The draft results on this consultation are posted on the MRWS website, for the Partnership meeting on Tuesday 22 May in Whitehaven.
My reading of these results, is that 8 Questions were asked by the MRWS Partnership. Of the 8 questions asked, fully 7 questions have replies which show a REJECTION of the Partnership proposals by 60% to 40% of the submissions made. Only Question 8 has a majority vote SUPPORTING the partnership proposal to proceed. However it is very strange that replies to this Question 8 are about double each of the other Questions. A logical deduction is that many respondents have answered only that single Question, which makes the whole exercise rather unreliable.
The WHN article by Alan irving focuses on the replies to this single Question, and so does not adequately represent the clear overall REJECTION of the Partnership proposals by this group of the public.
Also remember that 75% of the Parish Councils who have voted, have REJECTED the Partnership proposals.
The verbal comments recorded in the Consultation show a range of opinions from fully Yes to fully No. I think that we knew that part at least 15 years ago, so I wonder what we in the UK have been doing positively in the intervening time to enable disposal of this toxic radioactive waste in a secure long-term site. Precious little it seems.

We are led to beleive that for this facility to get the go ahead the people of Cumbria have to be in favour. If what we are led to beleive is in fact true, and, through a referendum the local people are shown to be not in favour of this facility being built, will it not constitute an utter waste of money if all the developmental stages are gone through for the thumbs down to be eventually given by the local people?
This poll seems to be rather contrived, for what purpose? Could it be that the decision has already been made with token gestures being 'given' to the local populace as in, for example, a poll? Should not Copeland council be advocating a referendum before anything goes further, as a fair and democratic way of giving voice to the people, the people they are here to represent? CBC seem to be rather quiet on this one, again, is there any reason for this?
No-one asked my opinion or the opinion of anyone that I know.

Interesting - exactly who was consulted? I wasn't, and neither was anyone I have asked, so far. Or did I miss an opportunity? If it was by invitation only, how do we know they were fairly chosen?

1,086 is not a very representative sample for opinion surveying!

A full referendum is needed.

In responce to i love nuclear,bit of an arrogant statement with an arrogant attitude that if i oppose something i am wrong and must leave the area, do you know the meaning of democratic descisions,why don't you just banish them to australia the people who disagree with the powers that be for opposing a policy that involves them and their future generations,you do not know how this will pan out,perhaps that comment of yours justifys my previous statement that the only person interested in this are the ones who will benefit financially and the locals are not them.Why are the officials ignoring other surveys,i love pylons lets put a large one in your garden and i'll compromise on the dump.

The draft results on this consultation are posted on the MRWS website, for the Partnership meeting on Tuesday 22 May in Whitehaven.
My reading of these results, is that 8 Questions were asked by the MRWS Partnership. Of the 8 questions asked, fully 7 questions have replies which show a REJECTION of the Partnership proposals by 60% to 40% of the submissions made. Only Question 8 has a majority vote SUPPORTING the partnership proposal to proceed. However it is very strange that replies to this Question 8 are about double each of the other Questions. A logical deduction is that many respondents have answered only that single Question, which makes the whole exercise rather unreliable.
The WHN article by Alan irving focuses on the replies to this single Question, and so does not adequately represent the clear overall REJECTION of the Partnership proposals by this group of the public.
Also remember that 75% of the Parish Councils who have voted, have REJECTED the Partnership proposals.
The verbal comments recorded in the Consultation show a range of opinions from fully Yes to fully No. I think that we knew that part at least 15 years ago, so I wonder what we in the UK have been doing positively in the intervening time to enable disposal of this toxic radioactive waste in a secure long-term site. Precious little it seems.

The CONsultation results reported on here excludes hundreds of postcards and a 1500 petition - who should we believe 75% + of Parish Councils voting NO ...or the results of a manipulated CONsultation and selective reporting? Cumbria should not have been part of this insane 'process' in the first place.

Come and say NO at Whitehaven Civic Hall on tuesday 22nd from 9.30 - bring banners - show visible opposition or the propaganda will continue to say that Cumbrians are in favour of irreversible radioactive pollution on an unimaginably large scale

http://www.lovebarrow2020.co.uk/nuclear-dump-would-be-as-big-as-windermere-1.879053?referrerPath=2.3207
We now know that the dump would be several Lake Windermere's big and deeper than Scafell!

Keep this real, people.
The geology of this area for such a facility has already been proven to be unsuitable. Worst case scenario: rupture of bio-shield considerations, thus enabling highly radioactive materials to leak into the local geology, to seep into the sea and onto the surface.
The local MP is out to make a name for himself.
The local council leader, backed by her inner cabinet sycophants, is on a personal damage limitation exercise in backing this scheme in order to restore public confidence (with little realisation that is does not exist in the first instance).
Very, very few local people will be employed in construction work if, and heaven forbid, this project goes ahead.
This is reality, not a computer game. Reality has real consequences. Think of these real consequences for your children, your grandchildren and their descendents for thousands of years to come.
Is it worth backing this folly for short term gain when the genetic damage to your childrens children will be too horrible to contemplate?
Revisit the pages of nuclear history, albeit for the last twenty years, and then make your judgement.

Why is everyone so against this repository? I think it'll be a smashing addition to West cumbria.
All you negative nelly's move else where if your so concerned. 100% YES from me.

The documentation received through the consultation obviously needs to be considered at a deeper level than just head counts of for or against. Both my own submission and that of Professor Stuart Haszeldine have undoubtedly given the MRWS partnership grave pause for thought about the unsuitability of the geology of West Cumbria. My submission amounts to 87 pages of text, plus 81 diagrams. This cannot rationally be reduced to 'one vote against'. But the partnership's draft response summary now proposes that our geological objections be reviewed by Dr Jeremy Dearlove, a consulting geologist who has already been employed by the partnership. However, my consultation response already includes a detailed analysis and dissection of Dr Dearlove's earlier unsuccessful attempts to counter my geological arguments, so I fail to see what progress can now be made there. In summary, I have done nothing original, but merely produced a very detailed review of the current state of geological knowledge, brought up to date from the Nirex Inquiry of 1995-96 and before. There is also an analysis of the reasons why Sellafield came to be chosen in the late 1980s - a sorry tale of subterfuge and misuse of the science, which led to the waste of some £400M of public money. My conclusions are clear - that the geology of the areas in question IS very well understood, AND that it is completely unsuitable for a repository. Turning briefly now to Romney Marsh in Kent, which has just been proposed as a possible nuclear waste repository site, it is interesting that Shepway Council is asking the public for their opinions BEFORE a possible 'expression of interest' to government. Furthermore, the local geology there may or may not be promising, but at least it is situated at the right end of England, where suitable repository host rocks are likely to exist. The geology here is simple, and the region around is flat - both features which West Cumbria lacks. Neither is there a National Park, surely Cumbria's greatest asset.

So one 'consulting engineer' coming up with a sweeping unsubstantiated comment is enough to convince you Michael? I've got a chocolate fireguard here........I am an expert in thermal matters and I tell you that it works......shall we say £1000? Come on, since when do we make decisions on teh say so of a single self appointed 'expert'?