Somerset levels - complaining about the problem but not helping with the solution?

Raptor Mike said:
The expert on the tele that said that the amount of difference to the flood had the river been dredged would have been minimal must be wrong then.

There was so much water the river would never be able to cope even if it had been dredged.
Click to expand...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/w...ded-after-it-was-not-dredged-for-decades.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...et-Levels-admits-Environment-Agency-boss.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25911391

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/...-global-warming-the-only-pump-was-turned-off/

etc

etc

etc
 
DemiLion said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/w...ded-after-it-was-not-dredged-for-decades.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...et-Levels-admits-Environment-Agency-boss.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25911391

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/...-global-warming-the-only-pump-was-turned-off/

etc

etc

etc
Click to expand...
Only the first one of those has any credibility. The enivirnment agency saying dredging would help but no word of prevention. The others, a farmer, a hairdresser and what looks like a blog that doiesnt believe in global warming.

I will see if I can find the clip im on about.
 
Raptor Mike said:
Nor was Chernobyl.
My point is accidents happen. But if its a nuclear power station it makes large areas uninhabitable for centries. Its dangerous and even though you and me don't see the waste its a hell of a lot worse than coal dust.

But I suppose because you don't see clouds of smoke coming from nuclear power stations they are safer... Ignorance is bliss!
Click to expand...

They do, you're right. But on balance nuclear is a risk worth taking. With ever increasing energy needs and an increasing population, we've little choice
 
Strange. I would have thought that the head of the EA stating that the massive under maintenance of the Level's primary drainage system would have been a grade one source. Especially as that is basically admitting their failure to act.
 
ST4 said:
They do, you're right. But on balance nuclear is a risk worth taking. With ever increasing energy needs and an increasing population, we've little choice
Click to expand...
We are having trouble finding space to dump general waste, how are we going to dump nuclear waste. And what about the future generations that have to deal with it? Or is that their problem?
 
The problem is it was an unuasualy high rainfall.Dredging would have helped but not prevented. Should the river be dredge? Absolutely. Will it prevent floods like the previous one? I hope so, but I doubt it.
 
Raptor Mike said:
We are having trouble finding space to dump general waste,
Click to expand...
Landfills are indeed closing quite rapidly now, as their "life" is coming to a close.
A lot of waste is going into transfer stations where its sorted, and flammable waste is being compressed and exported,
to places like France and Germany, to use in their burners as fuel.

The UK as usual, is way behind, but "2nd generation "clean burners" are now being built,
and there are a few of the "older ones" (still) in operation.
 
Raptor Mike said:
The problem is it was an unuasualy high rainfall.Dredging would have helped but not prevented. Should the river be dredge? Absolutely. Will it prevent floods like the previous one? I hope so, but I doubt it.
Click to expand...


The issue isn't the 'floods'. Those have and always will happen. That's why they are called the Levels, or flood plains. The issue is the drainage rate. That's what has caused the problems.
 
Raptor Mike said:
Nor was Chernobyl.
My point is accidents happen. But if its a nuclear power station it makes large areas uninhabitable for centries. Its dangerous and even though you and me don't see the waste its a hell of a lot worse than coal dust.

But I suppose because you don't see clouds of smoke coming from nuclear power stations they are safer... Ignorance is bliss!
Click to expand...

Chernobyl was more or less sabotage. It could not go off without a lot of "help" by the operators.

Japan / California / Chile are lunacy for nuclear but anywhere else is totally fine. Nuclear is very safe, and indeed there are no clouds of carcinogens pouring out every second for decades non-stop
 
Sorry Mike, Building some wind turbines our putting solar panels up will not stop the flooding of the Somerset levels or anywhere else for that matter.
 
daugirdas said:
Chernobyl was more or less sabotage. It could not go off without a lot of "help" by the operators.

Japan / California / Chile are lunacy for nuclear but anywhere else is totally fine. Nuclear is very safe, and indeed there are no clouds of carcinogens pouring out every second for decades non-stop
Click to expand...


So safe, just remind me how many accidents there have been since the inception of this safe tech?
 
boyfalldown said:
So safe, just remind me how many accidents there have been since the inception of this safe tech?
Click to expand...

remind me how many people died from coal pollution, got cancer, COPD, and so. And remind me how much coal is responsible for global warming. Nuclear is like a cookie in comparison.
 
viv1969 said:
As above though...they did, and they fortified rather well against the possibility.
Yes yes, the water overwhelmed, but how high are they supposed to go on the off chance?
If built in Britain, the plant would barely be showerproof, let alone anything else.
Click to expand...

All British nuclear installations are designed to withstand earthquake.
 
daugirdas said:
remind me how many people died from coal pollution, got cancer, COPD, and so. And remind me how much coal is responsible for global warming. Nuclear is like a cookie in comparison.
Click to expand...
An answer would have been nice ;)
 
Climate change of one sort or another is as old as (if not older than) the planet. The levels are a FLOOD PLAIN, it's hardly rocket science that they'll flood from time to time! Nice fertile soil found on flood plains, dumped there by the flood waters. Lovely as it may be to live near streams or rivers, there's a risk involved.
 
Mike, a few wind turbines and a few solar panels on the Somerset levels will have no effect on global warming. Wind Turbines have failed to give the energy that was promised.
 
Last edited:
munch said:
Mike, a few wind turbines and a few solar panels on the Somerset levels will have no effect on global warming. Wind Turbines have failed to give the energy that was promised.
Click to expand...
I have tried to say that its because so many places have this negative attitude towards renewables. Sure the levels not having them wont make much difference, but if everywhere has the same attidtude we are screwed. However as in my first post they want to put panels in now.
 
I think many people are missing the point. The only clean energy is from renewables. Nuclear is NOT clean and is dangerous. All those in favour of the nuclear option, would you rather see a nuclear power station/ waste dump out side your window ruining the view or turbines/panels?

The levels flooded due to heavy rain. We are getting more and more floods which MAY be down to global warming. Some residents are complaining about helping reduce global warming by protesting against renewables. So how can they moan about the flooding if they are not willing to do their bit, no matter how small that may be.

Before the levels flooded I always said people moaning about their view being ruined by renewables are daft, they won't have much of a view when the tide is lapping at their front door. Unfortunately I think my point is proven.
 
Raptor Mike said:
I have tried to say that its because so many places have this negative attitude towards renewables. Sure the levels not having them wont make much difference, but if everywhere has the same attidtude we are screwed. However as in my first post they want to put panels in now.
Click to expand...

I think panels are pointless in Somerset. There is never any sunshine down there, just the windy spray and grey cloud. But that is great for wind. Solar is best in sunny places like Spain, Greece, California; they are largely wasted here while requiring expensive minerals and energy to manufacture. The next gen (organic panels) will be cheaper and easier to manufacture, so maybe then we can have a play in this wetland.
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
Give me a shout if you decide to make any sense :LOL: (y)
Click to expand...

That's the most sensible answer you'll get to a silly question. :sleep:
 
chadders said:
That's the most sensible answer you'll get to a silly question. :sleep:
Click to expand...

Suit yourself. All I'm saying is I'm sure the Japanese also carried out expert research and rigorous testing upon building Fukushima, but until the worst happens no one can be 100% sure of the outcome. Anyone who reckons they can is blindly arrogant ;)

At least they had their road and rail infrastructure back up and running in a matter of weeks. If it had been here the HSE would still be carrying out a bloody risk assessment :lol:
 
viv1969 said:
Suit yourself. All I'm saying is I'm sure the Japanese also carried out expert research and rigorous testing upon building Fukushima, but until the worst happens no one can be 100% sure of the outcome. Anyone who reckons they can is blindly arrogant ;)
Click to expand...

Exactly, this is my point about nuclear power, you worded it better though ;)
 
Raptor Mike said:
I think many people are missing the point. The only clean energy is from renewables. Nuclear is NOT clean and is dangerous. All those in favour of the nuclear option, would you rather see a nuclear power station/ waste dump out side your window ruining the view or turbines/panels?

The levels flooded due to heavy rain. We are getting more and more floods which MAY be down to global warming. Some residents are complaining about helping reduce global warming by protesting against renewables. So how can they moan about the flooding if they are not willing to do their bit, no matter how small that may be.

Before the levels flooded I always said people moaning about their view being ruined by renewables are daft, they won't have much of a view when the tide is lapping at their front door. Unfortunately I think my point is proven.
Click to expand...

I live relatively near Hunterson nuclear station and Faslane. I have no issue other than theres not another Nuclear powerstation and the hippy peace campers haven't been shot. More nuclear is good.
 
Chris Smith is a funny looking bloke ……….. not a guy to cheer anyone up

no OT comments please
 
ST4 said:
I live relatively near Hunterson nuclear station and Faslane. I have no issue other than theres not another Nuclear powerstation and the hippy peace campers haven't been shot. More nuclear is good.
Click to expand...

I thought grouse hunting season has started... :)
 
viv1969 said:
Suit yourself. All I'm saying is I'm sure the Japanese also carried out expert research and rigorous testing upon building Fukushima, but until the worst happens no one can be 100% sure of the outcome. Anyone who reckons they can is blindly arrogant ;)

At least they had their road and rail infrastructure back up and running in a matter of weeks. If it had been here the HSE would still be carrying out a bloody risk assessment :LOL:
Click to expand...

I merely responded to your original statement that "if built in Britain it would be barely showerproof". An uninformed statement like that cannot be allowed to stand without contradiction. You are quite correct in saying that until the top event occurs no one can be absolutely certain what will happen. However, in the case of British nuclear installations, the Design Base Earthquake is such that, failure due to a seismic event alone, is as unlikely as you could wish it to be. In the event of a significant earthquake in Britain I'd be far more concerned if it was in the vicinity of a refinery (or even a wind farm)…and so were I. ;)
 
chadders said:
I merely responded to your original statement that "if built in Britain it would be barely showerproof". An uninformed statement like that cannot be allowed to stand without contradiction. You are quite correct in saying that until the top event occurs no one can be absolutely certain what will happen. However, in the case of British nuclear installations, the Design Base Earthquake is such that, failure due to a seismic event alone, is as unlikely as you could wish it to be. In the event of a significant earthquake in Britain I'd be far more concerned if it was in the vicinity of a refinery (or even a wind farm)…and so were I. ;)
Click to expand...

I've been nervous around wind turbines in a blustery wind! :lol:
Thanks for the expansion :-)
 
Nuclear fission, which is what is being talked about here is old hat technology these days. Plough any investment into nuclear fusion. Very clean, no waste, zero danger of meltdown etc, and runs on water.
 
Wind turbines, pah! The ones down here, they switch them off when it's calm. Beggars belief!

I'll get me coat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top