Published at 11:09, Thursday, 26 April 2012

SIR – Not for the first time in the long-running debate on the GDF, your leader of April 12 has neatly and dispassionately defined the issues before Cumbria, Copeland and Allerdale. But is the debate really about the parishes and roaring in the grassroots?

And now the Cumbria Association of local councils has added its powerful questioning voice. The concern is for the best method and the safest place for the nation’s high-level nuclear waste, even its plutonium.

While there is much to be argued for a county-wide referendum, who decides the question to be put therein to the electorate ?

Does the MRWS partnership delegate that task to a major polling company and its public relations associates (at a vast fee)? Is the annual subvention from the Department of Energy and Climate Change to Copeland, which is funding the current consultation exercise large enough to fund that as well as inter alia members ‘fact- finding’ jaunts to France (Bure) and the USA (Carlsbad)?

Certainly, a referendum might be a more truly democratic mode of opinion-seeking than Ipsos Mori’s random telephone poll. I was called but my wife was the object of desire and, when owing to her illness I offered myself, the pollster was so tied by her brief that my offer was rejected. No matter since I have little doubt that like the poll Ipsos Mori conducted on three occasions in the winter (pre-Fukushima) of 2010/2011, that revealed two-thirds of respondents either worked or had relatives, in the nuclear industry. A referendum would not be so weighted.

But more to the point that, as you say, this is ‘a national problem’. The thinking animating the 2008 White Paper and which placed impossible burdens on authorities that expressed interest was in this respect inherently flawed. Late in the day, our local authorities should listen to the roar, and return the noisy beast to Whitehall. Wisdom – if that rare quality attaches to any councillor other than parish councillors and their representative association – suggests the burdens are too big for local politicians to understand and judge between truths and fictions, and to resist the implicit DECC agenda that implicitly connects waste disposal to new-build nuclear.

The councillors’ voluntary job (expenses apart) is to manage a range of domestic essential services for the better quality of life for their electors, and not to dabble in the cloudy pools of science/engineering/water supply and contamination/geology/power supply liberally fed by an aggressive international industry. Even if, as the late historian and public critic Prof Tony Judt put in his 2012 book Thinking The Twentieth Century ‘the vast majority of the politicians of the free societies of the world today are substandard........politics is not a place where people of autonomy of spirit and breadth of vision tend to go’.

Whitehall may now be the place to which the MRWS process – ideally halted for the time being – should be returned for a comprehensive review of all its intertwined subject matters; not Whitehaven, not Workington and not Carlisle.

And across London’s Green Park from Whitehall is the home of the Royal Society. The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering ‘are conducting a joint review of the geological and environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracking’ ( letter Prof Robert Mair, The Guardian, April 20). The issues around nuclear waste disposal are more complex than around ‘fracking’ but there is common ground in that government decision making and public debate must be well informed. Should not these two august bodies be commissioned to undertake that comprehensive review ?

Michael BARON

South Street, Cockermouth

SIR – I read with interest your editorial (April 12) regarding the possibility of hosting a geological disposal facility in our locality but would take issue with your assertion that “...most of the nasty stuff to be disposed of is produced at Sellafield”.

Whilst it is true that Windscale Works (latterly Sellafield) and Calder Hall did create radioactive material in support of the nations nuclear weapons programme the vast bulk of such material now at Sellafield has come from civil nuclear reactor sites in this country or abroad , ie produced somewhere else.

This radioactive material has been chemically processed to a) recovery what is or was considered to be valuable or strategic material and b) ensure that any remaining radioactive components can be safely stored in the medium to longer term. Major “overseas” contracts have included provision for repatriation of all the radioactive material following reprocessing. The UK itself, however, has never made provision for return of reprocessed radioactive materials to the reactor sites that produced them and it is this material that is currently held at Sellafield on their behalf.

The problem of dealing with dangerous radioactive material is indeed a national one and it always has been. Sellafield (particularly its employees) can be justly proud of its role, up to now, in safely dealing with this national problem and should not be cast as a villain for causing the problem. Trying to extend this role to included the siting of an underground dump for radioactive waste in geology that has been shown to be totally unsuitable should be resisted by our local representatives – not encouraged.

The RCF Enquiry Inspector concluded “that investigation should now be moved to one of the more promising sites elsewhere”. This must not be ignored for political convenience. I understand that the Thames basin maybe an ideal location and directly under the Houses of Parliament would seem most appropriate!

Barry WESTON

Gillgrass, Gosforth

SIR – When the ‘Men from the Ministry’ assure Cumbrians that burying radioactive material under their county will be perfectly safe, one hopes someone will counter-suggest that, if that be the case, why not store the nuclear waste in the miles of obsolete and unused tunnels under London.

J LOCKYER

Abbey Road, Barrow-In-Furness

SIR – Work took me to Whitehaven one sunny day in mid-April. For once, the sea reflected the blueness of the sky, and spring was definitely in the air, but so was the smell of cut-grass and petrol fumes.

The fine weather had brought out every council crew, and they were all busily engaged in cutting every blade of grass they could find. On the way to Hensingham, I noticed a fine clump of cowslips on a bank just off the Loop Road. Just over an hour later on my return journey, the flowers had been minced by the mower. Only brash, cultivated daffodils escaped the mayhem.

It was the same story on long stretches either side of the A595 in the Lillyhall area, and it struck me that if the council removed the rusting sculpture in the middle of the roundabout there, it would have a perfect crown bowling green!

The unnecessary cutting of verges and other grassed areas is a waste of time and fuel – and therefore money – and it also reduces significantly the biodiversity of the area. Why do councils - and many individuals - do it?

Nigel HARBRON

Kirkoswald, Penrith

SIR – Just a brief thought about the impact on tourism of the proposed wind turbine at Drigg. If it gets the go-ahead it will be unique in that it will be visible from the majority of Wasdale. Let’s not forget that not too long ago Wasdale was voted Britain’s favourite view.

At about the same time the readers of The Great Outdoors magazine voted wind turbines to be Britain’s greatest eyesore; beating Sellafield by a considerable margin.

People come to this area because of our beautiful landscape. Will they make the same effort to look at an eyesore?

Dr Dave POMFRET

SIR – I would like to thank all the people, from Drigg, Seascale and beyond who came to show their opposition to the proposed wind turbine at Drigg.

It is heartening to know that so many people are concerned about this planning application and are willing to take the time to show this. Please continue to fight this plan – if it is passed then it will not be the only turbine in this lovely area, there will be many more applications put forward. Continue to put up your posters – I know that they are all being pulled down and we know who the culprits are – but the application will not be considered by the planning department until their meeting in May and it is very important that we keep this issue alive and in the public eye.

Name and address supplied

SIR – As chairman of the St Nicholas’ Scouts and Guides Supporters’ Group I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks for the wonderful support we received that made our recent Easter fair, held on March 31, such a huge success.

In particular I wish to thank the unit leaders and members of the Supporters’ Group for organising the event; and parents, Guides, leaders and helpers for manning the stalls.

I would also like to thank the following businesses for donating raffle prizes: Vagabond, The Crafty Workshop, Humbugs, the Beacon, The Rum Story, Whitehaven Garden Centre; Carl Woodburn for donating plants for the plant sale; and everyone who baked for us which made our cake stall one of the best I’ve ever seen.

Together we raised a grand total of £1,242.91 which will help towards the upkeep of the Scout and Guide Headquarters on Howgill Street.

Daniel KING

Chair of St Nicholas Scouts and Guides Supporters’ Group

SIR – Mr Cameron the Prime Minister’s slogan is “We are all in it together” but unfortunately there is separation on this.

Oh Mr Taylor what do you mean by this? Well with all the privatisation like hospitals, roads and the proposed privatisation of the Post Office, this means a separation from the people’s public services, which in simple terms means that privatisation means profits, to widen the gap between the rich and the poor.

So really if I was the Prime Minister I would rename the Tory Party “The New Conservative Privatisation Party”, rather than the slogan of togetherness.

James TAYLOR

Mid Town Close, Distington

SIR – The people of Copeland should not be fooled by the promise of jobs for 25 young people by Banks Renewables (the company behind plans for a £17million windfarm just outside Moresby Parks, near Whitehaven). They are scraping the bottom of the barrel with this tactic. They have even convinced the Lakes College with the promise of jobs.

The Cumbrian countryside is blighted by these monstrosities which we, the public, subsidise. This is a result of the Labour Party’s unrealistic and unachievable target for renewable energy and Chris Huhne’s one-tracked policy.

Until India, China, Russia and America reduce their carbon emissions dramatically, we are wasting our time with this over-hyped and misleading green policy that is costing the taxpayer hundreds of pounds each on our utility bills. These windfarm companies will try any means at their disposal to get planning permission.

I hope that Copeland Council has the vision and sense to see through the spin that Banks Renewables is using and to follow the lead of county councillors Eddie Martin and Tim Knowles and to reject their proposals in the interest of public opinion and to save pristine Cumbrian countryside.

Tommy DOUGAN

West Lane, Flimby

SIR – Your correspondent Rex Poulton of Salisbury, Wilts. (News, April 19) is absolutely correct in his views on Edward Heath’s ‘Disinformation’ to the British Public, concerning Britain’s entry into what he alleged was a ‘Common Market.’

One can be sure that David Cameron, now faced with overwhelming demands for Britain’s withdrawal from the EU, will certainly disregard them. He is also a torch-bearer for Heath’s fanaticism and, being a Conservative in name only, will continue to fight for Britain’s continued membership of this revenue-gobbling monster, run by an ever-increasing cabal of mainly unelected bureaucrats (probably unemployable elsewhere) with their snouts irremovably lodged in the Euro trough, the latter constantly in need of replenishment.

In David Cameron’s early days as Prime Minister, he had two email addresses on the Tory Party website. I emailed him several times concerning Conservative pre-election manifesto promises and received anodyne replies signed ‘David’ (probably from one of his flunkeys), assuring me that he understood my concerns, was sympathetic to them and was dealing with them. Of course nothing happened.

The other day I attempted to email Mr Cameron at the two email addresses I had previously used. Unsurprisingly, both have now been removed from the internet. Possibly the lines had become overheated with irate (and erstwhile) suppporters’ complaints.

Brian PARNABY

Ullock

SIR – I would appreciate anyone witnessing my accident in the entrance to Morrisons on Saturday, December 10, if they could please contact me on 01946 61127.

Name and address supplied

Published by http://www.whitehavennews.co.uk