Uncertainty remains over whether Lake District is excluded from GDF nuclear waste plan

THE Lake District may not be out of the 'nuclear woods' yet - despite a major ruling by county councillors, campaigners fear.

Objectors wanting the national park excluded from any underground geological disposal facility (GDF), are monitoring moves in West Cumbria to keep the idea alive.

Under the current Government process, Cumbria County Council's ruling Cabinet agreed to stop any future GDF being built in the county by formally withdrawing from the search for a possible site.

Approval was required from both the top tier authority and a district council for the scheme to continue.

But 'yes' votes on the same day by both Copeland and Allerdale councils, have now been taken up by Copeland MP Jamie Reed.

He says West Cumbria has a 'clear mandate' to see the facility happen.

A detail now unsettling anti-facility campaigners is that the footprint of Copeland and Allerdale includes Lake District National Park territory.

GDF facilities can also have their ground-level buildings several kilometres from where nuclear waste is stored - again raising the prospect of it being 'buried under the Lake District.'

Related links

However, the government has said it remains committed to finding a volunteer community, while in a statement on the issue, Energy Secretary Ed Davies indicated this is likely to involve 'other communities' away from Cumbria.

But Copeland MP Jamie Reed is intent to fully explore the options.

He said: "This may not be within the MRWS process, but Copeland now has a series of options open to it and I have already begun the prcoess of exploring these with industry and with government for the benefit of my constituents."

He added: "There's a great deal of work to be done to take this issue forward and this has already begun."

Milnthorpe-based Marianne Birkby, of Radiation Free Lakeland, has now written to Mr Reed.

She wrote: "We are disapointed in your intention to request that Government overrules the (county) council's democratic decision to withdraw.

"It would set a dangerous precedent whereby central government can overturn the results of any costly process they have set in motion if they are unhappy with the result."

"We urge you to put your frustrations aside, and accept the terms of the MRWS process. The workers at Sellafield, the local community and Cumbria as a whole are now relying on strong leaders to focus all attention on lobbying for government investment in improved interim storage facilities for the waste already in-situ at the plant, in line with the findings of the National Audit Office."

South Lakes MP Tim Farron has also called for the national park to be taken out of any future plan.

Mr Farron said: “Copeland’s yes vote and the accompanying noises that they ‘can go it alone’ are worrying, because the district contains large swathes of the beautiful Lake District within it.

"At the very minimum Copeland and the Government must rule out the Lake District National Park as an area for this facility.”

Leaders of both Copeland and Allerdale have written to the Department of Energy and Climate Change requesting a meeting - expected in the next two weeks - to seek clarity about where last week's decision leaves them, and the problem of nuclear waste being store above ground at Sellafield.

Commenting on last week's decision, Dr Barrie Lambert, member of the Society of Radiological Protection, said: “The safest option is underground disposal in a repository (rather than a depository).

“Whatever the arguments are for and against nuclear power, we have the waste and something must be done with it.  The containment facilities at Sellafield are secure but not suitable for very, very long term storage and from the point of view of, say, terrorist attack, the waste is more secure underground.

“I can understand Cumbria County Council's worry that the Lake District will be linked for ever with the disposal site; but Sellafield, where about 70% of the waste is located, has hosted the UK’s reprocessing plant for the last 60 years and it has provided thousands of jobs and, amazingly, more recently, a significant tourist attraction. 

"The geology may not be absolutely perfect but the risks involved in transporting the material to some other UK site would surely outweigh this, even if such a site could be found."

Meanwhile, the head of Cumbria Tourism added that the county's tourism and nuclear industries must continue to perform for the good of the county's future economic performance.

Cumbria Tourism had maintained a neutral position on the issue. However, it said it would object if the development entered the Lake District National Park.

Mr Stephens said: ‘’Cumbria Tourism has consistently raised concerns throughout the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS) consultation process about a number of potential negative impacts and perceptions affecting the Lake District and Cumbria brands.

"It is reassuring that the democratic process has acknowledged the concerns of many from the tourism industry when arriving at the decision.

"However, as two of the main employers in Cumbria, we must make sure that the tourism and nuclear industries continue to maintain an effective working relationship for the economic benefit of the county, whilst always striving for the highest environmental and social standards."

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:43pm Mon 4 Feb 13

zaney5 says...

When a petulant child is told no and has a foot stamping tantrum cos it didn't get it's own way, the best thing to do is not give into such childish behavior and ignore it.

Just saying....
When a petulant child is told no and has a foot stamping tantrum cos it didn't get it's own way, the best thing to do is not give into such childish behavior and ignore it. Just saying.... zaney5
  • Score: 0

1:51pm Mon 4 Feb 13

lakesailor says...

Quite Agree.
Don't let them get away with trying to alter decisions.
" Milnthorpe-based Marianne Birkby, of Radiation Free Lakeland, has now written to Mr Reed.

She wrote: "We are disapointed in your intention to request that Government overrules the (county) council's democratic decision to withdraw. "
She should withdraw gracefully.
Quite Agree. Don't let them get away with trying to alter decisions. " Milnthorpe-based Marianne Birkby, of Radiation Free Lakeland, has now written to Mr Reed. She wrote: "We are disapointed in your intention to request that Government overrules the (county) council's democratic decision to withdraw. " She should withdraw gracefully. lakesailor
  • Score: 0

2:46pm Mon 4 Feb 13

zaney5 says...

Ah, but Marianne Birkby wasn't the one that was told no.

But you knew that I'm sure and just decided to twist my comments round to suit yourself.
Ah, but Marianne Birkby wasn't the one that was told no. But you knew that I'm sure and just decided to twist my comments round to suit yourself. zaney5
  • Score: 0

3:57pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Helvellyn55 says...

Good.

It is time that the narrow minded folk at CCC deferred to locals and the National interest - or would putting the pights out in 'their' parish be OK?
Good. It is time that the narrow minded folk at CCC deferred to locals and the National interest - or would putting the pights out in 'their' parish be OK? Helvellyn55
  • Score: 0

5:42pm Mon 4 Feb 13

twitchy says...

Candles or radiation poisoning, windmills or leaky repository, hydro power or cancer for generations.......no
t really a tough decision.
Candles or radiation poisoning, windmills or leaky repository, hydro power or cancer for generations.......no t really a tough decision. twitchy
  • Score: 0

6:15pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Borwick says...

The big idea was to identify not the best location for nuclear storage but the poorest whose need would lead to an invitation to the area.

This extraordinary idea has failed and quite sensibly the notion of storing waste in the Lake District or other equally beautiful areas of Cumbria has been rejected. Now, the search needs to identify the best location.

It has been known for years that it is near Oxford. Geologically sound but politically a non-starter. A repository wouldn't do much for tourism and agriculture in Oxfordshire or the Chilterns. The comparatively well-off there would not put up with it either.

Concerned representatives like Mr Reed will have to find other third world industries for us. Perhaps training for local schoolchildren to pick valuable parts out of old mobile phones and other green initiatives worthy of the "Energy Coast".
The big idea was to identify not the best location for nuclear storage but the poorest whose need would lead to an invitation to the area. This extraordinary idea has failed and quite sensibly the notion of storing waste in the Lake District or other equally beautiful areas of Cumbria has been rejected. Now, the search needs to identify the best location. It has been known for years that it is near Oxford. Geologically sound but politically a non-starter. A repository wouldn't do much for tourism and agriculture in Oxfordshire or the Chilterns. The comparatively well-off there would not put up with it either. Concerned representatives like Mr Reed will have to find other third world industries for us. Perhaps training for local schoolchildren to pick valuable parts out of old mobile phones and other green initiatives worthy of the "Energy Coast". Borwick
  • Score: 0

7:31pm Mon 4 Feb 13

searcher21c says...

The "dangerous precedent" whereby governments have overturned results to get what they want has already been set many times around Cumbria and the rest of the UK with wind generating complexes. Many sites turned down by local authorities and local people were developed anyway. The same will no doubt be true of HS2.
The "dangerous precedent" whereby governments have overturned results to get what they want has already been set many times around Cumbria and the rest of the UK with wind generating complexes. Many sites turned down by local authorities and local people were developed anyway. The same will no doubt be true of HS2. searcher21c
  • Score: 0

11:37am Tue 5 Feb 13

lakesailor says...

twitchy wrote:
Candles or radiation poisoning, windmills or leaky repository, hydro power or cancer for generations.......no

t really a tough decision.
Rather emotive.


Nuclear waste has been stored here for 60 years. Why would cancer suddenly become a major problem?
[quote][p][bold]twitchy[/bold] wrote: Candles or radiation poisoning, windmills or leaky repository, hydro power or cancer for generations.......no t really a tough decision.[/p][/quote]Rather emotive. Nuclear waste has been stored here for 60 years. Why would cancer suddenly become a major problem? lakesailor
  • Score: 0

12:56pm Tue 5 Feb 13

BLACKSAIL says...

57 out 60 parish councils in Allerdale voted NO to carrying on to the next stage so how can Jamie Reed say there is a mandate from the local population to go forward ?.I would honestly be interested to hear the answer to this.
57 out 60 parish councils in Allerdale voted NO to carrying on to the next stage so how can Jamie Reed say there is a mandate from the local population to go forward ?.I would honestly be interested to hear the answer to this. BLACKSAIL
  • Score: 0

1:17pm Tue 5 Feb 13

BLACKSAIL says...

I don't have the Copeland parish council 'for or against figures' but would be interested if anyone knows them.?
I don't have the Copeland parish council 'for or against figures' but would be interested if anyone knows them.? BLACKSAIL
  • Score: 0

10:04am Wed 6 Feb 13

life cycle too says...

twitchy wrote:
Candles or radiation poisoning, windmills or leaky repository, hydro power or cancer for generations.......no

t really a tough decision.
Filling stations store petrol underground in huge tanks... they are not affected by the geology, despite being near the surface.
[quote][p][bold]twitchy[/bold] wrote: Candles or radiation poisoning, windmills or leaky repository, hydro power or cancer for generations.......no t really a tough decision.[/p][/quote]Filling stations store petrol underground in huge tanks... they are not affected by the geology, despite being near the surface. life cycle too
  • Score: 0

10:12am Wed 6 Feb 13

life cycle too says...

Borwick wrote:
The big idea was to identify not the best location for nuclear storage but the poorest whose need would lead to an invitation to the area.

This extraordinary idea has failed and quite sensibly the notion of storing waste in the Lake District or other equally beautiful areas of Cumbria has been rejected. Now, the search needs to identify the best location.

It has been known for years that it is near Oxford. Geologically sound but politically a non-starter. A repository wouldn't do much for tourism and agriculture in Oxfordshire or the Chilterns. The comparatively well-off there would not put up with it either.

Concerned representatives like Mr Reed will have to find other third world industries for us. Perhaps training for local schoolchildren to pick valuable parts out of old mobile phones and other green initiatives worthy of the "Energy Coast".
The idea of storing waste in Cumbria has NOT been rejected. It is ALREADY HERE, in ponds above ground at Sellafield.

What was being decided was whether further investigation should be carried out to ascertain whether it could be stored below ground.

It was announced this week that the cost of cleaning up the waste has risen to £67 bn - which will only rise further the longer the UK puts off doing anything with it - just as it is inevitable that the cost of maintaining your car or home will rise.

One of the factors considered is the cost and availability of expertise in dealing with waste - which IS already available in Cumbria.
Small towns such as Frizington have been brought back to life as a result of nuclear industry, and Jamie Reed is right to question whether the County should deny the district the means to sustain itself, when the County cannot even maintain essential services for the elderly and infirm elsewhere in Cumbria - and I join him in this!
[quote][p][bold]Borwick[/bold] wrote: The big idea was to identify not the best location for nuclear storage but the poorest whose need would lead to an invitation to the area. This extraordinary idea has failed and quite sensibly the notion of storing waste in the Lake District or other equally beautiful areas of Cumbria has been rejected. Now, the search needs to identify the best location. It has been known for years that it is near Oxford. Geologically sound but politically a non-starter. A repository wouldn't do much for tourism and agriculture in Oxfordshire or the Chilterns. The comparatively well-off there would not put up with it either. Concerned representatives like Mr Reed will have to find other third world industries for us. Perhaps training for local schoolchildren to pick valuable parts out of old mobile phones and other green initiatives worthy of the "Energy Coast".[/p][/quote]The idea of storing waste in Cumbria has NOT been rejected. It is ALREADY HERE, in ponds above ground at Sellafield. What was being decided was whether further investigation should be carried out to ascertain whether it could be stored below ground. It was announced this week that the cost of cleaning up the waste has risen to £67 bn - which will only rise further the longer the UK puts off doing anything with it - just as it is inevitable that the cost of maintaining your car or home will rise. One of the factors considered is the cost and availability of expertise in dealing with waste - which IS already available in Cumbria. Small towns such as Frizington have been brought back to life as a result of nuclear industry, and Jamie Reed is right to question whether the County should deny the district the means to sustain itself, when the County cannot even maintain essential services for the elderly and infirm elsewhere in Cumbria - and I join him in this! life cycle too
  • Score: 0

10:18am Wed 6 Feb 13

life cycle too says...

twitchy wrote:
Candles or radiation poisoning, windmills or leaky repository, hydro power or cancer for generations.......no

t really a tough decision.
Wikipedia guide to cancer clusters...
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/List_of_can
cer_clusters

West Cumbria was heavily mined for coal - a known source of radiation, and smelting of ores was carried out historically with little knowledge of long term environmental effects.

In contrast, the nuclear industry is regulated and continually under the microscope - not least by the anti nuclear groups who clutch at every straw!
[quote][p][bold]twitchy[/bold] wrote: Candles or radiation poisoning, windmills or leaky repository, hydro power or cancer for generations.......no t really a tough decision.[/p][/quote]Wikipedia guide to cancer clusters... http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/List_of_can cer_clusters West Cumbria was heavily mined for coal - a known source of radiation, and smelting of ores was carried out historically with little knowledge of long term environmental effects. In contrast, the nuclear industry is regulated and continually under the microscope - not least by the anti nuclear groups who clutch at every straw! life cycle too
  • Score: 0

2:02pm Wed 6 Feb 13

twitchy says...

Its limitations are made clear by the conclusion implicit in policy-making that while children will inevitably die from leukemia as a result of radioactive discharges, causality will be denied and in any case their numbers are ‘absolutely small’ and therefore not worthy of consideration. The moral bankruptcy of such a justification is intuitively apparent. If we broaden our conception of value beyond that which exists within the economic growth-driven world system it becomes clear that far from being too cheap to meter, civilian nuclear power is in fact too costly to permit.
The question of the systematic increases of medium and very long-lived radionuclides in the environment from military-associated activities (weapons tests, Uranium weapons) has never been justified and therefore could be taken to be beyond the framework of any ethical system, including utilitarianism. Owing to the cross-border and indiscriminate nature of the contamination it should be considered to be a universal crime against humanity of the type discussed at Nuremberg following World War II.
Its limitations are made clear by the conclusion implicit in policy-making that while children will inevitably die from leukemia as a result of radioactive discharges, causality will be denied and in any case their numbers are ‘absolutely small’ and therefore not worthy of consideration. The moral bankruptcy of such a justification is intuitively apparent. If we broaden our conception of value beyond that which exists within the economic growth-driven world system it becomes clear that far from being too cheap to meter, civilian nuclear power is in fact too costly to permit. The question of the systematic increases of medium and very long-lived radionuclides in the environment from military-associated activities (weapons tests, Uranium weapons) has never been justified and therefore could be taken to be beyond the framework of any ethical system, including utilitarianism. Owing to the cross-border and indiscriminate nature of the contamination it should be considered to be a universal crime against humanity of the type discussed at Nuremberg following World War II. twitchy
  • Score: 0

2:07pm Wed 6 Feb 13

twitchy says...

In response to a challenge to the ethical foundation of civilian nuclear power and the cancers caused by licensed emissions, nuclear industry apologists have offered comparisons between the number of miners killed as part of the life-cycle of energy production in coal-fired power stations with the number of citizens killed by cancers consequent on nuclear releases. However, this is an ethically flawed position. The miners are well informed about the risky nature of their employment and accept it in return for direct pecuniary gain. Their situation is not the same as that of the adult or child who breathes in radioactive particles released from Sellafield without knowing they are in the air, or without benefiting directly from their production. Such people are in effect by-standers and thus have a morally distinct status from those who are engaged in producing the pollutants. The situation is more analogous to that of the people in London who died in the smogs caused by coal-fired power stations and industrial plant. Once the facts about the health risks of such unregulated burning of coal in cities were known these deaths were considered morally unacceptable, leading to the introduction of smokeless zones.
In response to a challenge to the ethical foundation of civilian nuclear power and the cancers caused by licensed emissions, nuclear industry apologists have offered comparisons between the number of miners killed as part of the life-cycle of energy production in coal-fired power stations with the number of citizens killed by cancers consequent on nuclear releases. However, this is an ethically flawed position. The miners are well informed about the risky nature of their employment and accept it in return for direct pecuniary gain. Their situation is not the same as that of the adult or child who breathes in radioactive particles released from Sellafield without knowing they are in the air, or without benefiting directly from their production. Such people are in effect by-standers and thus have a morally distinct status from those who are engaged in producing the pollutants. The situation is more analogous to that of the people in London who died in the smogs caused by coal-fired power stations and industrial plant. Once the facts about the health risks of such unregulated burning of coal in cities were known these deaths were considered morally unacceptable, leading to the introduction of smokeless zones. twitchy
  • Score: 0

4:30pm Wed 6 Feb 13

BLACKSAIL says...

Next week when Jamie Reed visits london pretending to enjoy the support of lthe local population in going on to the next stage (what he calls a mandate) He will no doubt meet politician's who will be happy to join in with the pretence and so the project may go ahead inspite of the fact that in geological terms Cumbria is the equivelant of a tumble dryer.So if we must have a underground storage facility why not put it in the most geologically suitable area whether its in Oxfordshire or Lincolnshire,I am sure they can find a local MP who can pretend to have a mandate in one of these counties to,At least it will be in the safest possible geological area. .
Next week when Jamie Reed visits london pretending to enjoy the support of lthe local population in going on to the next stage (what he calls a mandate) He will no doubt meet politician's who will be happy to join in with the pretence and so the project may go ahead inspite of the fact that in geological terms Cumbria is the equivelant of a tumble dryer.So if we must have a underground storage facility why not put it in the most geologically suitable area whether its in Oxfordshire or Lincolnshire,I am sure they can find a local MP who can pretend to have a mandate in one of these counties to,At least it will be in the safest possible geological area. . BLACKSAIL
  • Score: 0

4:38pm Wed 6 Feb 13

BLACKSAIL says...

life cycle too wrote:
twitchy wrote:
Candles or radiation poisoning, windmills or leaky repository, hydro power or cancer for generations.......no


t really a tough decision.
Filling stations store petrol underground in huge tanks... they are not affected by the geology, despite being near the surface.
Petrol station tanks are very big but i don't know of any that could fit half a dozen aircraft carriers in including the pointy bits at the top.
[quote][p][bold]life cycle too[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twitchy[/bold] wrote: Candles or radiation poisoning, windmills or leaky repository, hydro power or cancer for generations.......no t really a tough decision.[/p][/quote]Filling stations store petrol underground in huge tanks... they are not affected by the geology, despite being near the surface.[/p][/quote]Petrol station tanks are very big but i don't know of any that could fit half a dozen aircraft carriers in including the pointy bits at the top. BLACKSAIL
  • Score: 0

8:40pm Wed 6 Feb 13

life cycle too says...

Nor I'll wager, any with the same degree of sophistication, and with containers inside to contain the waste. ♪ ♫

Also constantly monitored and maintained, and a lot further away from harm than most petrol tanks‼

►►►►►►
►►►►►►
►►
Nor I'll wager, any with the same degree of sophistication, and with containers inside to contain the waste. ♪ ♫ Also constantly monitored and maintained, and a lot further away from harm than most petrol tanks‼ ►►►►►► ►►►►►► ►► life cycle too
  • Score: 0

9:11pm Wed 6 Feb 13

marianneb says...

An extract from Cumbria County Council Leader Eddie Martin's statement to Cabinet. Eddie Martin is a supporter of nuclear power.

"There is no compelling evidence anywhere that disposal of radioactive waste is safe. Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates trawled through a lot of European Union documentation, a lot of Environment Agency documentation, and came up with 101 uncertainties, technical and scientific uncertainties, which we put to the NDA which they are now going through. I don’t know how many people in West Cumbria understand, but a repository is designed to leak.
I read that radioactive waste from spent fuel rods, old nuclear weapons, and radioactive pharmaceuticals is like a two-year old at a birthday party. It has astonishing energy and wreaks havoc with its environment if you leave it unattended.
Young children and radioactive materials need supervision. Like a child, like you and me, an energetic radioactive molecule will become less energetic as it ages but for some molecules it will take many, many ages…
Like a two year old, radioactive waste can get into everything: water, soil, plants and animals. One way to control it is to trap it in ceramic-type materials so that it can’t escape into the environment. Hopefully, by the time the ceramic breaks down, the radioactivity will have decayed and will no longer pose a threat. But science is not infallible. What is deemed scientifically accurate and undeniable today may not be so in 100 or 1000 years time…and I can give you many examples of the fallibility of science.
Scientific knowledge is human knowledge and scientists are human beings. They are not gods, and science is not infallible. In short, there remains too much uncertainty.
Members: The only credible or satisfactory safety standard is an absolute one; i.e. beyond any doubt whatsoever. I am absolutely certain that the
earth goes round the sun, and that the earth is not flat. That’s a fact, not a theory.
I simply do not have such certainty when it comes to the disposal of nuclear waste. It seems clear that there is probably no realistic possibility that the yardstick of absolute safety will be or can be applied under the current process or in the immediate future. Faith, in the sense of “faith in science” means confidence that the methods of Science are sound. I do not have such confidence and I would not wish to inflict the possible consequences of my lack of confidence on Cumbrian people.
So, if we are never going to, or if we are unlikely to, reach journey’s end, why start the journey? With Stage 4?
We have done our best to get to grips with the complexities of this process. It has considerably preoccupied us. But there are, indeed, many factors other than the purely geological suitability, such as:
The proximity of thousands of people, businesses, farms, parish councils, dwellings … to any site which might be finally selected or even explored in Stage 5. The exploration and the construction of the facilities would have a significant impact on local communities and local infrastructure … and for many, many years. Do we really want such turmoil in any part of Cumbria?
I have to say, I rather like the Cumbrian countryside as it is…
Almost by definition, there must be damage to the Lake District Brand and the Cumbrian Brand and the AONB classifications.
For the government to offer funding to protect that Brand is surely an acknowledgement that there will be damage – hence the compensation.
And frankly, I think I probably fear the consequences of years of stage 5 even more so than the many years of construction of the actual GDF.
Members know that I am evangelical in encouraging investment in Sellafield. I have written to two Secretaries of State to that end. Right now, I especially favour, however, the enhanced storage and the ability to retrieve the nuclear waste rather than its disposal. "
An extract from Cumbria County Council Leader Eddie Martin's statement to Cabinet. Eddie Martin is a supporter of nuclear power. "There is no compelling evidence anywhere that disposal of radioactive waste is safe. Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates trawled through a lot of European Union documentation, a lot of Environment Agency documentation, and came up with 101 uncertainties, technical and scientific uncertainties, which we put to the NDA which they are now going through. I don’t know how many people in West Cumbria understand, but a repository is designed to leak. I read that radioactive waste from spent fuel rods, old nuclear weapons, and radioactive pharmaceuticals is like a two-year old at a birthday party. It has astonishing energy and wreaks havoc with its environment if you leave it unattended. Young children and radioactive materials need supervision. Like a child, like you and me, an energetic radioactive molecule will become less energetic as it ages but for some molecules it will take many, many ages… Like a two year old, radioactive waste can get into everything: water, soil, plants and animals. One way to control it is to trap it in ceramic-type materials so that it can’t escape into the environment. Hopefully, by the time the ceramic breaks down, the radioactivity will have decayed and will no longer pose a threat. But science is not infallible. What is deemed scientifically accurate and undeniable today may not be so in 100 or 1000 years time…and I can give you many examples of the fallibility of science. Scientific knowledge is human knowledge and scientists are human beings. They are not gods, and science is not infallible. In short, there remains too much uncertainty. Members: The only credible or satisfactory safety standard is an absolute one; i.e. beyond any doubt whatsoever. I am absolutely certain that the earth goes round the sun, and that the earth is not flat. That’s a fact, not a theory. I simply do not have such certainty when it comes to the disposal of nuclear waste. It seems clear that there is probably no realistic possibility that the yardstick of absolute safety will be or can be applied under the current process or in the immediate future. Faith, in the sense of “faith in science” means confidence that the methods of Science are sound. I do not have such confidence and I would not wish to inflict the possible consequences of my lack of confidence on Cumbrian people. So, if we are never going to, or if we are unlikely to, reach journey’s end, why start the journey? With Stage 4? We have done our best to get to grips with the complexities of this process. It has considerably preoccupied us. But there are, indeed, many factors other than the purely geological suitability, such as: The proximity of thousands of people, businesses, farms, parish councils, dwellings … to any site which might be finally selected or even explored in Stage 5. The exploration and the construction of the facilities would have a significant impact on local communities and local infrastructure … and for many, many years. Do we really want such turmoil in any part of Cumbria? I have to say, I rather like the Cumbrian countryside as it is… Almost by definition, there must be damage to the Lake District Brand and the Cumbrian Brand and the AONB classifications. For the government to offer funding to protect that Brand is surely an acknowledgement that there will be damage – hence the compensation. And frankly, I think I probably fear the consequences of years of stage 5 even more so than the many years of construction of the actual GDF. Members know that I am evangelical in encouraging investment in Sellafield. I have written to two Secretaries of State to that end. Right now, I especially favour, however, the enhanced storage and the ability to retrieve the nuclear waste rather than its disposal. " marianneb
  • Score: 0

9:18pm Wed 6 Feb 13

twitchy says...

life cycle too wrote:
Nor I'll wager, any with the same degree of sophistication, and with containers inside to contain the waste. ♪ ♫

Also constantly monitored and maintained, and a lot further away from harm than most petrol tanks‼

►►►►►►

�►►►►►

��►►
"Monitored and maintained" is this leaky, don't know what is in our nuclear waste pools,moneypit Sellafield the biggest "Nuclear slum in Europe" to quote an emiment MP--or some other place???
[quote][p][bold]life cycle too[/bold] wrote: Nor I'll wager, any with the same degree of sophistication, and with containers inside to contain the waste. ♪ ♫ Also constantly monitored and maintained, and a lot further away from harm than most petrol tanks‼ ►►►►►► � �►►►►► � ��►►[/p][/quote]"Monitored and maintained" is this leaky, don't know what is in our nuclear waste pools,moneypit Sellafield the biggest "Nuclear slum in Europe" to quote an emiment MP--or some other place??? twitchy
  • Score: 0

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