Come clean on nuclear waste and represent the public’s opinion
Last updated at 13:39, Thursday, 24 January 2013
There are many different areas for debate, concern, explanation and examination that need to be dealt with before any decision is made over the possible siting of an underground repository for nuclear waste in the west of Cumbria.
For a start, we don’t need more transparency, honesty and openness over what happens at Sellafield. We need some.
We still don’t have any idea of what horrors lie submerged in the “swimming pools” at Sellafield .
Some say they have lain there for years, perhaps decades.
But the point is, hardly anyone knows exactly what is stored in the murky waters of the plant, let alone has any idea of its condition.
There is no doubt that all this waste needs to be disposed of properly and with the utmost security and safety.
But if we haven’t been able to trust the Government and nuclear authorities to look after it properly in the past, how can we start now and trust these latest plans?
It’s no good saying that it is in “the public’s interest” or for “the good of the nation” to restrict information.
The authorities need to come clean about the waste that we already have, before they can expect any sort of support or backing from the people who live here.
Maybe some sort of truth and reconciliation council needs to be established?
It is in the local and the national interest to know exactly what waste we have to dispose of, before we come to any decision about how we should do it – and where it should go.
This is a massive issue that concerns and affects all people across the region.
It is a question where local councillors must represent that views and opinions of their constituents, rather than follow any party line.
So why is this decision being made by a select group of councillors who belong to the cabinet groups of the Copeland, Allerdale and county council authorities?
Don’t all us voters deserve to be represented by their councillors and have their votes cast, rather than see the decision made by some star chamber?
One other thing.
Most people believe that massive pressure is being exerted on our local councils by the Government and by the nuclear industry.
Whether this is true or not is beside the point.
This opinion is the result of the distrust (paranoia?) so many people now have of this process and the way it has been conducted.
Why ask for a volunteer host community before finding out whether it will provide a suitable geological site?
Dr Keith Baverstock is a former government adviser for the nuclear industry.
He was fired from the panel of advisers in 2005 after raising concerns about the scientific process in looking for waste solutions.
He told the BBC: “This process of voluntarism seems to me to be ludicrous.
“You need to know when you ask people whether you can bury your radioactive waste in their back gardens, whether it’s feasible to actually do it.
“It’s the wrong way round.”
First published at 13:38, Thursday, 24 January 2013
Published by http://www.newsandstar.co.uk
Have your say
So, we build this facility in Cumbria and it's in unsuitable geology. And we know it, but we'll put plans in place so that when the geology 'shifts' and the millions of tons of rock above the GDF start moving, we can be sure that none of the containers will get accidentaly crushed and release contamination into the water table which will be flowing through the rock. In fact, put a couple of blokes down there with it so they can move the containers to another area in case of any emergency. Yeah - that will workSo how are we going to create a cavity that does not get compromised in the first place? I know, use extra strength pit props from ACME, BnQ or even Screwfix. LoL
How can a company that falsified data for waste going to Japan possibly be considered even remotely suitable for long term nuclear waste storage and care.
How some people quickly forget......
View all 29 comments on this article