Welcome to Plymouth: Nuclear Dump City

Although you may only comment to posts here, you may register on theforumwhere you can post new topics for discussion. Roger Lovejoy

Welcome to the vision of Plymouth becoming a nuclear dump. Sellafield watch out you have competition. I wonder if the Green Army will throw the towel in or can we give this Nuke Team a thrashing in this forthcoming game for the control of the heart and soul of Plymouth.

Each of us will have to consider how we can enjoy the game. We don't need to win, we just need to play with such passion and commitment that the other team just can't be bothered to take us on. Isn't that exactly their approach, and committed to exploiting any weakness they find.

Tony Staunton has provided a copy of an open letter from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Bill Rammel (Bill) to Local MP Linday Gilroy (Linda). He has also provided a response to that letter, both of which can be seen under the Information heading to the right.

Hopefully some of the issues Tony relates to can be further investigated and such investigations and the discoveries posted here.

Devonport Dump, Delight or Blight

There are a number of queries that I have as follows:

1. The degree of blight
2. The degree of delight
3. Who decides what's available?
4. Can the national government override local electors wishes?
5. If the decision is dependent upon local support, where is this support to come from?
6. Will the councillors represent the wishes of the electors?
7. Will the councillors try and sell the dump deal to the electorate for a price?
8. What would the councillors be dealing with, money for the community, gratitude from the community, re-election in the community and therefore a greater sense of their worth - at any cost or some cost? What is likely, is that those in favour will clearly deem they are to profit by it.
9. How do we find out what the electors want?
10. Who will provide arguments for and against? One things for sure those that argue for it can use peoples addiction to financial gain as the primary benefit. Cleary no one would want a nuclear dump where they live, so only some material dupe could persuade someone to accept a deterioration in the environmental health of their surroundings.
11. The assumption must be that no-one wants radioactive waste in their environment
12. At the onset of nuclear pollution very little was know and even less communicated about continuous low level hazard as it was a new phenomena (Note the ignorance about asbestos when it was first developed)
13. Following decades of exposure, concerns are growing but it is difficult to escape as the deed has been done and the disposal of the radioactive mechanics is ongoing and a long term contaminant
14. Clearly some disposal must happen, but before an agreement is made surely knowledge of future levels or preferably an arrangement that it production will cease would help
15. Manhandling radioactive material in a populated area is contrary to common sense.
16. As there is no alternative to human involvement then the work should be done in the least populated area, with the minimum number of people given exceptional care and very high wages and or special health care
17. The idea that the environmental pollution should be spread around a city so that more people can benefit from government grants designed to get a quick solution is ......

Who to Contact

Democratic Support :-
Ross Jago 01752 (304469, 304867, 304022)
Ward Councillors (Dockyard/Keyam) :-

Mark Coaker (308313)
Bill Stevens (251713)
Nicky Wildy (07827 821925)

Next ward committee meeting 6pm, 30th March @ City College, Kings Road.

Before this meeting I would like to get answers to the above via the FIO Act

Tony Staunton's brief.

The campaign and protests against the planned Nuclear Waste Dump at Plymouth Devonport has rattled Ministers. Today, in response to a request from local MP, Linda Gilroy, the defence minister, Bill Rammell, wrote an open letter to reassure the people of Plymouth (attached). It is full of inaccuracies, as my reply explains. He is of the opinion that there are a number of sites under consideration – not true. He states that cutting-up is part of the Plan, not true, it is the Third Option, but clearly, and as we have said, it is already a given, a fait-a-compli, a done-deal.

This letter should cause grave concern, even to those who do not want to work with us or wish to doubt us.

Please take the time to read both letters and consider the issues seriously. Think, what a Plymouth will be like as the centre for, as Rammel puts it, the “ship-breaking” and contaminated, radioactive nuclear submarines.

Echoes of the asbestos era, I think. But radiation is even worse than asbestos. What are we to do?

Tony Staunton

Added by Roger
You can view ordownloadthe Sept 2009 CND report on Trident and Dismantling

I spoke to Roderick Latham at the Ministry of Defence (Bill Rammel) around 10am this morning. I spoke of the discrepancy between Ian Avent's claim that only two site were left on the table for disposal of nuclear waste from submarines and the MOD's version that there are twelve. He reiterated that there are two potential sites for cutting up 12 for storage.

I then went on to say there was concern that there seems to be a plan for nuclear reactor compartments to be cut up after removal from the hull. The further cutting of the reactor will create further hazard and seems unnecessary.

France, Russia and the USA all store their reactors intact on the surface of the land - I will write to those nations to confirm. It is true they have more land, but that does not seem to be a good enough reason to have the further hazard of cutting up.

Photo of Submarine Reactor Storage in the USA

Image from: navsource.org
See alsoUSA Storage page

For more images you can search using"hanford images"

Clearly from a personal profit point of view, those visionary people at Babcock, will earn themselves a pretty penny by getting the tax payer to employ them to carry out this dirty work in Devonport. The additional short term gain to some dozens of people employed cannot surely outweigh the blight that such a process brings with it.

The contact details for querying this are@
02072189000 Ask to be put through to the Minister for the Armed Forces, Bill Rammel. You may then get, or ask to be put through to Rod Latham. He knows of the letter to Linda Gilroy so he can discuss the basics.

Next is to email him atminaf-privateoffice@mod.ukwith specific questions on issues arising.

It may be useful that each email contains only one query so that they can be seen to be dealt with fully and not get lumped together in some vague and general response.

The Freedom of Information Act should provide for a thorough analysis of decisions and discussions made.

You may comment on this post, but to enter into a proper discussion please go tothe Dump City forum.

Regarding the issue of PDF v Other Text based articles:
PDF is not a secure version. Text can be copied, edited and posted as a new document.

That's the beauty of people power. People are free to change and distort whatever they find, and I will not be an authority on what other people should do.

There is misinformation touted by the likes of Microsoft, Apple and Adobe about how to secure information. However once text is posted on the internet it is available for copying and reposting as is or edited.

If anyone has a problem with any text they post on any of the PEC's fora they can remove it. Once information is transferred by whatever means to another, unless there is a contract as to what to do with the information then sit back and relax.

It is therefore taken for granted that information posted on websites for public viewing can be adapted at will.

Please do not post or make available other people's contact details without their prior consent unless that information relates to a public servant etc.