COUNTER-ARGUMENTS

On this page we will try to answer some of the arguments against our case.

Some local people have expressed concern that opposing this application will imply ingratitude towards Augean which has spent money on sports pitches and other local amenities.

Our opposition is not an attack on Augean, but a disapproval of what they intend to put into the landfill.

In any case, the money that Augean have spent comes from landfill tax credits, and is simply another way of paying tax. That money would otherwise go to the taxman, so perhaps we ought to be grateful to HM Revenue and Customs! Actually, that would make the money ours!

Augean are quite upfront about this; it is expected behaviour from waste companies.

Those who favour the dump on the grounds that we might get more money from Augean will have to weigh up this possibility against the potential impacts on health and the local economy from having radioactive nuclear waste on our doorstep.

And besides, how many more football pitches do we really need...?

According to 'official' figures this may well be true.

However, usually you choose to fly in an aeroplane, and usually you get some benefit from flying in an aeroplane, e.g. a holiday or a business trip.
Also, you are not forcing the rest of us to fly in an aeroplane with you.

And you can choose not to fly in an aeroplane. You do not have to fly in an aeroplane every year for the rest of your life and force that choice upon your descendents for the next 500 years.

Can we say the same about radioactivity in the landfill?

How far away, exactly?

See if you can find any indication in the application, or on the web or in any reference book for that matter, about how far away is guaranteed safe from radioactive emissions, either air-borne or in water. (Please contact us if you can!)

We know that emissions from Chernobyl hit sheep-farming in Wales, which shows that radiation travels, though this is obviously an extreme example.

You might ask yourself why this information is not in the application, since it could help Augean's case, and reassure the rest of us. It might be that they don't want to tell us; more likely is that they simply don't know.

However, since they don't intend to monitor outside the site, none of us will ever know...

We certainly hope so!

It might be worth checking up on this, though.

As a company, they have no experience in dealing with this type of waste, and they are not intending to employ any extra, expert, staff on site. They will be over 40 miles from the nearest qualified, nuclear help if something should go wrong.

Most of their application was written by consultants; we can't tell from this the company's own level of expertise.

The safety record on the King's Cliffe site (ENRMF)appears to be getting worse.

In 2008, seven major accidents were reported on Augean’s sites, and the company’s own report refers to ‘poor safety management’. External performance indicators for Augean sites from 2008 reveal that none of them are higher than average, and some are below average and poor. King’s Cliffe, was ‘average’,

Company reports indicate that accidents are increasing at the King’s Cliffe site. In 2007 the number of near misses was 1, in 2008 it was 8. In 2007 the number of minor accidents was 3, in 2008 it was 7. In 2007 the number of major accidents was 0, in 2008 it was 2.

Click here for confirmation of these figures from Augean's Responsibility Report. King's Cliffe is called ENRMF.

Augean have also been prosecuted for illegal activities on the Thornhaugh site. Click here to see.

Indeed it has, but the question is slightly skewed.

The waste is somewhere already; the question is why has it got to go somewhere else.

It is, at present, on the nuclear sites where it was produced, where it can be properly looked after, where there is already a degree of radiation that needs to be controlled, and where considerable profits, and benefits for the local economy, were made.

So why does it have to be dug up and taken somewhere else, where none of these conditions apply?

Assuming we don’t get ill from the radiation, and put more strain on the NHS, this is possibly true.

But the cheap option isn’t always the best one.

A new national storage centre, controlled by the nuclear industry, would be better, but where’s the £2billion coming from?

Here’s an idea:
nPower profits 2008 = £544 million; Edf profits 1st half of 2009 = £2.8 billion; Centrica profits 2008 = £2 billion; E-on profits 1st half of 2009 = £4 billion.

That’s what Augean and Government agencies are saying. It seems like a nice round number, rather than one that has been worked out from experience, but anyway...

Let’s take another example:

Each person’s chance of winning the lottery is calculated as 1 in 14 million, i.e. far more unlikely than getting cancer from the site.

Yet every week millions of people play, so they obviously don’t regard the odds as being too high.

Also, just about every week someone with a chance of 1 in 14 million does win the lottery.

So how safe should we really feel?

Let's hope you're right!

Unfortunately, research has provided no guide as to how much radiation you need to trigger cancer. This is mainly because each person's susceptibility to cancer is different. The dose levels refer, very vaguely, to the amount of radiation the average person would receive, averaged out over the average body, over the year.

So if you're average, and know that you're average, it sounds like you can rest easy.

The rest of us might like to click here for further information.