Has this letter been sent to the Buckinghamshire Press?
There is a letter in the online Whitehaven News today that starts off with the disingenous statement that
"FINLAND and Sweden are building their GDFs under the Baltic sea."
Spoiler alert - not quite! This is what the World Nuclear Association says: " For the sub-seabed disposal option, radioactive waste containers would be buried in a suitable geological setting beneath the deep ocean floor. This option has been suggested for LLW, ILW, and HLW. Variations of this option include:
A repository located beneath the seabed. The repository would be accessed from land, a small uninhabited island, or from an offshore structure.
Burial of radioactive waste in deep ocean sediments.
Sub-seabed disposal has not been implemented anywhere and is not permitted by international agreements."
The letter goes on...
"In the UK, the deepest potash mine in Europe stretches out for 20km under the North Sea, and is as bone dry as any desert when you are 1km beneath the surface.
The European Parliament has conducted its own independent analysis, ‘The World Nuclear Waste Report 2020’, which concluded geological disposal is the 'least worst option' for the long-term management of radioactive waste. This is also the position of the German Green Party, one of whose MEPs led the report. Those concerned about burying radioactive waste deep underground argue the waste should be kept on the surface – presumably on the assumption that over the next 100,000 years the planet’s surface will remain as constant, benign and unchanging as deep rock formations, AND that humans will never ever make a mistake. There are only two options available to us with regards radioactive waste — keep it overground on the surface or bury it deep underground. Because IF something goes wrong, it will either go wrong deep underground, or it will go wrong overground on the surface. You don’t need to have a PhD to work out which is the lesser of two evils — radioactivity leaking underground harmlessly far away from the surface and people (which has happened once), or radioactivity on the surface leaking instantly into the air we breathe, the soil we grow our food in, and the water we drink. But those are our only two choices — hence why the European Parliament, German Green Party, and the international scientific community conclude that geological disposal is the 'least worst option'. This is not a ‘Cumbrian’ issue. This is a global environmental issue, with the EU and every major economy (including China, Russia, Japan, India, etc) also coming to the same conclusion – that geological disposal is the 'least worst option'. Radioactive waste is an emotive issue which why we need a sober, informed and responsible discussion around finding a site to safely dispose of the waste. I have no axe to grind for NWS, and I certainly do not advocate for more nuclear. Nor do I advocate for a GDF in Cumbria. But I do believe that if we are to build a greener future, we have an ethical and environmental responsibility to start the process of cleaning up the mess we’ve inherited. Roy Payne Executive Director, GDFWatch "
Yeah right - totally impartial view from former (?) PR man for Radioactive Waste Management - the limited company subsidiary of Nuclear Decommissioning Authority tasked with Delivery of a deep nuclear dump. I hope Roy has also sent this patronising letter to the Buckinghamshire media to tell them to take the "ethical" "least worst" choice and bury heat generating nuclear wastes out of sight deep underground where they can neither be monitored or repacked https://www.titansofnuclear.com/experts/RoyPayne
Sub Sea-bed Disposal https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-waste.aspx#:~:text=For%20the%20sub%2Dseabed%20disposal,repository%20located%20beneath%20the%20seabed.
Wainwright and the Wave - St Bees, Irish Sea.