The most persuasive PR stunts are dressed up in suits and paid for by the unwitting taxpayer.  Last Monday's "geology seminar" at Whitehaven was a brilliant example of nasty spin from a government who wants new nuke plants and needs to be seen to have 'solved' the nuclear waste problem.  

For the NDA (offspring of Nirex)  to keep repeating that “there may be suitable geology to dump high level waste" doesn’t make it true - the NIREX map above shows that the Region and District of West Cumbria to Furness was looked at in the 1990s at a cost to the public purse of £400M+  and ruled out (bit like I would be immediately ruled out of being a suitable candidate for the Olympic gymnastic team).  Nirex then moved on to looking at the most likely area - Longlands Farm - where the geology was found by the Inquiry Inspector to be too leaky and complex.  

The Inspector did not look at other areas in West Cumbria and Furness because they had ALREADY been deemed unsuitable.

Some have called for "more debate"  (see Press Release below)  but even if Cumbria's geology was perfectly geologically stable rather than leaky and complex there are over 100 reasons why dumping high level nuclear waste in the ground is guaranteed to poison the land and us.  Here are just a few examples:

Repository is designed to be leaky

Rusting of the steel in the dump will create huge amounts of hydrogen which will have to be released undermining the so called "multi- barrier" system meant to protect people from leakage.  (issues 14 and 15)

Digging underground will create fast pathways for leaks

Rock would inevitably be damaged by digging to create huge caverns.  The danger caused by this "excavation damage zone" is not understood. ( issue 27)

New data shows copper will corrode faster than assumed

The NDA refer to a wall thickness of 5cm for the copper canisters holding  high level wastes.  Recent research shows that to achieve durability a wall thickness of one metre would be needed! (issue 39)

Nuclear Explosions in the Repository

The probability and impact of a "criticality" or mini nuclear explosion is not understood. ( issue 79)

NOTE- Issues Register from Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates

Summary ( 10 pages)

 http://www.nuclearwasteadvisory.co.uk/uploads/11953NWAAISSUESREGISTER%5BVersion1.1%5D.pdf

Commentary (30 pages)

 http://www.nuclearwasteadvisory.co.uk/uploads/11952NWAA%20ISSUES%20REGISTER%20COMMENTARY%20letterhead.doc

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRESS RELEASE FROM FRIENDS OF THE EARTH AND GREENPEACE

GEOLOGY & NUCLEAR WASTE -

DEBATE NOT SPIN

21 June 2011

Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have called for a further debate on the geological suitability of West Cumbria as a site to host a repository for higher activity nuclear wastes. 

The groups believe the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely Partnership which is tasked with consulting the community has failed to put all aspects of this vital issue before the public. 

A MRWS public seminar held yesterday evening in Whitehaven included speakers from pro-nuclear organisations - the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and the British Geological Survey ( BGS), a former BGS member and a member of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. It failed to include geological experts critical of plans for a nuclear dump in Cumbria to scrutinise their positions.

Geologist Prof David Smythe, who was deeply involved in the NIREX inquiry and argues that West Cumbria as a whole is geologically unsuitable, withdrew from the panel after having been offered only 15 minutes to speak. This was despite the original idea of a seminar coming being his  initiative in order to publicly scrutinise the orthodox pro-nuclear positions that have dominated the local debate and despite him having to travel from France to attend the meeting.

Environment groups are concerned that the meeting never gave key issues the airing they deserve and that the seminar is further example of how the MRWS process is failing to open up the essential matters to full public scrutiny.  

'The seminar was not a critical analysis of the geology of West Cumbria. It was clear from the meeting that much more time was needed for discussion. ' said Dr Ruth Balogh, West Cumbria and North Lakes Friends of the Earth. 'Hosting a repository in this region would mean keeping people and the environment safe from hazardous radioactive waste for hundreds of thousands of years. An issue of this magnitude deserves more than a biased two-hour seminar.  You can't cram all of the necessary information into such a short space of time. The seminar felt like a gesture, so that the Partnership can say it had a debate. To me it was very reminiscent of how NIREX used to handle things. The cynicism in the MRWS process, expressed by a number of members of the public, underlines our concerns.'

Jean McSorley of Greenpeace said, 'Those involved the MRWS programme are failing to engage with the public on this crucial issue.  Another debate, or even a series of debates, is needed in those areas which are being asked to consider taking the repository. Any such meetings must include people who are able to open up for examination the issues around the geology in this region. Full debate must be had before the Partnership moves to making a decision on whether or not to go forward to the next stage in the process which will include more detailed site consideration.'

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MORE INFO:

http://davidsmythe.org/nuclear/nuclear.htm