future generations are not going to say : If only those opposing the Radioactive waste dump and ever more nuclear wastes had been more pragmatic.
Let’s make sure that doesn’t happen, go all out for real change and talk about nuclear ‘power’ truthfully. It is ethically and socially bankrupt and the only moral thing to do is to put all effort and expertise into Containing existing wastes. The continued geological dump saga apart from being dangerous only serves to facilitate new build. Greenpeace withdrew their challenge to the Government’s new build plan at Hinkley C, precisely because the “implementation of geological disposal” is still on track. The Greenpeace challenge was based largely on Cumbria saying NO to the Geological Dump in Jan 2013. But the government showed Greenpeace papers that ‘prove they have a plan’ for the “final disposal”. of wastes. Greenpeace should have pressed their case, I have a plan to be Queen of England!! Not really, but I will continue to ensure Radiation Free Lakeland is unpragmatic.
“Cumbria Trust need to harden up on this and start opposing the whole concept of GDF ….it is not safe anywhere and let’s be honest it would not be going anywhere except from Cumbria. To keep harping on about the ‘safest place’ leaves the door open when it should be slammed shut. …even Australia, with its Pangea geology, dry, arid remote said no to a geological disposal ‘facility’ “
While Cumbria Trust fully understands your position Marianne, the problem of what do do with existing legacy wastes requires a degree of pragmatism. You are absolutely correct of course that no GDF is entirely safe, anywhere, but that is not a reasonable standard to measure it against. Given that the nuclear waste exists, and we have to deal with it, we are simply looking for the least bad solution, rather than a perfect one.
The Pangea Resources venture failed largely for…
View original post 221 more words