Published at 11:06, Thursday, 16 August 2012

SIR – I watched the Olympics with great pride and interest, and enjoyed all of it. What a wonderful show we put on as a nation and a sporting GB team.

inspiring a generation: Jessica Ennis with her gold medal. Now there are calls to re-introduce sporting opportunities into our school system

Now, however, I hear the politicians, commentators and pundits talking and talking about the ‘legacy’ of the games.

The legacy they visualise and desire is one involving much greater involvement in sport by the population as a whole, and in particular that the youth of this country follow the example of our Olympians and take up competitive sports.

We certainly like the sound of this, and providing the facilities and opportunities are there then I am sure a lasting legacy is possible.

However, how hypocritical is it of our politicians to now talk of an “Olympic-inspired competitive legacy within our youth”, when they, these very politicians, have over successive governments over recent decades taken the opportunities for a competitive and sporting edge out of our school systems.

I, and so many others of my generation, became involved and competent in our sporting abilities through competitive school sports, and in particular, inter-house and inter-school matches involving cricket, soccer, rugby and athletics teams.

Today everything within the school system seems to be focused on taking the competitiveness away from the education system, “failure” is almost a thing of the past academically, and similarly with sporting opportunities, where individuals and teams now barely ever compete in the ways we used to around four or five decades ago.

The “legacy” of this Olympics can, and should, be ignited within our state schools, where the massed generations of the future should be encouraged to compete and given back the opportunity to take part in competitive sports, and in doing so, learn to win with pride, lose with dignity and be inspired to strive to better themselves.

That opportunity will be lost, I believe, as will any Olympic legacy, if this and future governments fail to re-introduce competitiveness and sporting opportunities into our school system. Words are so easy for politicians. Following these Olympics we need action at the grassroots – in the schools system.

E GARNER

Parton

SIR – Should the NDA/Sellafield be trusted to build a repository in Copeland? I am a great believer that actions, not words, should be the true test of an organisation’s capability and trustworthiness.

For many months infrastructure work has been carried out in the Wasdale area to upgrade services from Wastwater to Sellafield. The road from Santon Bridge to Wastwater was closed from February 6 to March 26 and the road linking Santon Bridge to the A595 south of Holmrook was closed from March 26 to May 20.

There was no advance consultation with the Irton community regarding plans for this project and the main contractor appears to believe that a press notice or two and some (very confusing) signs are all that is required to fulfil any obligations they might have to offset the effect of this project on residents, businesses and visitors alike in the Santon Bridge and Irton area.

Despite the already lengthy closure of the road from Santon Bridge to Wastwater, it was rumoured that part of the project was not completed and a further closure of the road was required.

Back in April assurances were sought by individuals and through the parish council from the various organisations involved (including NDA/Sellafield, Veolia Water and the county council) that this new closure would not take place during the tourism high season when the effects would be most damaging to local businesses and to the image of the area.

These representations were simply ignored as we were then informed on July 5 that the road from Santon Bridge to Wastwater was to be closed from July 16 to 30 – during the tourism high season.

Renewed appeals to postpone the work until after the school holidays went unanswered (John Clarke, chief executive, NDA) or received a standard acknowledgment but no action (Jill Stannard, county council chief executive).

A letter to Olivier Bret, chief executive of Veolia Water (the main contractor) did get a response which acknowledged only “inconvenience” to the community thereby trivialising the adverse financial effect on local businesses.

The letter also made it very clear that any effect on the community was subsidiary to the interests of their project and by extension their client NDA/Sellafield.

I’m told the work is essential and will benefit domestic users as well as Sellafield, which is fine, but does not constitute a licence to ignore the interests of the community most affected by the project and doesn’t excuse failure to respond positively when adverse effects arising from the project are made known.

Until this recent experience I was undecided as regards the proposal for a nuclear repository. Now the prospect appalls me. Compared to a repository, the work around Wasdale is a relatively minor project. Just think of the effect on the wider area of building a repository, a project of similar size to the building of the Channel Tunnel. Don’t be seduced by talk of community benefits and a belief that the NDA/Sellafield is some sort of public benefactor looking after the wider community. When push comes to shove, they pursue their own interests.

Madeleine WARREN

Santon Bridge

A SPOKESMAN for Cumbria County Council replies: “Cumbria County Council shared some of the concerns expressed by residents on the negative impact this major work would have and therefore we held a number of meetings with the contractor to discuss key issues, such as workloads, timing and consultation with affected properties and businesses.

“Although it is the contractor’s function to consult with local people and businesses beforehand, the council also had direct discussions with some businesses in an attempt to ease the issues this work has caused.

“Every possible action was taken by us to ensure the smooth running of this scheme, road closures were only imposed as a result of road widths not being suitable to ensure safe passage. The dates selected for the work were dictated by environmental legislation on working in rivers, as bridge works were also carried out at the same time.”

A SPOKESMAN for Sellafield Ltd replies: “Sellafield Ltd fully understands and sympathises with the concerns of local residents and, through our contractor Veolia Water, we have had regular dialogue with community representatives, including the relevant parish council(s) before and during the works.

“Unfortunately there was always likely to be some inconvenience caused to local residents and businesses when carrying out this essential work. This was further compounded due to the area’s narrow country roads and limited options, in terms of diversions.

“We have worked hard, with our contractors and in liaison with the county council Highways Department, to both minimise this inconvenience and ensure that, where road closures have been unavoidable, they have been short.

“We recognised that we were unable to carry out this work to the satisfaction of everyone but we are pleased that our contractor was able to successfully complete the work within the time window as previously indicated to local residents.

“The road is now fully open, but we are more than happy to continue to speak with local people who have raised concerns in order to learn any lessons for any future work of this nature.”

SIR – Mr Holland (“Cigs kill more than radiation”, The Whitehaven News letters, August 9) has certainly made basic errors in his assertions that some mundane causes of death are more common than death from exposure to radiation.

Because of the manner in which the latter figures are distorted – for global political and commercial reasons – it is difficult to gain a proper insight. However, the figures for the Sellafield compensation fund are certainly illustrative of the dangers inherent in working at the plant, not just for the workers, but their families too.

To quote from the scheme’s website: “The scheme received 39 new claims during 2011 with four compensation settlements being made this year. There have been 1,540 cases since the scheme began and compensation totalling £7.34million paid to claimants in respect of 134 successful claims.”

Whatever else, the cause is not an “Act of God”, which is the generic term for the more natural fatalities such as the thunderstorms and lightning he mentions. Neither is it most normal people’s choice to expose themselves to radiation. For them, the exposure arises either from environmental pollution or poor work practices, both of which are illustrated in Mr Holland’s letter.

It is difficult to understand how he can know that no ill effect ensued from the incidents he relates. Equally relevant is the cavalier attitude to the events he mentions.

Mr Holland’s denigration of the work done by CORE and the many others opposed to nuclear pollution and proliferation is equally remiss. Given a choice between the secrecy, contamination, despoilation and PR spin emanating from Sellafield for over almost 70 years, and the work done by the likes of CORE, I would choose the latter’s honesty and integrity any day. Like the latter organisations, we think an alternative viewpoint is (literally) vital.

Thirty-six per cent of almost 40,000 children tested in Fukushima now have abnormal thyroid growths (Source: 6th report of the Fukushima Prefecture Health Management Survey, April 2012). According to Japan’s medical experts, it is likely that many will develop cancers as a result of exposure to radiation. What is wrong in campaigning against an industry that causes this? Surely it is right to stop any chemical works (for that is all they are) that has such a record? Two hunred thousand Japanese people certainly think it is right to campaign.

Are we really to believe that the aftermath of the Windscale fire had no ill effects, and that, despite the figures emanating from Belarus and the Ukraine, only a few people around Chernobyl died from that accident and the rest is pure coincidence? Perhaps Mr Holland believes, despite the evidence and reducing odds, that the UK nuclear industry is immune from accidents?

There have been 266 fires on nuclear submarines in the past 25 years, with 74 on ballistic missile submarines, and 30 fires in the last three years (Source: BBC News On-line). As commentator Rob Edwards points out, that is an average of an accident every 40 days.

The fallacy of Mr Holland’s arguments is illustrated by his pointing out that even the nuclear industry and governments world-wide think it is necessary to bury the current toxic waste deeply in a hole to leave it for others to worry about. If they thought they could get away with just leaving it lying round on the surface, as they do at present, I am quite sure they would do so.

There are sound reasons why it is to be buried. The potential cost of nuclear expansion and waste disposal, which will be added to every consumer’s bill, is immense, but, more importantly, there are far too many unanswered questions. Perhaps Mr Holland should ponder on why RWE, Eon and Siemens have pulled out of the nuclear industry altogether.

As an aside, we would point out that the Department for Energy has hosted nearly 200 meetings with the energy industry and 36 people from the likes of Électricité de France, Centrica, ConocoPhillips, a nuclear waste treatment company and financial representatives from those paragons from the accounting world, KPMG and Ernst & Young. According to information supplied to Green Party MP Caroline Lucas, even the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has taken in 13 staff who work in the energy industry, including three from Électricité de France. Why are these companies permitted to infiltrate government like this? The benefits to the companies are obvious.

Cameron has said that the next “Big Thing” will be lobbying, but he has yet to do anything meaningful about the nuclear lobbying. To us, expanding the nuclear industry remains akin to starting a car with no brakes, with a death toll to match.

Ian F. HAWKES

Braystones

SIR – OK Phil Holland of Bigrigg – you win! Your incoherent ramblings that infected four columns of The Whitehaven News last week have persuaded us that you are more than qualified to lead those vital campaigns that we at CORE have apparently neglected.

To rectify matters we’ll gladly provide a basic starter ‘package’ to help you launch and run, on our behalf, the various campaigns you highlighted – eliminating tornados, gales, thunderstorms, lightning and the sun – all of which can really spoil your day. While we continue our mundane work on Sellafield-related issues, West Cumbrians will be able to sleep soundly in the knowledge that spearheading the belated fight against these wretched natural phenomena will be a local man of such abstruse mental depths.

Martin FORWOOD

Campaign Coordinator, CORE

SIR – Mr C Farr (The Whitehaven News, letters, August 9) is correct in his assumption that Winston Churchill was removed from office in the General Election of 1945. However, his selective memory omits to state that Churchill was returned to power in 1951 after only six years of a Labour Administration, led by Clement Attlee, Churchill’s wartime deputy.

Churchill is reported as having stated that Attlee was “a modest man, with much to be modest about”. This is somewhat unfair as Attlee was a wise and able administrator, although not particularly suited to the role of Prime Minister.

Despite Mr Farr’s personal animosity towards any members of the privileged classes, Winston Churchill did not apparently share Mr Farr’s class prejudices. His small wartime Cabinet included Labour stalwarts, as well as Attlee, such as Arthur Greenwood (Minister without Portfolio) and Ernest Bevin (Minister of Labour).

Also, one would do well to remember that Churchll’s personal bravery is not in question. His actions as a war correspondent for the Morning Post during the Boer War attest to this, especially during the action at Frere, Natal, in 1899, when Churchill took charge of the defence of the British armoured train when ambushed by Boer forces; following which he was captured and held prisoner until his escape from custody.

Indeed, Winston Churchill was never involved in either commerce or industry but, apart from politics and soldiering, he earned a living as an author; he was also an accomplished artist and surprisingly, a qualified bricklayer (with a union card to prove this).

Mr Farr would do well to remember that, had it not been for Churchill’s steadfastness in 1940, when Britain stood alone against the might of Nazi Germany, he may well have been speaking German today, provided he had the linguistic ability to do so. That should not have been a problem as, being an ex-pupil of a now much maligned grammar school system (quelle horreur!), languages other than English would have been de rigueur. It is little wonder then that, a few years ago, the people of this country voted Churchill the greatest Briton in our history.

By the way, I never referred to this present Coalition Government as a “load of spivs” as Mr Farr so eloquently (?) stated in his letter. As usual Mr Farr, in your own words, you “are missing something”.

Brian PARNABY

Ullock

SIR – I would like to draw the attention of readers to the impending deadline on August 24 for public response about fencing parts of Eskdale Common “to enable 142 hectares of woodland and scrub to establish to enhance the landscape and biodiversity of the area in seven locations”.

The land is a common to which the public were granted rights of access after the First World War when the summit of Scafell was dedicated as a memorial to the war dead of the Lake District. The landowner is now the National Trust – hence the minister will decide on the grounds of the 1876 Commons Act whether such enclosures are “for improving opportunities for the enjoyment of the property by the public”.

Ninety-eight per cent of the proposal might deliver notional benefits of improved water quality etc. Alas two per cent or three hectares at Beckfoot in Eskdale deserve to be excluded and allowed to remain in their largely “natural” state, quietly evolving as a historically and scenically important landscape, enjoyed by thousands of people each year.

Readers who have travelled on the La’al Ratty or walked up to Blea Tarn will know this land as the open fellside that rises from the side of the Eskdale railway between the overgrown quarry and Beckfoot station with its glaciated rockforms and stunted oaks and rowan trees forming a wonderful foreground to Scafell and Slightside.

The land has been evidently in equilibrium for many years past – probably since medieval times. Planting and enclosing this to keep cattle and sheep from grazing, however well intentioned, will change its character directly and in perpetuity. It will draw an artificial line across the hillside and alter the mixture of bog and scree, and the habitats they form, while adjacent areas of recent scrubland demonstrate what will certainly be lost visually and for access when it becomes overgrown.

An adjacent part of the fellside of Eskdale on Boot Bank above Dalegarth Station has already been excluded from the draft scheme as “contentious”. Relevant criteria for those making judgement about the scheme and its parts will include our comments on nature conservation; the conservation of the landscape; the protection of public rights of access; the protection of archaeological remains and features of historic interest; and any other matter considered relevant.

Please add your comments to the Planning Inspectorate, Room 4/05 Kite Wing, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN or email commonlandcasework@pins. gsi.gov.uk

Peter van ZELLER

Ravenglass

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