NUCLEAR MUD STARTS BEING DUMPED OFF PENARTH NEXT WEEK – AND THERE’S MORE TO COME IN 2020

320,000 tonnes of allegedly radioactive mud will be dredged from the shoreline at the Hinkley Point Nuclear Power Complex  and will be brought by hopper barges across the Bristol Channel to Penarth – to be dumped just a mile offshore

The French energy firm EDF has announced that it is to start dumping 320,000 tonnes of allegedly radioactive mud from the Hinkley Point nuclear complex just a mile off Penarth next Thursday – (September 6th 2018) .

There’s so much mud to get rid of,  it will take “ three to six months” to complete this phase of the dumping operation.

However now the firm has also revealed – for the first time – that there will be yet more mud to come after that.

This mud at the site of the old Hinkley Point nulcear power station – which campaigners say could be radioactive – is to be dumoped in the sea off Penarth beach – thanks to the Welsh Labour Government

After the initial 320,000 tonnes of mud from the Hinkley Point nculear complex has been dumped off Penarth – “some additional dredging will be needed in 2020 to complete the work”  – meaning that yet more mud – thousands of tonnes of it –  will be dumped off Penarth in 2020 in addition to the dumping due to start next month.

EDF claim the mud is “a standard material that we find flowing up and down the4 Bristol Channel on a daily basis”  and claim that it is not radioactive as defined by UK Law.

EDF says that the mud dredged up by “bckhoe dredger ” adjacent to the three nuclear power stations is “the same” as the mud that washes up and down the Bristol Channel every day. Environmentalists say EDF haven’t tested the mud properly and it will have absorbed radiocative materials from the cooling systems of the nearby nuclear power stations

The  Welsh Labour Government body which issued the original licence to allow mud from the Hinkley Point nuclear complex to be dumped just a mile offshore from  Penarth is Natural Resources Wales acting under the direction of Welsh Labour politicians.

The red area is where the mud from the nuclear power station site will be dumped starting next month

The ADDITIONAL  mud from Hinkley Point would also be dumped in the Cardiff Grounds dredge site – off Penarth  – but Natural Resources Wales says  that EDF would need a NEW licence to do this in  2020.

However PDN sources say that, as the Welsh Labour Government has already agreed to the current mud-dumping programme, it has set a precedent which now makes it difficult to refuse to issue a further dumping licence in 2020.

About NewsNet

Penarth Daily News email address dmj@newsnet.uk . Penarth Daily News is an independent free on-line fair and balanced news service published by NewsNet Ltd covering the town of Penarth in the Vale of Glamorgan, Wales, UK. All our news items are based on the information we receive or discover at the time of publication and are published on the basis that they are accurate to the best of our knowledge and belief at that time. Comments posted on the site by commentators reflect their opinions and are not necessarily shared, endorsed or supported by Penarth Daily News.
This entry was posted in Penarth Daily News. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to NUCLEAR MUD STARTS BEING DUMPED OFF PENARTH NEXT WEEK – AND THERE’S MORE TO COME IN 2020

  1. gareth says:

    Why not fill use the mud to fill in Cardiff bay just out side the Assembly building. They can all have free non radioactive mud packs as its so safe.

    • Philip Rapier says:

      I have recently switched my Electricity Account from EDF energy to the Cooperative Group via a simple to use comparison website.
      This is the least I can do to register my protest at the prospect of Nuclear Waste Mud being dumped off the coast of the Vale of Glamorgan by EDF energy I would urge PDN readers to consider voting with their hard earned cash and the power Utility Switching provides them with.
      Cooperative Energy derive only 5.58% of Electricity from Nuclear Sources. The EDF Website says they derive a massive 76.9% . (national average is 21%)
      Your own energy supplier is legally obliged to publish these percentages so check them out and switch.
      Please support Dr. Max Wallis’ on line petition against the dumping launched recently . Dr Wallis is a prize winning Ph. D in Physics and a leading expert on matters related to Nuclear Radiation.
      Write to your local MPs, AMs and Councillors as well, most of whom are so far shamefully silent on Nuclear Waste Dumping in the Vale of Glamorgan.

  2. Ocobblepot says:

    When talked about, Penarth will forever be linked and likened to, Hinkley Point, Sizewell, Trawsfynydd, Dungeness, Wylfa … etc ….. I imagine a conversation …. Where shall we go today?, Penarth front and the beach?. … Nope that’s that Nuclear waste dump.

  3. Mike Baker says:

    It appears that when Welsh residents make a complaint about things like this, they are ignored because the English based company want it and they dismiss those on this side of the channel !!

  4. cogan nomen says:

    I think you will find that most of the mud
    Originated from the rivers Severn , Avon ,
    Wye , Rhymney and USK .

    • Rosemary Knights says:

      As Max Wallis says much of the mud with naturally occurring radioactive material probably came from rivers running into the estuary. However what EDF is planning on dumping back in Cardiff Bay & the Estuary will have manmade radioactive material from Hinkley Point power Plants added to it. EDF & Natual Resources Wales, CEFAS, the Welsh Government want us to believe that the testing is adequate. It’s not & they’re either blind, don’t understand radiation risks or just plain lieing. .

      • Jon M Montgomerie says:

        Quote: “what EDF is planning on dumping back in Cardiff Bay & the Estuary will have manmade radioactive material from Hinkley Point power Plants added to it”
        Do you have ANY actual evidence for that alleged “adding”, or is it entirely supposition?!?

  5. Prophet Mark (aka Mark Fioster) says:

    Why worry about this? You’ll have a bigger nuclear problem when they move the Faslane submarines to Cardiff Bay after Scotland leaves the UK. Why do you think they built the 150 tonne viewing platform, the 50 tonne foundations for the park benches in Plassey Square and the coming 50 foot wide tank road around Penarth Head?

  6. Penarthbourne says:

    I think you’ll find the electricity will used in all parts of the UK together with Ireland and main land Europe via interconnectors

  7. parsons says:

    Disgusting Labour I hope you are ashamed of yourselves. This will lose votes for sure.

    • Cherry Nobyl says:

      Nah, if radioactive mud wore a red rosette, they’d vote it in.
      What interests me is the distinct lack of questions from our esteemed – allegedly ‘independent’ – Welsh media.
      Never let it be said they are in the pockets of the Assembly.

    • Frank Evans says:

      Nothing prevents the donkey Welsh Labour vote.
      Even if they passed a law killing all first born kids in Wales the parents would still vote Labour.

  8. Max Wallis says:

    Of course most of the mud originates from rivers flowing into the Estuary, some from the grinding of stones and sand. But then contaminated by Hinkley’s nuclear discharges as well as PCBs, zinc, nickel, lead, chromium, cadmium and mercury. Nonsense from EdF to claim “not radioactive as defined by UK Law”. They may mean “NORM” naturally occurring radioactive material which primarily contains natural uranium and thorium. The assessment from gamma-ray emissions in fact found such high levels that the radiation dose to dredger workers is close to the limit. EdF refused to take deeper samples, because the NRW stated (contrary to the data http://barryvalefriendsoftheearth.blogspot.com/p/hinkley.html) that levels were no higher in the few-m deep (decades old) sediments. Doubtless EdF also refused because properly representative data might well have proved radioactivity levels over the dumping limit.

    • prismsuk says:

      Gamma rays – high energy ionising radiation coming from mud immersed in deep water. Sounds really scary.

      What particularly gregarious people need to bear in mind is that they and every other person they get close to are emitting 500 gamma rays every second from their bodies, from the potassium-40 within them.

      Fear the mud? Best to stay a good distance from any other person then.

      Don’t let radiophobic comments make you forget that ionising radiation might just save your life, in the form of radiotherapy treatment of cancer and such.

      We live in an ocean of ionising radiation; it’s in everything we eat, drink and in every breath we take. We’ve done so for 200,000 years and our bodies have evolved DNA repair mechanisms to rectify any damage.

  9. Not happy says:

    As well as these two ships (Dredging Support Vessels) referred to by a Notice to Mariners on the ABP South Wales website, on the following ships have been residing at Barry Docks for a while.

    Glomar Vantage – Survey vessel
    St Peter The Great – Dredger
    Forth Jouster – Tug

    Are they involved in the dredging too?

  10. Pete says:

    Geiger Gething and Dumping Doughty. Kick them out.

  11. Gordon says:

    We need a flotilla of boats to prevent this outrage from happening.

    • Bobby says:

      Great idea Gordam, you do have a boat, right?

    • Rosemary Knights says:

      Could you get in touch with The Welsh Fishermens Association. Their members seem to fish in the coast & at sea so they may have boats & an interest in protecting themselves & the marine environment. I believe they have a branch in Penarth.

  12. Forty two says:

    I really can’t believe this is happening! It is a nightmare scenario! What on earth are all our political representatives doing?. Even if the mud is not radioactive, which I very much doubt, when it is deposited and falls to the seabed much of it will be washed away by the tides and wind up on Penarth and Barry and the beaches downstream. So much for Blue Flags then! I have opined before that the mud should be left where it is and a better solution found for cooling the Nuclear power station. It should not be built anyway as renewables will be so efficient by the time it is online it will be unnecessary!

  13. Jon M Montgomerie says:

    No, sorry.
    This is utter scare-mongering nonsense. The drama might help sell newspapers but it does the public a disservice in the process! The key words in the article are “ALLEGEDLY radioactive” and then further down, in one of the photo captions “mud that campaigners say COULD be radioactive” (my capitals in both).
    So why would people think the mud was radioactive? OK, it’s from ground adjacent to the decommissioned Hinkley A (Magnox) nuclear power station, now being excavated for build of the new Hinkley C (PWR) nuclear power station. HOWEVER: Hinkley A power station did not have any leaks to the environment of any radioactive material throughout its entire operational (and post-operational) life … so where would any radioactivity come from? If there IS any significant dose coming from the mud, it could only be naturally occurring radioactivity, such as from radon gas or radium in rock sediments.

  14. The UN reported large amounts of particulate emissions here http://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2000/UNSCEAR_2000_Annex-C-CORR.pdf and accidents were admitted. The word “allegedly radioactive” in these press articles is inserted by the editor quite unnecessarily – unnecessary because everything is radioactive at some level, including our own bodies. The question is whether the radioactivity in the mud is of a worrisome type, and the answer in this case is YES. Uranium and Plutonium particulates are entirely man-made. We have evolved no DNA repair mechanism to deal with the fact that a single alpha decay from a particle in (say) a lymph node delivers a dose 200 times annual Natural Background Radiation to any cell that it hits. The particle can only irradiate a sphere of cells 30 microns radius, and it will go on irradiating that group of cells indefinitely.

    • prismsuk says:

      On a daily basis, every one of us ingests measurable amounts of Uranium [not man-made, but natural] from food and drink and we have been doing this as a species for 200,000 years. And we have evolved a DSB [Double Strand Break] repair mechanism which is triggered in response to ionising radiation such as alpha particles. Natural Uranium is an alpha emitter just like man-made Plutonium. The chance of ingesting Plutonium particles from this mud is many millions of times less than our daily intake of Uranium.

      Interestingly, other causes of massive DSB damage to our DNA does not trigger the DSB repair mechanism. Something as simple as a dietary deficiency of folate does so, and maybe other dietary deficiencies do too.

      Fear the mud? Best check your intake of vitamins and minerals first.

  15. Prismsuk: Natural Uranium is not in the form of hot particles – particles of Uranium (why don’t you mention Uranium particles as well as Plutonium?) are an entirely novel exposure created by nuclear bombs and reactors. You are to some extent right about DSBs but they don’t dispose of the whole problem. It’s the repeated, localised, high-energy battering a tiny sphere of cells gets from a particle that creates the problem. The ex-Chairman of COMARE said in 2003 that the Bragg Effect (alpha decays delivering very high densities of ionisation as they slow down at the end of their 30 micron tracks) will create a shell-shaped barrier of damaged cells around a hot particle. Cells inside that shell are isolated from the beneficial influence of cell-signalling and programmed cell death.

    • Jon M Montgomerie says:

      No, this is not so. Any material that is solid in normal ambient conditions can be rendered into particulate by all manner of natural events – what do you think happens, for example, when naturally occurring uranium deposits are caught up in a volcanic eruption?!? Did you know that uranium (in particulate form) occurs naturally in seawater (probably partly arising from past volcanic events)?!? A few decades ago there was even a feasibility study on whether there was a practical way to extract uranium from seawater, so as to remove the UK nuclear fuel fabrication industry’s dependence on foreign suppliers!
      There are many bigger sources of man-made uranium particulate exposure that have nothing to do with the nuclear industry, simply because uranium occurs naturally all over the place: I live downwind of a large coal-fired power station, and am well aware that the traces of uranium (particulate again!) in the coal that they burn go straight up the stack and into the air I breath; I don’t much like it, but I am also aware that there are far bigger issues to worry about really …
      Life is full of risk, the only way to be “completely safe” (i.e. utterly risk-free) is to be dead already! The challenge then is to get a REALISTIC grasp of the level of the risks you face, both in their probability and their likely consequences, and then decide which ones you’re going to do something about (and what) and which ones are small enough that you can accept them. As I say, you’ll not get rid of them all (until you’re dead!) so better to focus your energies on the ones that matter.

      • Well it’s good that we are agreeing to talk about insoluble Uranium particulates, not bananas and cosmic rays. It’s conceivable that you’re right about the volcanic origin of particles but in 25 years of arguing with me (including 3½ years of a Westminster government scientific advisory committee), the nuclear establishment has never advanced the point you are making now, though they did provide evidence that small excesses of cancer incidence have been associated with living close to estuaries since the 19th Century, which may be due to Uranium in sea water. The coal-fired power station argument (Uranium again) is valid (and is another reason for dropping fossil fuels, but it doesn’t dispose of the point I am making. We know Uranium particulates are routinely released from reactors – the UN has published data. They are sure to be Uranium Oxides. Nuclear weapons tests created large amounts, and a lot of those (including Plutonium) are probably in the mud too. Your argument only reinforces the need to know what’s in the mud, how big the particulates are, whether they are natural or man-made, and how much of the bulk is Uranium or Pu. We need the facts. We’re getting bullshit (though not from you).

  16. Edward Sherlock says:

    I have just done a fag packet consideration of the logistics of this scheme, in particular the end point. If the company are stating 320,000 tonnes then there will certainly be closer to 500,000 tonnes to be dumped.
    A tonne of mud is regarded as being a cubic metre and if all the mud came up in neat square blocks that didn’t degrade and these were lined up in a single row then that would be 500 kilometres long. Ok so they are going to be doing this over a set time and mud is rarely square but all that material has to be accommodated in a new environment, the currents in the Bristol Channel are ferociously strong so the loose material will be scattered far and wide. That means that the breeding grounds for all manner of fish, shell fish and right down to diatomic plankton will be polluted with choking mud, irradiated or not. As this will continue for more than one breeding season the chances are there will be no sea life along the Channels shorelines.
    Another consideration is where will they actually dump this 300 mile wall of mud? As they are using seaborne dredgers which must draw about at least 5 metres, the Severn rises by 15 metres so they must be putting it in a channel at least 20 metres deep, not many of them near Penarth. If they are dumping on drying ground, nip in at high tide and dump half a mile of mud and then retreat before anyone notices, then there will be problems with the tidal flow being redirected who knows where?
    I would like to see an Impact Assessment for the whole scheme. Everything from the potential loss of sea life, cost to local fishermen and a well engineered scheme for distributing the dumpage which won’t produce inland flood risks.
    As to nuclear hazards the one thing we know about Uranium is that it is very heavy. At the moment the nuclear particles are loosely distributed throughout the mud but held in place by the mud. Once that mud is dredged up the mud looses its grip and all the particles fall if they aren’t collected. The heavy particles will collect at any eddy points and the potential for dangerous doses increases over the time of the scheme.
    All in all I don’t think this is a very well planned scheme from OUR point of view.

  17. I қnow!? Mentioned Larry. ?I guess һe likes angels аs a rеsult of he has them round all the tіme.
    Possibly he and the angеls play househоld games like we do sometimes.
    Perhaps they play Monopoly.? Thіs maԁe Mommy snort really hard.

Comments are closed.