Anti nuclear 'dump' protest staged on shore of Windermere (From The Westmorland Gazette)

craggy says...
1:13pm Sat 19 Jan 13

These ridiculous, ill informed, attention seekers are the only ones who are threatening the Lake District. Nothing better to do than spread bulls**t, annoy tourists and locals alike.

Report this post »

golden-mermaidgirl says...
2:45pm Sat 19 Jan 13

Another apathetic local with the attitude of "someone else will do it for us, so I won't bother supporting or read the facts before passing ill-informed comments" - please look at all the facts about what will happen to the Lake District if this should happen and god forbid it goes ahead, anything ever going wrong in this dump, maybe if the people of Lancashire were aware their drinking water may make them glow in the future we may get more support, but idiotic comments like yours are typical of the do-nothing-say-nothi
ng apathy that gets the government bills passed when the voters really don't want it.
I hope, Craggy, you don't have a job in the tourist industry, because they'll be a lot less visitors climbing the hills when all the view will be of a nuclear dump site in the distance!!

Report this post »

magical trevor says...
4:01pm Sat 19 Jan 13

The dump will be underground ...that's the whole idea of the dump in the lake district.....you'll be able to see only a minimum amount of infrastructure on the surface. You and your colleagues do nothing but scaremonger golden-mermaidgirl..
...get real.

Report this post »

craggy says...
4:22pm Sat 19 Jan 13

golden-mermaidgirl wrote:
Another apathetic local with the attitude of "someone else will do it for us, so I won't bother supporting or read the facts before passing ill-informed comments" - please look at all the facts about what will happen to the Lake District if this should happen and god forbid it goes ahead, anything ever going wrong in this dump, maybe if the people of Lancashire were aware their drinking water may make them glow in the future we may get more support, but idiotic comments like yours are typical of the do-nothing-say-nothi

ng apathy that gets the government bills passed when the voters really don't want it.
I hope, Craggy, you don't have a job in the tourist industry, because they'll be a lot less visitors climbing the hills when all the view will be of a nuclear dump site in the distance!!

What rot. Here's an idea, maybe an intelligent, well read individual can make an assessment of nuclear power and come to a different opinion to yours! Maybe that person is entitled to disagree with you without being referred to as some kind of dumb local yokel, but that of course is how you see most of the population of the Lakes isn't it?
As for a lack of tourists, well you are seeing to that aren't you, spoiling a nice day for many by forcing your opinions on them.
Oh by way, if you want to be taken seriously, don't say things like "drinking water may make them glow" because it demonstrates what a total lack of understanding you have and makes you look rather foolish.

Report this post »

craggy says...
4:25pm Sat 19 Jan 13

And what are you referring to when you suggest I want someone else to do it for me? I clearly don't agree with your view point so suggesting I am sitting back and letting you do it for me is patently ridiculous!

Report this post »

magical trevor says...
5:19pm Sat 19 Jan 13

The photo obviously shows a bunch of 'numbies'.....they don't want any sort of store in the lake district, but as their banners state, they're happy for it to be built 'down south'....just shows how narrow minded some of these people are....loads of objections, but no real alternatives.

Report this post »

marianneb says...
5:24pm Sat 19 Jan 13

20 ?? Why such an underestimate there were over 100

Report this post »

marianneb says...
5:34pm Sat 19 Jan 13

The point is that quite rightly the South objected strongly to the proposal from the off while our leaders from Cumbria Tourism to the Lake District National Park Authority are holding the door open for the plan to go on step by inexorable step. Leaders in Kent said they would fight the government proposal for geological dumping "tooth and nail" Good on them!

Report this post »

marianneb says...
5:35pm Sat 19 Jan 13

and shame on our leaders

Report this post »

life cycle too says...
5:48pm Sat 19 Jan 13

marianneb wrote:
20 ?? Why such an underestimate there were over 100

I presume you have some evidence of this... a photograph perhaps?

Anyone have a smoke detector in their home..? Not worried about the radiation from it..?

Hmm. Didn't know about it..?

Marianne.
Why the need to describe the controlled storage of waste in a specially built facility as a "Dump"?
You are not trying to influence the reaction of uninformed members of the public are you?

Hmm. Thought so!

Report this post »

magical trevor says...
5:51pm Sat 19 Jan 13

Absolutely right Life Cycle....we already live in an area with very high levels of Radon gas in our homes.....so it's nothing new!

Report this post »

marianneb says...
6:33pm Sat 19 Jan 13

Over 100 letters signed to the leader of Cumbria County Council.

A dump leaks....the industry and government concede that the Engineered Barrier System will leak. The geology is the last line of defence in 'geological disposal'

Report this post »

craggy says...
6:37pm Sat 19 Jan 13

One hundred letters! You speak for the majority do you?

Report this post »

magical trevor says...
6:50pm Sat 19 Jan 13

A whole 100....wow that's certainly a lot of concerned people.

Report this post »

craggy says...
7:01pm Sat 19 Jan 13

There will now follow endless links to websites full of blind opinions and selective statistics passed off as facts!

Report this post »

marianneb says...
12:48pm Sun 20 Jan 13

craggy wrote:
There will now follow endless links to websites full of blind opinions and selective statistics passed off as facts!

Too right! here is one to mull over from the Department of Energy and Climate Change......zip wire? Pah!! http://mrws.decc.gov
.uk/en/mrws/cms/Disp
osal/Geological_dis/
Construction_a/Const
ruction_a.aspx

Report this post »

Milkbutnosugarplease says...
12:56pm Sun 20 Jan 13

I didn't see this demo but the photo looks either cropped or taken in close-up to make a few protesters appear to be part of a larger group. Perhaps there was no larger group. It's very hard to tell.

Report this post »

marianneb says...
1:09pm Sun 20 Jan 13

The Plan straight from the horses mouth....."The geological disposal facility will be constructed using a combination of tried and tested techniques, such as drilling, blasting, and tunnel boring machines. These engineering techniques and the methods used to employ them safely will be tailored to suit the geological environment. Much of the necessary equipment is already used extensively in the tunnelling, civil engineering and mining industry in various geological environments. For example a tunnel boring machine has been used to excavate a seven-mile tunnel in volcanic rock in the USA and the Channel Tunnel in chalk in the UK and France.

Excavations can also be carried out using a combination of smaller excavation machines and explosives. This is the construction technique currently being used at the site chosen for the geological disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel in Finland.

Rock supports and tunnel lining will be used where necessary to provide a safe working environment and long-term stability of the underground excavations for a repository. If necessary, underground openings can be redesigned as excavations progress. Inflow of water will be controlled in line with operational requirements for safety and environmental protection"

Report this post »

craggy says...
3:32pm Sun 20 Jan 13

marianneb wrote:
The Plan straight from the horses mouth....."The geological disposal facility will be constructed using a combination of tried and tested techniques, such as drilling, blasting, and tunnel boring machines. These engineering techniques and the methods used to employ them safely will be tailored to suit the geological environment. Much of the necessary equipment is already used extensively in the tunnelling, civil engineering and mining industry in various geological environments. For example a tunnel boring machine has been used to excavate a seven-mile tunnel in volcanic rock in the USA and the Channel Tunnel in chalk in the UK and France.

Excavations can also be carried out using a combination of smaller excavation machines and explosives. This is the construction technique currently being used at the site chosen for the geological disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel in Finland.

Rock supports and tunnel lining will be used where necessary to provide a safe working environment and long-term stability of the underground excavations for a repository. If necessary, underground openings can be redesigned as excavations progress. Inflow of water will be controlled in line with operational requirements for safety and environmental protection"

Sorry, are you for or against? The above seem to show how good the plan is!

Report this post »

marianneb says...
8:20pm Sun 20 Jan 13

Good for......??

Report this post »

craggy says...
8:34pm Sun 20 Jan 13

Good as in a good plan, are we resorting to nit-picking over grammar?

Report this post »

life cycle too says...
8:39pm Sun 20 Jan 13

If it is good enough for the Fins, then I'm in favour of it!

Report this post »

craggy says...
8:48pm Sun 20 Jan 13

You have made an informed decision then life cycle too, I'm not sure if you are permitted to do that!

Report this post »

lakesailor says...
11:39pm Sun 20 Jan 13

Milkbutnosugarplease wrote:
I didn't see this demo but the photo looks either cropped or taken in close-up to make a few protesters appear to be part of a larger group. Perhaps there was no larger group. It's very hard to tell.

I drove past it twice. There was at least a well-packed mini-bus of swampies annoying the geese on the promenade.

Report this post »

twitchy says...
1:39am Mon 21 Jan 13

It seems to me that it is the messengers under attack here rather than the message.
Those who belittle people willing to stand up and oppose those who are acting against the wishes of the majority are reflecting a poor light on themselves.
Some "informed"comment from the dissenters would be useful.

Report this post »

Mary D says...
5:03am Mon 21 Jan 13

Can it be guaranteed that the waste, once below ground, will not leak. The simple answer is no.

Should the Mermaid had said, ‘perhaps if the people of Lancashire were aware their drinking water could make 1 in 5 of their children waste away with leukaemia and die in agony in the future’ would you, Craggy, with your vast literary experience, have understood her fears without belittling them. I refer to this following the comments of councillor John McCreesh, from the meeting of all 84 members of Cumbria County Council September 5th 2012 concerning the repository, about Bangladesh, where such a number of deaths in the capital are due to arsenic poisoning of the water. They too were told it was safe. By the British Geological Survey…. And who do you think has advised it’s safe to go to stage 4? That’s right; the British Geological Survey. What kind of faith can we have in any findings from that? In a county where we tremble at the mention of floods, which has the highest rainfall in England with average annual totals exceeding 2,000 mm, what will they do if water breaks in? I prefer the seemingly sensible idea of the advisors to the nuclear industry themselves, that a geological nuclear store should be sited where it is dry.

The people of Chernobyl were told it was safe. The people of Fukushima were told it was safe. The workers of Sellafield are told it is safe… even though they had to change it’s name after the Windscales disaster and in 1993 the Government’s Health and Safety Executive confirmed that in Seascale the incidence of Leukaemia and Non Hodgkins Lymphoma was 14 times the national average and twice in other areas of West Cumbria. It also found a significantly increased risk between the leukaemias and a father’s pre-conceptional radiation dose (Gardner Hypothesis). At one time they even advised male workers not to father children. I remember because one of my friends was one of them. That is real. The birds that sit on the old radioactive tower are so irradiated their droppings are classed as ‘low level (nuclear) waste’. That was not supposed to happen. I do not believe we can risk something happening that was ‘not supposed to’ at Ennerdale, considering the population, water levels and geological fault lines.

Nuclear power is not safe. That is real. No matter how hard the human population of Earth has tried we have not yet made it so. The level 7 (maximum) accident at Fukushima was less than 2 years ago. High level radioactive waste is not safe. That is real. It exists, if albeit sadly, and must be stored somewhere but Ennerdale is not that place. It is populated and happens also to be one of the most outstandingly beautiful places on the planet. So stop there. Before you even have to think about the complex geology and flooding. Can it be guaranteed the nuclear waste won’t leak? Simply; NO. Clearly the reason the geology around such a dump (World English Dictionary definition; a place or area where waste materials are dumped) is of such enormous import because it will leak. So is storing this material where every tunnelled space, cave and mine fills with water and even our homes, all too often, a good idea? Can it be guaranteed that such a leak into said subterranean waters would not contaminate the waters supplied to other areas as drinking water? The Mermaid is right to be concerned. We all should be. This has never been done before. To me the logical process would be not to attempt it but in the most strongly advised conditions which are dry, stable and unpopulated. E.g. not in Ennerdale!

I was at this protest and there were a lot more people there; many didn’t stay long as it was snowing on us. (Now that’s dedication.) And those there were pleasant, friendly people who welcomed us as although we were strangers and conversed fluidly and with enquiring minds. I didn’t witness anyone being annoyed (other than, it seems, you, Craggy) and the birds were very happy to see us, with our various lunches, indeed!

Beyond this, I find the posts here against those people voicing their fears hypocritical, insulting and worthless. Where are the facts in favour? Where is the research in favour? Where are the letters to the authorities in favour? Where are the demonstrators in favour?
Well?
Debate is essential but calling those who actually make a stand for their beliefs ‘ridiculous’ ‘foolish’, ‘narrow minded’, ‘blind’, ‘attention seeking’, ‘numbies’ and ‘swampies’ is filthy abuse and exactly the degenerate attitude those trying to force the implementation of this plan, without letting councillors vote, are counting on in the local population. You don’t need called a yokel when you don your own yolk for all to see. And that’s real. I’m local. Workington is a stone’s throw from Ennerdale. I have friends who work in the nuclear industry. But Ennerdale is not the place for this plan.

Can it be guaranteed that the waste, once below ground, will not leak. The simple answer is no. Should the Mermaid had said, ‘perhaps if the people of Lancashire were aware their drinking water could make 1 in 5 of their children waste away with leukaemia and die in agony in the future’ would you, Craggy, with your vast literary experience, have understood her fears without belittling them. I refer to this following the comments of councillor John McCreesh, from the meeting of all 84 members of Cumbria County Council September 5th 2012 concerning the repository, about Bangladesh, where such a number of deaths in the capital are due to arsenic poisoning of the water. They too were told it was safe. By the British Geological Survey…. And who do you think has advised it’s safe to go to stage 4? That’s right; the British Geological Survey. What kind of faith can we have in any findings from that? In a county where we tremble at the mention of floods, which has the highest rainfall in England with average annual totals exceeding 2,000 mm, what will they do if water breaks in? I prefer the seemingly sensible idea of the advisors to the nuclear industry themselves, that a geological nuclear store should be sited where it is dry. The people of Chernobyl were told it was safe. The people of Fukushima were told it was safe. The workers of Sellafield are told it is safe… even though they had to change it’s name after the Windscales disaster and in 1993 the Government’s Health and Safety Executive confirmed that in Seascale the incidence of Leukaemia and Non Hodgkins Lymphoma was 14 times the national average and twice in other areas of West Cumbria. It also found a significantly increased risk between the leukaemias and a father’s pre-conceptional radiation dose (Gardner Hypothesis). At one time they even advised male workers not to father children. I remember because one of my friends was one of them. That is real. The birds that sit on the old radioactive tower are so irradiated their droppings are classed as ‘low level (nuclear) waste’. That was not supposed to happen. I do not believe we can risk something happening that was ‘not supposed to’ at Ennerdale, considering the population, water levels and geological fault lines. Nuclear power is not safe. That is real. No matter how hard the human population of Earth has tried we have not yet made it so. The level 7 (maximum) accident at Fukushima was less than 2 years ago. High level radioactive waste is not safe. That is real. It exists, if albeit sadly, and must be stored somewhere but Ennerdale is not that place. It is populated and happens also to be one of the most outstandingly beautiful places on the planet. So stop there. Before you even have to think about the complex geology and flooding. Can it be guaranteed the nuclear waste won’t leak? Simply; NO. Clearly the reason the geology around such a dump (World English Dictionary definition; a place or area where waste materials are dumped) is of such enormous import because it will leak. So is storing this material where every tunnelled space, cave and mine fills with water and even our homes, all too often, a good idea? Can it be guaranteed that such a leak into said subterranean waters would not contaminate the waters supplied to other areas as drinking water? The Mermaid is right to be concerned. We all should be. This has never been done before. To me the logical process would be not to attempt it but in the most strongly advised conditions which are dry, stable and unpopulated. E.g. not in Ennerdale! I was at this protest and there were a lot more people there; many didn’t stay long as it was snowing on us. (Now that’s dedication.) And those there were pleasant, friendly people who welcomed us as although we were strangers and conversed fluidly and with enquiring minds. I didn’t witness anyone being annoyed (other than, it seems, you, Craggy) and the birds were very happy to see us, with our various lunches, indeed! Beyond this, I find the posts here against those people voicing their fears hypocritical, insulting and worthless. Where are the facts in favour? Where is the research in favour? Where are the letters to the authorities in favour? Where are the demonstrators in favour? Well? Debate is essential but calling those who actually make a stand for their beliefs ‘ridiculous’ ‘foolish’, ‘narrow minded’, ‘blind’, ‘attention seeking’, ‘numbies’ and ‘swampies’ is filthy abuse and exactly the degenerate attitude those trying to force the implementation of this plan, without letting councillors vote, are counting on in the local population. You don’t need called a yokel when you don your own yolk for all to see. And that’s real. I’m local. Workington is a stone’s throw from Ennerdale. I have friends who work in the nuclear industry. But Ennerdale is not the place for this plan. Mary D

Report this post »

craggy says...
7:39am Mon 21 Jan 13

twitchy wrote:
It seems to me that it is the messengers under attack here rather than the message.
Those who belittle people willing to stand up and oppose those who are acting against the wishes of the majority are reflecting a poor light on themselves.
Some "informed"comme
nt from the dissenters would be useful.

Since when did a handful of folk who go home because of a few flecks of snow become the majority?

Report this post »

Kendmoor says...
8:31am Mon 21 Jan 13

I'm not particularly against the idea, but the general thought of burying nuclear waste in the planet sounds a little perverted..like trying to get rid of a glass of milk by hiding it under mounds and mounds of clothes under our bed..are we able to get it back safely if we find a way to get rid of it? The reason we put it so far underground and out of sight is first and foremost in case of a leak isn't it?
Just throwing some thoughts out there. Can't have our cake and eat it I suppose!

Report this post »

twitchy says...
10:54am Mon 21 Jan 13

craggy wrote:

twitchy wrote:
It seems to me that it is the messengers under attack here rather than the message.
Those who belittle people willing to stand up and oppose those who are acting against the wishes of the majority are reflecting a poor light on themselves.
Some "informed"comme

nt from the dissenters would be useful.
Since when did a handful of folk who go home because of a few flecks of snow become the majority?

So is that the full extent of your "informed comment". It does seem a tad inadequate compared to the excellent comment from Mary D, factual, fully explained and to the point.

Report this post »

life cycle too says...
11:08am Mon 21 Jan 13

twitchy wrote:
It seems to me that it is the messengers under attack here rather than the message.
Those who belittle people willing to stand up and oppose those who are acting against the wishes of the majority are reflecting a poor light on themselves.
Some "informed"comme
nt from the dissenters would be useful.

I rather suspect that the reason they are subject to ridicule, is that they first questioned the Gazette's report of TWENTY protesters, claiming their were ONE HUNDRED... which it appears was actually 100 letters of support!!!

They are also using the term DUMP in a disparaging manner, then admitted it was actually a carefully planned and thought out facility.

It IS the MESSAGE that is being attacked, not the messengers on my part - the issue is about informed choice, not ill informed propaganda, which those of us who have followed the issue are well aware of by now.

Report this post »

craggy says...
12:24pm Mon 21 Jan 13

What the protestors seem to forget is that not everybody has to agree with them.
They are happy to make personal attacks on key members of the NPA (going as far as to infer illegal/criminal activity), they massage figures (100 at the rally, really?) and spread rumour and misinformation calling it fact.
Yet when you question their motives, opinions or activiites they cry "poor us".
If you wish to promote your view point then good for you, but if you force it down peoples throats then don't be suprised when those who disagree answer back!
By the way, will you be removing the large, garish yellow banners from outside the Old Laundry or is it acceptable for you to ride rough shod over the beautiful Lake District?

Report this post »

twitchy says...
12:30pm Mon 21 Jan 13

The gazette report must be refering to the number of protesters collecting signatures for the petition, since I counted up to 100 at the site, incidently it was just one of several activities on the day.
The term DUMP is accepted term for a site for waste disposal.
However well constructed the repository is, it would still be in the wrong place and in the wrong geology.
Perhaps the pro dumpers could explain the basis for their "informed choice"

Report this post »

craggy says...
1:15pm Mon 21 Jan 13

twitchy wrote:
The gazette report must be refering to the number of protesters collecting signatures for the petition, since I counted up to 100 at the site, incidently it was just one of several activities on the day.
The term DUMP is accepted term for a site for waste disposal.
However well constructed the repository is, it would still be in the wrong place and in the wrong geology.
Perhaps the pro dumpers could explain the basis for their "informed choice"

Why? Are you open to the idea that you might be wrong so want to hear more?

Report this post »

zaney5 says...
1:26pm Mon 21 Jan 13

As an objective 3rd party here I have to say that so far only Mary D has offered any kind of constructive post on this thread.

Surprisingly (!) once again, Magical Trevor and Craggy are in full attack mode without offering any kind of comments other than to belittle the opinions of those they don't agree with.

C'mon guys, if you want people to take you seriously, at least have the goods to back up your opinions.

(And alas, dear Trev, it was not mean to be, see I told you we'd be back to baiting each other within a week!)

Report this post »

lakesailor says...
2:25pm Mon 21 Jan 13

twitchy wrote:
It seems to me that it is the messengers under attack here rather than the message.
Those who belittle people willing to stand up and oppose those who are acting against the wishes of the majority are reflecting a poor light on themselves.
Some "informed"comme
nt from the dissenters would be useful.

Erm.. isn't it you who are the dissenters?

Beside, I wasn't aware that we had to abide your rules when making comments. If the feeble gathering of protesters I saw as I drove past is the extent of your campaign, how can you expect to be taken seriously? Getting a report in the local rag is the only way you can get anyone to be aware of your concerns and then the best you can do is point out you have 100 letters of support.
How many souls live in the National Park? 42,000 or so?

Report this post »

craggy says...
3:07pm Mon 21 Jan 13

Lets not forget that one commented that people may start to glow if they drink tap water! And they want informed debate!

Report this post »

craggy says...
3:16pm Mon 21 Jan 13

twitchy wrote:
The gazette report must be refering to the number of protesters collecting signatures for the petition, since I counted up to 100 at the site, incidently it was just one of several activities on the day.
The term DUMP is accepted term for a site for waste disposal.
However well constructed the repository is, it would still be in the wrong place and in the wrong geology.
Perhaps the pro dumpers could explain the basis for their "informed choice"

If it is true that there were 100 protestors collecting signatures, why is it that in another article a spokesperson for the group states that 100 signatures were collected at the demo?
Or did you all just swap names!

Report this post »

marianneb says...
4:16pm Mon 21 Jan 13

Here is the text of the letters signed on saturday to Eddie Martin, Leader of Cumbria County Council, they will be handed in on 30th Jan along with 15,000 + signatures :

Dear Eddie Martin,
Geological Dumping of Nuclear Waste

On 30th January you are going to take the most important decision of any
Cumbria County Council Leader before you. Your decision will speak for the
whole of Cumbria, which has been misrepresented as a “willing community.”
To say ‘yes’ would mean unquantifiable damage to the ‘brand’ of Cumbria.
The real cost, however, would be psychological and physical trauma through countless generations, as Cumbria would be increasingly and irreversibly blighted.
Say NO – end this mad plan now. Then all money and expertise can go into
ensuring the existing wastes are looked after safely on the 6km Sellafield
site rather than expanding and increasing the danger to ever more waste over a much increased area.

Report this post »

life cycle too says...
6:39pm Mon 21 Jan 13

Marianne - you state in YOUR letter to Eddie Martin = Your decision will speak for the whole of Cumbria, which has been misrepresented as a "willing community."

Surely you must have realised simply from reading here, that he will NOT be speaking for the whole of Cumbria, no matter which side he comes down on, and there ARE willing members of this community!

What do YOU suggest is done with the material already stored in Cumbria ABOVE ground, in pools of water in specially designed flasks?
Why is putting it below ground in a specially constructed facility any worse?

Has the contamination of Cumbrian soil from Chernobyl fall out - which has only just seen restrictions on livestock on that ground relaxed put any tourists off visiting?
I noticed you seem happy to live close by, so do you not view that as a threat, or is it simply because you cannot do anything about that, any more than naturally occurring radiation in our environment, so restrict your protests to future plans to rehouse waste much of which is already here?

Report this post »

craggy says...
6:50pm Mon 21 Jan 13

What exactly was the question which garnered 150000 signatures on the petition? Can these signatures be independently verified?

Report this post »

craggy says...
7:05pm Mon 21 Jan 13

One spokesman for your group claimed 100 people collecting signatures, another claimed 100 signatures collected. Its there in black & white! I notice that nobody seems capable of answering questions.

Report this post »

zaney5 says...
7:05pm Mon 21 Jan 13

craggy wrote:
What exactly was the question which garnered 150000 signatures on the petition? Can these signatures be independently verified?

http://you.38degrees
.org.uk/petitions/no
-nuclear-dump-in-the
-lake-district

There you go Craggy.

Report this post »

craggy says...
7:11pm Mon 21 Jan 13

zaney5 wrote:

craggy wrote:
What exactly was the question which garnered 150000 signatures on the petition? Can these signatures be independently verified?
http://you.38degrees

.org.uk/petitions/no

-nuclear-dump-in-the

-lake-district

There you go Craggy.

Thank you!

Report this post »

twitchy says...
7:45pm Mon 21 Jan 13

craggy wrote:
One spokesman for your group claimed 100 people collecting signatures, another claimed 100 signatures collected. Its there in black & white! I notice that nobody seems capable of answering questions.

It is my understanding that only a proportionate number of the group at the demo collected signatures for a petition and also for a printed postcard to be sent to Cumbria C.C. a hundred of these postcards were signed by locals and visitors, these are in addition to other letters and petitions of support.

If anyone can add to this please do so, it is not my intention to mislead.

Report this post »

hemyfan says...
12:22am Tue 22 Jan 13

So sad such an important issue has got sidelined here by a couple of provocative anti-protesters. The unemotional hard, detailed research and evidence is that Cumbria is unsuitable. Even the British Geological Survey reach this conclusion in the detail of their papers, but the summary of course says there is justification for more surveys. Of course they say this. It's their job to survey. The government and nuclear industry find all this very inconvenient and just hope that the jobs and supremely experienced nuclear lobby will persuade local politicians who can then take the blame generations down the line when it all goes horribly wrong...
Say no to the current proposals and yes to a better researched and safer alternative.

Report this post »

Mary D says...
2:16am Tue 22 Jan 13

Kendmoor wrote:
I'm not particularly against the idea, but the general thought of burying nuclear waste in the planet sounds a little perverted..like trying to get rid of a glass of milk by hiding it under mounds and mounds of clothes under our bed..are we able to get it back safely if we find a way to get rid of it? The reason we put it so far underground and out of sight is first and foremost in case of a leak isn't it?
Just throwing some thoughts out there. Can't have our cake and eat it I suppose!

What an excellent analogy Kendmoor.

Report this post »

Mary D says...
2:29am Tue 22 Jan 13

hemyfan wrote:
So sad such an important issue has got sidelined here by a couple of provocative anti-protesters. The unemotional hard, detailed research and evidence is that Cumbria is unsuitable. Even the British Geological Survey reach this conclusion in the detail of their papers, but the summary of course says there is justification for more surveys. Of course they say this. It's their job to survey. The government and nuclear industry find all this very inconvenient and just hope that the jobs and supremely experienced nuclear lobby will persuade local politicians who can then take the blame generations down the line when it all goes horribly wrong...
Say no to the current proposals and yes to a better researched and safer alternative.

Wisely said Hemyfan. The local councillors will put themselves on dangerous ground, if they proceed, of being made scapegoat in the event of an accident as it can be proven they are in possession of evidence about the area's unsuitable nature. The Tokyo Electric Power Co, who owned Fukushima, knew 3 years before the 'accident' that it could not withstand a tsunami. Now they owe an estimated 100 billion dollars in damages. I wouldn't want to be them. Our leaders should take heed.

Report this post »

BillyBob86 says...
5:02pm Tue 22 Jan 13

Before comments go any further, particularly to Mary D, the proposal is not o put a power station underground, it is to store the waste in a modern facility. So please stop making comments about the safety of nuclear power stations as they are completely irrelevent.

Report this post »

dontdumpcumbria says...
10:22am Thu 24 Jan 13

Ah, the usual banter between the Opponents and Proponents. Lets try to add some reason here. Before doing so let me just say I am pro nuclear power and would like to see the 100 tonne stockpile of Plutonium used for fuel in PRISM reactors. This puts weaponisable nuclear materials beyond use and will go a long way to bridging the UK's future energy gap.

Concerning a Geological multi engineered barrier to isolate radionuclides or Dump - Don't use one word when 7 will do! Its not rocket science to understand that all of the UK has benefited from Nuclear by way of National Security, Power and Nuclear Medicine so it follows the problem is a National One and Not exclusively a Cumbrian one.

So why Cumbria again when the NIREX inspector said "Better to look elsewhere" ( He said that because fo the fractured geology and high hydraulic gradients) and the failure of NIREX to predict with any certainty how the groundwater would find its way into the environment.

We now have a new policy of "volunteerism" where a community can volunteer to host such a facility. So lets have a look at the list of Volunteers so far.

1) West Cumbria
2).
3).
4).
5).
6).
7).

A bewildering choice if ever there was one. And why, because of the "phenomenal" benefits promised by the West Cumbrian MP Jamie Reed. How can we overcome this problem? As I see it we have two choices. Either accept the status quo of Economic bullying by the government disguised as volunteerism or find the safest geological environment to bury waste in the UK.

How would we go about the latter?
Currently DECC have allocated £50M for stage 4 of the MRWS process. Why? When NIREX estimated only £5M was necessary for Cumbria. Could it be stage 5 will be “compressed” into stage 4? In any event £50M could survey all of the known safer geological areas in the UK. At the same time develop a community benefits package so that communities who wish to bid to site a Geological Nuclear Waste facility know in advance and for many years into the future what economic advantage they will have. In this way you get a willing community and a Nuclear Waste facility in the safest possible place and NOT under the suspect geology of the Lake District National Park where no doubt “engineering solutions” will be magically found to overcome the poor geology. In Cumbrian speak its called putting the horse before the cart.

Ah, the usual banter between the Opponents and Proponents. Lets try to add some reason here. Before doing so let me just say I am pro nuclear power and would like to see the 100 tonne stockpile of Plutonium used for fuel in PRISM reactors. This puts weaponisable nuclear materials beyond use and will go a long way to bridging the UK's future energy gap. Concerning a Geological multi engineered barrier to isolate radionuclides or Dump - Don't use one word when 7 will do! Its not rocket science to understand that all of the UK has benefited from Nuclear by way of National Security, Power and Nuclear Medicine so it follows the problem is a National One and Not exclusively a Cumbrian one. So why Cumbria again when the NIREX inspector said "Better to look elsewhere" ( He said that because fo the fractured geology and high hydraulic gradients) and the failure of NIREX to predict with any certainty how the groundwater would find its way into the environment. We now have a new policy of "volunteerism" where a community can volunteer to host such a facility. So lets have a look at the list of Volunteers so far. 1) West Cumbria 2). 3). 4). 5). 6). 7). A bewildering choice if ever there was one. And why, because of the "phenomenal" benefits promised by the West Cumbrian MP Jamie Reed. How can we overcome this problem? As I see it we have two choices. Either accept the status quo of Economic bullying by the government disguised as volunteerism or find the safest geological environment to bury waste in the UK. How would we go about the latter? Currently DECC have allocated £50M for stage 4 of the MRWS process. Why? When NIREX estimated only £5M was necessary for Cumbria. Could it be stage 5 will be “compressed” into stage 4? In any event £50M could survey all of the known safer geological areas in the UK. At the same time develop a community benefits package so that communities who wish to bid to site a Geological Nuclear Waste facility know in advance and for many years into the future what economic advantage they will have. In this way you get a willing community and a Nuclear Waste facility in the safest possible place and NOT under the suspect geology of the Lake District National Park where no doubt “engineering solutions” will be magically found to overcome the poor geology. In Cumbrian speak its called putting the horse before the cart. dontdumpcumbria

Report this post »

Mary D says...
3:43pm Fri 1 Feb 13

BillyBob86, I understand your point and was waiting for it to be made as it’s a valid one and is, from one perspective, true. The reason I use previous accidents at nuclear stations as example is because they are nuclear industry failings meaning there is no other comparison to the repository in terms of destructive potential to our environment. These accidents have occurred because man has overestimated his ability to contain nuclear materials, not fully considered the powers of nature upon nuclear facilities and failed to act upon scientific warnings that nuclear facilities were not safe. My fears connect these facts from accidents at stations to the repository as I personally believe these factors also apply in this instance. All the stations at which we have seen accidents were ‘modern facilities’ at the time of their creation but time has seen their flaws emerge. To quote Eddie Martin, "Science is not infallible".The result from a failing at either a power station or a repository would equally be nuclear pollution and the people and technology overlooking both are the same. This makes previous failings at nuclear stations very relevant to me. Not to mention, of course, that the building of a repository in Britain would pave the way for nuclear station new-build. The two are inextricably linked.

Report this post »

@gazettenewsdesk

The Westmorland Gazette

Anti nuclear 'dump' protest staged on shore of Windermere (From The Westmorland Gazette)

News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos

Anti nuclear 'dump' protest staged on shore of Windermere

click2find

Jobs

Dating

Homes

Cars

About cookies