground on the scale of an enormous mine in Namibia. The big hole and miles of tunnels to reach the big hole would be dug by enormous 60ft high earth boring machines - the spoil would be the equivalent of several great pyramids and would need to be above ground for decades (leaching carcinogenic toxins as mega slag heaps tend to do) http://www.davidsmyt he.org/nuclear/spoil %2011oct11.pdf marianneb
  • Score: 0

11:04pm Mon 17 Dec 12

marianneb says...

How long is it since Sellafield actually produced any electricity?

How much gas does Sellafield need to keep the wastes cool?

How much fresh water does Sellafield need to keep the wastes cool?

How long will people see the short life span of a nuclear power plant followed by the decades, decades and decades after of fossil fuel and fresh water use to keep the wastes from going critical as acceptable?
How long is it since Sellafield actually produced any electricity? How much gas does Sellafield need to keep the wastes cool? How much fresh water does Sellafield need to keep the wastes cool? How long will people see the short life span of a nuclear power plant followed by the decades, decades and decades after of fossil fuel and fresh water use to keep the wastes from going critical as acceptable? marianneb
  • Score: 0

12:33am Tue 18 Dec 12

twitchy says...

craggy wrote:
Even your own highly dubious sources can only attribute 56 actual deaths caused by Energy derived from a Nuclear Source.
Now how about answering the original question, how does this compare to deaths as a result of non-nuclear energy production?
To compare the two you would have to select the equivalent period of production, since Nuclear energy is relatively new and has benefited from higher standards of workplace safety and working practice. that sadly has not always been the case for fossil fuels.
I have only quoted one instance, that of Chernobyl, there are others.
If 985,000 premature cancer deaths from ONE instance doesn't convince you then I conclude that nothing will.
[quote][p][bold]craggy[/bold] wrote: Even your own highly dubious sources can only attribute 56 actual deaths caused by Energy derived from a Nuclear Source. Now how about answering the original question, how does this compare to deaths as a result of non-nuclear energy production?[/p][/quote]To compare the two you would have to select the equivalent period of production, since Nuclear energy is relatively new and has benefited from higher standards of workplace safety and working practice. that sadly has not always been the case for fossil fuels. I have only quoted one instance, that of Chernobyl, there are others. If 985,000 premature cancer deaths from ONE instance doesn't convince you then I conclude that nothing will. twitchy
  • Score: 0

6:14am Tue 18 Dec 12

life cycle too says...

Ladyxxmacbeth wrote:
I looked into that peanut thing you said and I think we should ban peanuts !
It is horrifying isn't it.
And to think they are available in many shops with no restrictions on who can buy them... even children can do so!

See http://www.discovery
.com/area/skinnyon/s
kinnyon970212/skinny
1.html
[quote][p][bold]Ladyxxmacbeth[/bold] wrote: I looked into that peanut thing you said and I think we should ban peanuts ![/p][/quote]It is horrifying isn't it. And to think they are available in many shops with no restrictions on who can buy them... even children can do so! See http://www.discovery .com/area/skinnyon/s kinnyon970212/skinny 1.html life cycle too
  • Score: 0

11:40am Tue 18 Dec 12

marianneb says...

How about banning metal being "recycled" from nuclear installations into tins containing peanuts (and toys, and reading glasses etc) ...resulting radioactive metal slag waste from blasting goes into landfill and the "cleaned" up metal is diluted with other metals on the open market.
http://www.llwrsite.
com/UserFiles/File/L
owLevelWasteStrategy
Group/Metal%20Decont
amination%20Study%20
Technical%20Report%2
0-WT6%20-Rev1.pdf
How about banning metal being "recycled" from nuclear installations into tins containing peanuts (and toys, and reading glasses etc) ...resulting radioactive metal slag waste from blasting goes into landfill and the "cleaned" up metal is diluted with other metals on the open market. http://www.llwrsite. com/UserFiles/File/L owLevelWasteStrategy Group/Metal%20Decont amination%20Study%20 Technical%20Report%2 0-WT6%20-Rev1.pdf marianneb
  • Score: 0

3:15pm Tue 18 Dec 12

marianneb says...

The mantra is that "70% of nuclear waste is already here" what a load of bull - it is arriving in Cumbria daily. The latest is last nights first of 90 rail shipments from Scotland - forty four tonnes of 'breeder material' for "reprocessing" i.e. making the wastes even more hazardous.
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-scotland-hi
ghlands-islands-2075
4726
The mantra is that "70% of nuclear waste is already here" what a load of bull - it is arriving in Cumbria daily. The latest is last nights first of 90 rail shipments from Scotland - forty four tonnes of 'breeder material' for "reprocessing" i.e. making the wastes even more hazardous. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-scotland-hi ghlands-islands-2075 4726 marianneb
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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