Bradwell Power Station nuclear discharge 'experiment' fear

[DavidofMersea]

The above is a BBC headline. It seems that BANNG have got to the BBC now, although I notice the article is full of quotes from Tim Deere-Jones, who describes himself as Musician, poet, marine pollution consultant, environmental journalist: also done time as boat builder, roofer, organic market gardener, willow grower, willow worker, and is now calling himself a Marine scientist, although he has no nuclear qualifications

 

[Burnham Bob]

I've just gone through the elaborate BBC complaints procedure. The replies from Magnox etc are buried in the article and they seem simply to have taken what BAANG says at face value. I've told them their reporting is based and that repeating an untruth over and over again is an old propaganda trick worthy of Goebbels. Eventually people believe it. Watch this space for the BBC's reply!

 

[sailorman]

Its also in the bbc website

Campaigners have called for discharge from a decommissioned nuclear power station to be stopped, claiming the area is being used for an "experiment".
Magnox, which runs Essex's Bradwell power station, is releasing treated liquid into the River Blackwater.
Marine scientist Tim Deere-Jones said there were concerns over the radioactive materials released.

The Environment Agency, which granted permission, and Magnox said the process was safe.
But Mr Deere-Jones called for discharges to be stopped and an inquiry set up to look at the process.


Mr Deere-Jones, who has worked as a consultant for Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund, said it was different to a dissolution process used at another decommissioned plant, in Dungeness in Kent.

"Bradwell is a guinea pig," he said.
He said the difficulty with investigating the dangers of radiation was that "any health effects won't show for many years".




http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-28213770

 

[DavidofMersea]

Mr Deere-Jones, who has worked as a consultant for Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund,

But what it does not say is what Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund consulted Mr Deere-Jones on. Professor Andy Blowers (Chairman of BANNG) will tell you he was on the Government Nuclear Waste disposal advisory committee, which he was, but what he does not tell you is that he was there to advise on what effect it would have on the local community, or put another way, what the local NIMBYs would say. Professor Blowers subject is geography, not nuclear physics

 

[NUTMEG]

To be honest I would prefer Bradwell NOT to discharge anything into the river, wouldn't you chaps. To read some of the pro-nuke posts hear one could be excused for thinking that the discharge, by a commercial company, trying to balance its books, of radioactive waste was a good thing. If I were to pour waste oil from my boat I am sure peeps here would object. The oil would provide food for lots of bacteria and in a few years it would be no more.

Yet we all know it is wrong to tip our waste oil over the side. Some people here seem to prefer low level nuclear waste to a few pints of engine oil.

Should we not all be calling for a total ban in dumping anything in 'our' river?

 

[DavidofMersea]

To be honest I would prefer Bradwell NOT to discharge anything into the river, wouldn't you chaps. To read some of the pro-nuke posts hear one could be excused for thinking that the discharge, by a commercial company, trying to balance its books, of radioactive waste was a good thing. If I were to pour waste oil from my boat I am sure peeps here would object. The oil would provide food for lots of bacteria and in a few years it would be no more.

Yet we all know it is wrong to tip our waste oil over the side. Some people here seem to prefer low level nuclear waste to a few pints of engine oil.

Should we not all be calling for a total ban in dumping anything in 'our' river?

What I object to is the self proclaimed and unqualified experts whipping up hysteria to boost their own egos, as well as the hypocrisy. We have Professor Blowers, chairman of BANNG telling us all how dangerous and polluted the Blackwater is, and yet he and his wife go swimming in it. .....and do you believe that the Power Station workers, who really know about these things, would cover themselves and their families in radiation?

 

[NUTMEG]

Dear David, I really do not want to enter into a debate with you on this forum on a subject I suspect we can never agree upon. You do seem to get rather excited about the BAANG group, and I can understand how property owners nearby object to media attention being drawn to Bradwells' dumping of low level waste and the construction of on-shore wind farms. Both of which could affect property values.

I appreciate your concerns re. qualifications of those making statements on this issue, in what way are you so qualified? I am a geographer and know next to nothing about nuclear waste but I would not want any in my tea!

Maybe you and other pro nuke posters would be better off posting in the Lounge, plenty of supporters there I suspect.

Steve

 

[DavidofMersea]

I can understand how property owners nearby object to media attention being drawn to Bradwells' dumping of low level waste and the construction of on-shore wind farms. Both of which could affect property values.

I have not noticed any fall in property values, and it does not matter to me whether property prices rise or fall. Apart from a house I am buying at the moment, I have no plans to buy or sell any property in the foreseeable future

 

[DavidofMersea]

I appreciate your concerns re. qualifications of those making statements on this issue, in what way are you so qualified?

I have no qualifications, and unlike BANNG people, I do not present myself as an expert

 

[sailorman]

Dear David, I really do not want to enter into a debate with you on this forum on a subject I suspect we can never agree upon. You do seem to get rather excited about the BAANG group, and I can understand how property owners nearby object to media attention being drawn to Bradwells' dumping of low level waste and the construction of on-shore wind farms. Both of which could affect property values.

I appreciate your concerns re. qualifications of those making statements on this issue, in what way are you so qualified? I am a geographer and know next to nothing about nuclear waste but I would not want any in my tea!

Maybe you and other pro nuke posters would be better off posting in the Lounge, plenty of supporters there I suspect.

Steve

this is a local East Coast issue & best kept here too. The Lounge is only seen by registered members, so not public

 

[Burnham Bob]

Sophie - the issue is that in reality the discharges do not affect sailing, wildlife, house prices or anything else. The whole process is safe and has been cleared by the Office for Nuclear Responsibility, Magnox and the Environment Agency (see other posts as to how easily they are led by seahorse orientated greens so if they are relaxed on this I see no problem!)

The real problem with BAANG is their scaremongering - and now they seem to have convinced you that 'the Bradwell nuclear discharge' - undefined as it is - is a bad thing when its not. That's what David and I get worried about - when the constant untruths actually start to become accepted as a fact.

 

[Marmalade]

I'm not "pro nuke" but I do worry that if there's continual scaremongering by the ill-informed, we may struggle to make our voice heard if there is ever a really concerning problem. Like Sophie19, in an ideal world I'd prefer nothing to be discharged into the river, but given that they are discharging something I'd rather have a rational conversation about it.

 

[NUTMEG]

If others are happy to have posts like this here that's great.

We seem agreed that we are not experts. That's good. On one hand we have 'the nuclear industry' and government funded bodies telling us everything is fine. On the other a collection of amateur activists who tell us we should be worried.

It seems to me that both sides have agendas to support and interests to be preserved. To be frank, I would not trust a anyone from the 'industry' further than I could throw them. The tobacco 'industry' insisted for many years that smoking was good for us. The govt passed thalidomide as safe, likewise DDT and CFC's. The list is very long. Local activist and associated NIMBY groups similarly have their agendas.

So one is left having to make up ones own mind about any issue. Tritium does not occur (except in tiny amounts in the stratosphere) in nature.' Therefore it is not part of our long evolved ecosystem. Organisms on all scales are not evolved to use it or deal with it as a waste, unlike oil. Long term genetic mutation can not be ruled out.

So, I think if a man-made substance should naturally NOT be present in an environment then let us as a species not be so arrogant as to think we can dump it there. The nuclear industry elsewhere treats Tritium before disposal, simply discharging it into the Blackwater is clearly a cost saving exercise. Perhaps a safe one perhaps not. We are not experts after all.

So, my objection lays in the fact that elsewhere these substances are treated as low level radioactive waste and are processed as such, not simply flushed into the nearest river.

My degree is in environmental geography by the way, not nuclear waste handling, I am just a slightly paranoid individual with a healthy distrust of governmental departments/agencies.

Cheers

Steve

 

[tillergirl]

If others are happy to have posts like this here that's great.

We seem agreed that we are not experts. That's good. On one hand we have 'the nuclear industry' and government funded bodies telling us everything is fine. On the other a collection of amateur activists who tell us we should be worried.

It seems to me that both sides have agendas to support and interests to be preserved. To be frank, I would not trust a anyone from the 'industry' further than I could throw them. The tobacco 'industry' insisted for many years that smoking was good for us. The govt passed thalidomide as safe, likewise DDT and CFC's. The list is very long. Local activist and associated NIMBY groups similarly have their agendas.

So one is left having to make up ones own mind about any issue. Tritium does not occur (except in tiny amounts in the stratosphere) in nature.' Therefore it is not part of our long evolved ecosystem. Organisms on all scales are not evolved to use it or deal with it as a waste, unlike oil. Long term genetic mutation can not be ruled out.

So, I think if a man-made substance should naturally NOT be present in an environment then let us as a species not be so arrogant as to think we can dump it there. The nuclear industry elsewhere treats Tritium before disposal, simply discharging it into the Blackwater is clearly a cost saving exercise. Perhaps a safe one perhaps not. We are not experts after all.

So, my objection lays in the fact that elsewhere these substances are treated as low level radioactive waste and are processed as such, not simply flushed into the nearest river.

My degree is in environmental geography by the way, not nuclear waste handling, I am just a slightly paranoid individual with a healthy distrust of governmental departments/agencies.

Cheers

Steve

Not wishing to pour troubled oil on water, I confirm that Steve's distrust of the Civil Service is wise. I am also unhappy with BAANG for the reasons David has stated. My only beef about this is that waste is being brought to the Bradwell site for disposal. I accept what has been said about the relative inertness of Tritium but something just niggles in the back of my mind that if it so safe to dispose of why isn't it being got rid of where it was found/created etc rather than being transported here? You see someone has had to pay for transport so in the civil service mind a balancing cost benefit has had to offset that.

 

[penfold]

My only beef about this is that waste is being brought to the Bradwell site for disposal. I accept what has been said about the relative inertness of Tritium but something just niggles in the back of my mind that if it so safe to dispose of why isn't it being got rid of where it was found/created etc rather than being transported here? You see someone has had to pay for transport so in the civil service mind a balancing cost benefit has had to offset that.

They're talking about intermediate level waste in casks; it's already in storage at Dungeness A and Sizewell A. The objective is to have all the ILW in one place rather than maintaining 3 separate stores with the associated monitoring requirements. The discharges have nothing to do with the desire to rationalise ILW storage, that's solely from the FED treatment.

 

[Burnham Bob]

So Penfold, if I understand you rightly, there is nothing being brought to Bradwell for disposal here that they didn't want to dispose of elsewhere? It's just stuff in casks they were storing elsewhere and thought they might as well store it all in one place - and that seems at least logical. There is nothing from elsewhere being brought here for disposal - just storage.The discharge is a separate issue. So maybe Magnox etc haven't been successful in their communications if there is room for such confusion.

And if I understand it right, small amounts of Tritium do occur naturally.

Trouble is, whatever the ONR, Magnox and Environment Agency say, BAANG remain unconvinced. I think its about time BAANG came out and nailed their colours to the mast by saying categorically 'they are lying to you'. That's the only logial conclusion and if they believe that they should say it.

 

[penfold]

I wouldn't take my word for it, but that seems to be the gist of their badly worded communications. The only thing that could be shipped in that would create additional discharge would be fuel element debris for dissolving in the acid bath, but I can't find any commentary from Magnox suggesting that's likely as other sites have their own waste treatment plans for FED. The differences between the various fuel cladding designs perhaps make work sharing complicated, and in any case the EA have more or less said no to other FED being shipped in.

 

[DavidofMersea]

So Penfold, if I understand you rightly, there is nothing being brought to Bradwell for disposal here that they didn't want to dispose of elsewhere? It's just stuff in casks they were storing elsewhere and thought they might as well store it all in one place - and that seems at least logical. There is nothing from elsewhere being brought here for disposal - just storage.The discharge is a separate issue. So maybe Magnox etc haven't been successful in their communications if there is room for such confusion.

And if I understand it right, small amounts of Tritium do occur naturally.

Trouble is, whatever the ONR, Magnox and Environment Agency say, BAANG remain unconvinced. I think its about time BAANG came out and nailed their colours to the mast by saying categorically 'they are lying to you'. That's the only logial conclusion and if they believe that they should say it.

My copy of Mersea Life, the local newspaper, has just been delivered. In the past they have printed whatever BANNG have given them, but now I think they are having doubts about BANNG. They say "We have received correspondence suggesting that the concern could be based on half truths and urban myths leading to hysteria" and "It has been said that public meetings, unchallenged information, comment on Facebook, rumour etc. does little to get to the truth".

Mersea Life asked one of its reporters to look into this and he consulted "A physics graduate" who said the discharge was harmless. Mersea Life also asked another of their reporters to investigate this and she met with the "Blackwater Guardians", who are another protest group. The reporter also says she will get in touch with BANNG "who may be able to help me with some more statistics and understanding about the project". I don't know anything about the people in the Blackwater Guardians, but the BANNG members are just amateurs who have no physics qualifications

 

[tillergirl]

So Penfold, if I understand you rightly, there is nothing being brought to Bradwell for disposal here that they didn't want to dispose of elsewhere? It's just stuff in casks they were storing elsewhere and thought they might as well store it all in one place - and that seems at least logical. There is nothing from elsewhere being brought here for disposal - just storage.The discharge is a separate issue. So maybe Magnox etc haven't been successful in their communications if there is room for such confusion.

And if I understand it right, small amounts of Tritium do occur naturally.

Trouble is, whatever the ONR, Magnox and Environment Agency say, BAANG remain unconvinced. I think its about time BAANG came out and nailed their colours to the mast by saying categorically 'they are lying to you'. That's the only logial conclusion and if they believe that they should say it.

They have said they are discharging Tritium into the Blackwater and if what Penfold said earlier (I think) there could be no Tritium left from Bradwell's activities. Ergo, they must be bringing stuff from other sites to dispose of into the Blackwater surely? Or have I got it wrong?

 

[NUTMEG]

They have said they are discharging Tritium into the Blackwater and if what Penfold said earlier (I think) there could be no Tritium left from Bradwell's activities. Ergo, they must be bringing stuff from other sites to dispose of into the Blackwater surely? Or have I got it wrong?

That was my understanding too. Other sites were/are/will be disposing of tritium into the Blackwater. I had no idea that Bradwell was being used to store intermediate or low level waste as well.

I agree that Baang should step up to the plate and 'nail their colours to the mast', scaremongering is not helpful.

In any event I have no intention of avoiding the Blackwater. 30 years of smoking (stopped for 15 now) has left me at a much higher long term risk of developing lung cancer I would guess then anything being dumped from Bradwell (I suspect my prostate migh get me first anyway). It is just the principle I object to, using the river as a low cost waste disposal scheme.

I wish there was somebody we could talk to that could provide authoritive unbiased information.

Steve