Cumbria, UK: Nuclear waste dump mineshaft fracking mess!

reply to post by mikell


Problem is that this will be under a national park, and given the estimated size, under a lot of populated areas.

I would also imagine a lot more material will be involved as well.

Why choose us up here and more importantly who took a backhander to choose the lake district its the a National park they are supposed to be protected!

www.bbc.co.uk...




www.geos.ed.ac.uk...

Thank you for the post and information. I am sorry that your beautiful area has been so descacrated. Your concerns are valid on all points and a few you didn't mention.

My biggest concern would be ground water contamination - from the existing plant, the planned underground storage site and especially the proposed fracking in the area.

Being from earthquake land in Southern California, I wouldn't worry too much about earthquakes the size you are describing - though siteing anything nuclear in earthquake areas is just plain bad planning.

But water contamaination is the big concern - these plants take huges amounts of FRESH WATER to cool - in reactors and to store spent fuel and used water has to go somewhere. We are told the waste water isn't radioactive but........ The water used is heated and discharged in it's heated state destablizing the local environments and there is little research on long term effects.

Fracking is even more damaging to local water tables (of which the British Isles have abundantly) and freash water supplies. This industry too - tells us no chemicals (the ones they pump into the ground) leech into the ground or ground water - I'd like to see that magic trick.

You best bet is to work locally within the community and network extensively with other communities on this ongoing horror.

A good read on the Nuclear Cycle horror is "Nuclear Roulette" by Gar Smith.

The US amazon link is:

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357432146&sr=8-1&keywords=nuclear+roulette

Good luck to you and all of us.

reply to post by haven123


I want to ask you, where should it be sited? In who's backyard?

Please don't missunderstand, I understand not wanting it near but moving it just solves YOUR problem not anyone elses or THE problem.

This type of reasoning is killing us all.

In fact, to follow this type of reasoning. Isn't it better to use an already contaminated area rather than contaminate a new 'clean' area.

The point is Nuclear Power is dangerous in all forms and for all uses and needs to stop. Storage must be found (look at Fukishima, Hanford in the US, chernobyl) safe storage must be found that will hold for thousands of years. Deep Salt Caves seem to be the best bet so far. It's a huge problem that will not be solved by money, politics and power - it must be solved by science (which brought this on us), reason and honesty.

reply to post by FyreByrd


It's a perfectly fair question, but one without a really good answer.

Can the waste be re-used somehow? If it is still radioactive, surely it still gives off some energy?

Short of blasting it off into deep space, I dunno if there is a good answer.

reply to post by woogleuk


Good point.

The old fashioned steam engines had compound cylinders, where the used high pressure steam was reused in a low pressure set.Something like that should be possible?

As to storage, some mines extended under the sea, (I expect the Northumberland mines, sorry Northumberland) why can they not be used? At least there would be a substantial amount of cold water to douse any spills.

I see that they are thinking of between a 12 and 20 billion spend and that will probably be an underestimate. Who works out such rough figures? When I was an estimator, we worked to a 10% error..not nearly 100% and that is if the figures are correct and we all know how unlikely that is. No wonder we do not seem able to make a profit to get ourselves out of the present financial mess. (OK feel better for getting that off my chest.)

see my last post did any one catch it when it had images in it? where did they go?

reply to post by FyreByrd

the thing is WE are not moving it its being brung to us from the rest of the world would you like that situated right under where you live?
and the lake district is NOT contaminated

maby middle of the sahara dessert where know one lives!
i realy dont know

reply to post by haven123


Didn't see them, only 2 links.



reply to post by dowot


Under the sea is a bad idea, for one of the reasons I am uncomfortable about it being sent here......any leaks that get into the water will screw everyone over globally.

reply to post by woogleuk

it was the two images from the links showing the areas? and its been less than 4 hrs and it says i have exeeded time limit

reply to post by haven123


looks like you uploaded them here, the placeholders are still there.

I recommend imageshack for most pics.

Last place before Scotland... my arse. I suppose Northumbria is in London too eh?

reply to post by ziplock9000


Yes Northumbria is also on the border, BUT, if you are traveling the main motorway , the M6 from down south, Cumbria is your last destination in England before Scotland, as this is a global site, I chose my words carefully, my statement stands.

Do you have anything useful to add to the thread? Perhaps you may have concerns being in the neighbouring county?

Great thread, Woogle!

I plan on moving to England as soon as schooling is done, but this almost sounds like Yucca Flats out in Nevada. We're all screwed.

reply to post by TheToastmanCometh


Hey, don't let my thread put you off, there are many wondrous and beautiful things to see on the British Isles, and the sad fact is, there is very few places on Earth you can go where you aren't faced with potential natural or man made disasters, may as well risk it in awe.

Cumbria, for example, will always be beautiful, like the Scottish highlands, or the Yorkshire dales (and others, including Wales and Ireland).

There is a lot of history on these small Islands, and it is worth checking out.

whats more insane is the fact that a lot of thing slike this and nuclear facilities built on fault lines "world wide". the only thing i cannot figure out, have they built them here because no one will build anything else? have they built them there because they are just cheaper because of on fualt lines. do they hope that an earth quake will open up under and swallow what ever is above it. or do they hope that the building above will be destroyed / blown up and thus killing many. because in any event why the hell would you put something like this anywhere but a mountain, is beyond all my comprehension.

Nuclear power always the same problem which is now shared with wind, solar & wave energy.

Quite simply everyone wants the power, no-ones wants it near them! Sellafield is a problem but at least it's better than places like Novaya Zemlya where the Russians have simply dumped nuclear subs in the sea to rot - now that is a timebomb waiting to explode!

We've got to stop all this crap of complaining about every little thing when it comes to energy generation, circle the country with wave power and in the south where all the money is (i spend most of my time in the midlands, when back here) force all of the houses to be cover in solar arrays - they can afford it.

We want energy, time we put, shut up and took responsibility for generating it, i still love the UK & enjoy coming back when i'm not on deployment but for god‘s sake we‘ve got to grow up and stop whining about things.

From a Brit who's seen a lot of the world, not just one little island.

reply to post by TheBogmonster


Thanks for your response, but this isn't about power generation.

It is about the storage of a lot of hazardous nuclear materials in a city sized repository, under a geologically unsuitable national park which supplies a large quantity of drinking water, and which is prone to little earthquakes which normally "might" not be an issue, but they want to frack here as well.

You are right about other means of power generation though.

Perhaps this is why a population with the right to bear arms is a good idea.... when the government is engaged in tyranny and intends to force upon your area a deadly future potential despite all logic and common sense. When voting doesn't work, man the barricades and show your intent to defend your families and way of life. Nuclear waste storage in an area such as this is crazier than creating and storing it to begin with. Amassing poison that lasts for tens of thousands of years and placing it in a place from which it can be spread and cause areas to be uninhabitable for centuries, making the waters deadly and possibly spreading to the seas....... because foolish politicians living somewhere else deem it reasonable beyond any sense of intelligence..... what will you do? Stand meekly aside? Write letters? Voice opinions over the Internet? Stand your ground or lose your ground to radioactive waste. Maybe its my West mentality living here in Wyoming, but guns should be available to defend society, not just rob it, when those in charge are oblivious to the well being of society outside their well heeled and walled off areas of ivory towers.

reply to post by jaxnmarko


Because shooting people we disagree with isn't the British way?

Besides, this is Cumbria, it's rural, there is probably more firearms per person per population than most states in America

While I respect your opinion, please don't turn this into another gun debate thread like the obscene amount that has popped up on ATS recently, thanks.