/ Demonstartion against proposed nuclear dump in Ennerdale

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Baron Weasel - on 18 Jan 2013
Protest against proposed nuclear dump in Ennerdale tomorrow at 10am, Bowness Bay, Windermere.

BW
Pursued by a bear - on 18 Jan 2013
In reply to Baron Weasel: Shan't be there. As outlined in a previous thread, I think it merits consideration.

Out of interest, why isn't the demo in Ennerdale, or at least somewhere close?

T.
Ridge - on 18 Jan 2013
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
> (In reply to Baron Weasel) Shan't be there. As outlined in a previous thread, I think it merits consideration.
>
> Out of interest, why isn't the demo in Ennerdale, or at least somewhere close?

Distinct lack of tea shoppes in Ennerdale?
thegoatstroker - on 18 Jan 2013

In reply to Baron Weasel: In reply to Baron Weasel: i would go if i wasnt working.
I am not anti nuclear and i accept we have to look after the waste that exists
However i think safety first should be the approach, finding the best sites as a starting point
Not political expediency.
National Parks should be excluded until all other areas have been ruled out. Politicians in Cumbria are not elected by all the people who use and care about the National Parks so their motivations are skewed away from the majority of people who have a stake in the areas in question.
Any decision that affects a national park in such a major way should be acountable at a national level.

The demonstration i hope will alert more people to the threat to a beautiful quiet part of the lakes that should be a last resort not the first.
MHutch - on 19 Jan 2013
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
>
> Out of interest, why isn't the demo in Ennerdale, or at least somewhere close?
>
> T.

Being one of the most remote and unpopulated dales in the Lakes means there would be precious few people there to see the demo and be won over by the campaign, I guess, as opposed to hundreds of people in Bowness. They've already had a demonstration 'walk' along the possible path of construction vehicles in Ennerdale.

Any adoption of a nuclear waste facility requires the consent of the local population, so I've got no problems with anything that gets those people thinking about it well in advance. I'm sure there will be plenty of campaigning by those in favour of any plan.
mark catcher - on 19 Jan 2013
In reply to Baron Weasel: Pretty sure there's a demonstration walk next weekend, Sat 26 at 12 noon in Ennerdale itself. I hope it is well attended!
sheep - on 19 Jan 2013
mockerkin on 19 Jan 2013
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
> (In reply to Baron Weasel) Shan't be there. As outlined in a previous thread, I think it merits consideration.

>> To survey the Ennerdale valley could require areas to be sealed off for up to two years while drilling up to 60,000 holes and dynamiting to take place. This will be the siesmic survey. Also about sixteen deep bores will be drilled over ten years, up to seven at a time. Each drill pad is the size of a football pitch, fenced off and with twenty four hour lighting and noise. Access roads will need to be built. Goodbye Ennerdale. Does that
still merit consideration?

lpretro1 on 19 Jan 2013
In reply to mockerkin: And how does this stack up with the Wild Ennerdale project - aimed at returning the valley as far as poss to its original state? It is truly one of the few remaining 'wilder' places in the Lakes. But I would imagine that not a lot of people in West Cumbria could object as the nuclear industry employs a serious number of folk in an area of little alternative employment.
Pursued by a bear - on 19 Jan 2013
In reply to mockerkin: Of course. But my thoughts on this are in the previous thread.

T.
mockerkin on 19 Jan 2013
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
> (In reply to mockerkin) Of course. But my thoughts on this are in the previous thread.

>> Sorry, I didn't realise that you had lost the thread.



jimmacfarlane - on 19 Jan 2013
Please could everyone interested sign up to the petition on the noend.org.uk website? Have a look at the following youtube link to understand the issues. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbvZjwkPIQE

Or the link to the weekend ITV news coverage at http://www.vimeo.com/56814575

To find more ideas on how to help, visit the website at www.noend.org.uk
lfenbo - on 19 Jan 2013
In reply to jimmacfarlane: have signed the petition and suggested they bury it under the houses of parliament ;-)
Ridge - on 19 Jan 2013
In reply to jimmacfarlane:
> Please could everyone interested sign up to the petition on the noend.org.uk website? Have a look at the following youtube link to understand the issues. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbvZjwkPIQE

That's a very well produced video, but seems to be based on the premise that the waste is going to be tipped straight into the lake and upset the fish in the stream it keeps banging on about constantly through the video. It's been done to death in thr other thread, but my 2p worth:

There are no plans for a repository under Ennerdale, it's all conjecture.

If there were there are far easier and cheaper ways to build it than the elaborate plans for the total destruction of Ennerdale mooted in the thread.

The waste is all currently stockpiled about 5 miles down the road, so Ebnerdale would be a lot safer with it buried beneath it.

The site should be selected on geology, not PR.
Pagan - on 19 Jan 2013
In reply to thegoatstroker:

> However i think safety first should be the approach, finding the best sites as a starting point

Agreed.

> National Parks should be excluded until all other areas have been ruled out

Err, sorry - you can either have safety first or you can pick and choose your geologically suitable facility according to whether or not it's in a pretty area. You can't have both.

Given that transporting highly radioactive waste is inherently risky (I guess; someone correct me if I'm wrong) it seems that the ideal solution would involve keeping the geographical distance to your geologically suitable facility to a minimum, yes? In which case, assuming the Ennerdale site is the closest suitable repositary, there shouldn't be an argument if you're sticking by your 'safety first' ideal.

Pagan - on 19 Jan 2013
In reply to mockerkin:

Have you got a source for that rather hysterical quote?
fmck - on 20 Jan 2013
In reply to Ridge:

Not all waste. We have a store 3 mile down the road albeit not in use until end of February.

Like you say It's all a pointless argument as there is no way there going elsewhere when Britains reprocessing plant is there already. The costs involved already are beyond believe. Maybe Tokyo might have it seeing as the contents of their reactors are spread all over the place anyway.
cander - on 20 Jan 2013
In reply to Pagan:

To be fair to Mockerkin - a drill site on land is generally football pitch size if it's an oil well, I suspect the sites maybe smaller for geotechnical investigations but I'll let someone more knowledgable than me comment on that.

Seismic surveys haven't used dynamit as the sound source for some time - we use trucks with vibrators as the sound source these days.

But the point is still valid if I was going to put a repository in the Ennerdale Granophyre - (which geologically speaking is probably as good a place as any) I'd want to understand in detail how the ground water moved through it (via fractures) - and it would seem pretty difficult to do that using seismic, so that means drilling, probably lots of it.

I reckon that would definitly have an impact on Ennerdale scenery and access.
Radioactiveman - on 20 Jan 2013
In reply to Pagan:

Rad waste is currently moved from pretty much every corner of the country to sellafield at the moment so its a well understood process. Also not sure what arrangements will be made for future reactors.

The groundwater question is probs only an issue for the civil structure.Any where waste is stored water has to be strictly controlled for criticality reasons

I really think people should have a read up on current storage arrangements to realise we need a safer longer term option.

btw I work in the industry so I might come across as biased,the other way to look at is I have an indepth knowledge tbh I havent taken much interest into the repository until I saw some of the threads on here
fmck - on 20 Jan 2013
In reply

Carefull now Magnox has a new super dooper IT contractor. : )
ads.ukclimbing.com
dixmarra - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to Pagan:
> (In reply to mockerkin)
>
> Have you got a source for that rather hysterical quote?



http://www.flickr.com/photos/35512950@N06/8398849337/
mockerkin on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to cander:
> (In reply to Pagan)
>
> To be fair to Mockerkin - a drill site on land is generally football pitch size if it's an oil well, I suspect the sites maybe smaller for geotechnical investigations but I'll let someone more knowledgable than me comment on that.

> Seismic surveys haven't used dynamit as the sound source for some time - we use trucks with vibrators as the sound source these days.

RE. the seismic survey, you've just made me think about that. It also would be more destructive than is generally realised. Whether drill trucks, which prepare the site for dynamite charges and only drill a few feet down, vibrator trucks or weight trucks, which drop a three ton weight,(the descriptions are for UKCers not familiar with the industry) are used as the sound source, they will not need access roads as big and robust as the ones carrying heavy deep drilling gear, but there will have to be many more, widespread to cover the whole area, which is rough difficult terrain. If the dump is to extend under the lake, (it will be the size of Carlisle) will they also need to bring in a marine seismic survey team onto the lake using air guns as a sound source or could a seismic survey around the shores only, give a good refraction result to avoid that.
It's a while since I worked in the industry using all those methods so I need you to update me as much as I need to save Cumbria.

Ridge - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to mockerkin:

Devil's advocate here, but will they need significantly more roads than the numerous forestry roads already present, which the logger's artics and trailers seem to thunder about happily on?

Your points on surveying beneath the lake are interesting. I take it that could be potentially fatal to the fish and other species in thr lake?
mockerkin on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to Ridge:
> (In reply to mockerkin)
>
> Devil's advocate here, but will they need significantly more roads than the numerous forestry roads already present, which the logger's artics and trailers seem to thunder about happily on?

>> Depends on whether the forestry roads go to where they want to do the survey. These seismic surveys need to cover a lot of ground.
>
> Your points on surveying beneath the lake are interesting. I take it that could be potentially fatal to the fish and other species in thr lake?

>> That has been a problem, can't remember if the rare arctic char fish is in Ennerdale, they moved some from Bassenthwaite to Scotland recently because of farmers polluting the lake. God knows what damages air guns would do. Personally I hope that the seismic land based surveys can produce
a clear picture. But a lot of it depends on computers to interperet the gathered data. Quantifying refraction can be a theoretical progresion to a computer, but shit in = shit out. Plus interference from Cumbrian and national politics will give the public a false view.
This isn't just a talking point here as it is with most UKC people, it is important.




dixmarra - on 26 Jan 2013
fmck - on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to dixmarra:

Yep. Looks like a small group of people with little answers other than " no here"

So dumb!

Ridge - on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to dixmarra:

Protest aside, some cracking shots of eskdale!
dixmarra - on 28 Jan 2013
In reply to fmck: Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.
mockerkin on 29 Jan 2013
In reply to dixmarra:
> (In reply to fmck) Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.

>> To fmck
I would like to apologise to you on behalf of all the people against the dump in Cumbria who don't agree with your opinion.
We didn't realise that you are a such a geological expert. We thought that you were simply someone who saw, on this site, a photo of a few people demonstrating against the dump, then dismissed them all out of hand.
To everyone else, do you realise that out of a population of about 400,000+ only 24 people will be making the next big decision on this. There will be no referendum for the people of Cumbria. Only the executives of the three councils involved will be allowed to vote, not all of those councillors, or the people. Don't bother replying that the people voted for the councils, because when the people voted, this problem wasn't in the total public domain.
Further, two of these three councils only represent West Cumbria. The other councils in Cumbria have no say, except for Cumbria County Council and as said only their executives will vote and their leader, a tory, will just kiss party arse.
The other two, labour council leaders, are so old fashioned in their thinking and short sightedness that they only think of a short term increase in jobs, which will give them kudos with their party but makes the mistake of ignoring the immediate devestation the construction will cause and long term problems.
The Cumbrian geology is fractured. Geoliogically the safest places in England (why not look at the whole of the UK) is in solid clay under London and Kent.

fmck - on 29 Jan 2013
In reply to dixmarra:
> (In reply to fmck) Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.

Many buffalo there.

Ok chief sleeping bull. You wise man.


fmck - on 29 Jan 2013
In reply to mockerkin:

Counting the numbers on the UKCLIMBING news aerial shot there isn't even a hundred people there. Count them!

The numbers Speak for themselves its a little minority that considers themselves experts!

Hmm don't think so.
mockerkin on 29 Jan 2013
In reply to fmck:
> (In reply to mockerkin)
>
> Counting the numbers on the UKCLIMBING news aerial shot there isn't even a hundred people there. Count them!
>
> The numbers Speak for themselves its a little minority that considers themselves experts!

>> You keep talking about a photo you have seen. You can't quote geological surveys. You aren't aware of the tens of thousands of people who have signed petitions against the dump.
Twenty four people, all of whom are politically bound to follow their party line to make a decision that the tens of thousands don't want and many others who haven't had it explained to them honestly is not democracy.
You don't live here. You don't know about the biased phone surveys which were directed only to Sellafield workers and their relations. Tick box questions which were so cleverly put that it was impossible to have a result against the dump and then put to the media as a yes vote from the Cumbrian people. You are so out of your depth on this one.

fmck - on 29 Jan 2013
In reply to mockerkin:

I can count!

I know when I smell porkies!

fmck - on 29 Jan 2013
In reply to mockerkin:

Come on its got nothing to do with democracy. We used electricity since the early 60s ( you had the choice to switch off then) now you have big leaky plants that are of no use to get rid of.
It's the price to pay from yesterday not today!
dixmarra - on 29 Jan 2013
In reply to fmck:
by - fmck on - 12 Jan 2013



In reply to sloth:

Therefore blasting out the rock hillside in order to provide parking. Yes very sensitive to the glen. NEXT!

nimby ?
fmck - on 29 Jan 2013
In reply to dixmarra:

He he! 100 still in my count or u counting all the toddlers n possibly the pets. : )
Wainers44 - on 30 Jan 2013
In reply to Baron Weasel: Did I hear the figures on the BBC correctly...planned facility 9 square miles underground, half a square mile on the surface. Wow, so assuming about 15M high chamber (which might be a bit small) thats about 43million lorry loads of spoil....or 86million lorry movements.

Time to go and buy a haulage business in the Lakes....
Ridge - on 30 Jan 2013
In reply to mockerkin:
> (In reply to fmck)
> [...]

> You don't live here. You don't know about the biased phone surveys which were directed only to Sellafield workers and their relations.

Have you contacted the Guardian or similar with these allegations? "Nuclear Industry Rigs Vote" would be national, if not worldwide headlines. The population of Copeland and Allerdale is about 160,000, so with at least 20,000 of the working population working for Sellafield or the supply chain you'd probably have to be highly selective not to interview them or their relatives.

> Tick box questions which were so cleverly put that it was impossible to have a result against the dump and then put to the media as a yes vote from the Cumbrian people. You are so out of your depth on this one.

That's not how I remember the questionnaire.
mockerkin on 30 Jan 2013
In reply to Wainers44:
> (In reply to Baron Weasel) Did I hear the figures on the BBC correctly...planned facility 9 square miles underground, half a square mile on the surface. Wow, so assuming about 15M high chamber (which might be a bit small) thats about 43million lorry loads of spoil....or 86million lorry movements.
>
> Time to go and buy a haulage business in the Lakes....

>> Don't buy a truck now, Cumbria has refused the dump.
Wainers44 - on 30 Jan 2013
In reply to mockerkin: bl**dy democracy, have already bought half a fleet from a Nigerian Prince (wasnt what he emailed me for but he was a smashing bloke).

Put another way, the spoil coming out would have made a bund (bank) 10M high running for 1100KM...thats a few quids worth

Cant help think that long term if you put all the really high level waste in a rocket and blast it out of the galaxy it wouldnt actually prove any dearer...mind you, nothing ever goes wrong when lauching rockets....
ads.ukclimbing.com

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.