Save the Dounreay Dome.

[John Little]

I was not going to do this.

Honest I was not.

I had come to see it as a local issue. But now I see that I was wrong. It's actually a national issue because the dome is an issue of national heritage and significant in Scottish and British history.

And world history - and to the human race- and of the same sort of significance to our progress as the Pyramids, Roman roads, Hadrian's Wall or the invention of the internal combustion engine.

Our nuclear heritage is being discarded and lost- Windscale / Calder Hall torn down. But Dounreay stands unique; a giant stride forward in atomic science and our understanding. And - despite her tarnished more recent past, a huge success in her day. She was never meant to be a viable power station - but she was a proving ground for technologies now used all over the world. And despite the opposition of many - I think it will be in future.

The Dome is a fantastic thing - straight out of a sci-fi movie.

I always thought it a beautiful artefact - simple, elegant and clean lined. It did not fit with the landscape but challenged it with all the pride of human aspiration - and took it on. A symbol of our struggle to improve things. And in a hostile place, swept by gales, snow and salt spray, almost of victory.

I still think that.

The Facebook group has now reached 100 people. Not enormous, but it has gone from 26 to 100 in two days and could get much bigger if the members of the group pushed it.

But the whole thing gets a mighty shove forward if it has support among the local community.

I know there's some of you don't care less, and some of you who want to tear it down as an eyesore. But this thread is really not about that because there's another thread which can serve for that.

There's at least 100 people on Facebook who want to save the dome. I'm one of them.

And yes I do realise that I'm a bit of a dome bore. But hey-ho - there are bigger storms at sea.

If you want to preserve the Big Ball, please show your support here on this thread. Maybe someone will take notice.


Save the Dounreay Dome. Save the Big Ball.

You can register your support by signing the online petition and/or via Facebook by clicking the following links. Please do both if you are able. Thank you.

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/...reay-dome.html (http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save-the-dounreay-dome.html)

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gi...2543519&ref=ts (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=141657212543519&ref=ts)

[Rheghead]

I'm liking your passion.

[Blarney]

I think that you need to set up some sort of online petition that doesn't require you to sign up to Facebook. I'm sure there are many other Facebook-phobs beside myself out there who share your sentiments but are unable to show their support in a constructive way.

[Whitewater]

Have to agree with John Little.
Dounreay was a great accomplishment for Britain, the people of Caithness were the ones who reaped the benefits and rightly so. The fast reactor was built in the north of Scotland as it was the least densely populated area in the country, America had tried a similar reactor but it got out of control and was filled with concrete. The boffins knew the dangers, but they were also aware of the benefits. Caithness at that time was a county with nothing, young boys had to go south to get an apprenticeship or go to sea in the merchant marine or royal navy. The North of Scotland was renowned for its sea captains and engineers. Thats what my father done and what I would have done if it was not for Dounreay

DFR was an experimental reactor, then PRF the prototype was built, after a few hiccups in its early days it was a roaring success, the CFR (Commercial Fast Reactor) was designed in Risley, it was ready to be built when the anti-nuclear lobby became too strong so everything was put on hold. However, after they realise the futility of the windmills nuclear energy will be on the agenda again, in fact I think it is already on the agenda

The old DFR was the key to all the fast reactors throughout the world, all the experimentation was carried out there, and carried out safely. Many complicated questions were answered. It rightly deserves a place in history and should be preserved as a world heritage spot. What is £100,000 a year in the grand scale of things, during its lifetime it was worth an awful lot more to Caithness than that.

[John Little]

I think that you need to set up some sort of online petition that doesn't require you to sign up to Facebook. I'm sure there are many other Facebook-phobs beside myself out there who share your sentiments but are unable to show their support in a constructive way.


Blarney - I'm glad you survived that link.....

I don't know how to set up an on-line petition. Rheghead suggested that too- Anyone out there know???

[Corrie 3]

Blarney - I'm glad you survived that link.....

I don't know how to set up an on-line petition. Rheghead suggested that too- Anyone out there know???
John...Google "Go Petitions"

I dont know why I am helping you, I want to see it pulled down!!!..[lol]

C3.....;):lol:

[John Little]

LOL! I wonder if you do...... really......

Thanks - I'll have a look later - not on bosses time though...

[Corrie 3]

LOL! I wonder if you do...... really......

Thanks - I'll have a look later - not on bosses time though...

I really am too soft for my own good!!!

http://www.gopetition.co.uk/

C3....;)

[golach]

I really am too soft for my own good!!!

http://www.gopetition.co.uk/

C3....;)

Corrie you will get your reward in heaven [lol]

[John Little]

Indeed he will...

Please sign the online petition;

http://www.gopetition.com/petition/39548.html

[achingale]

Good luck with the petition.

[ffg]

A new N power station is what we need why cant we petition for something useful that will bring work to caithness

[John Little]

I agree - all that expertise and yet the politicos take the decision to run down nuclear. Short-sighted.

But the Dome could mean jobs too - as the heart of a museum perhaps?

[John Little]

The facebook group is now 112.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=141657212543519

Please join the group and/ or sign the online petition
http://www.gopetition.com/petition/39548.html

[John Little]

Good start to the first day of the petition. Please sign....

[Dadie]

done......about lunchtime (ish)....

[John Little]

Peoples' comments are quite vehement in some cases. I'm glad to know that some people feel very strongly that the dome should stay.

[Rheghead]

I had heard that there was a call for the classic 1950s offices to be preserved, any movement on that one?

[John Little]

I know nothing about it - you'd better run with that one.

Seems to me though that if the place might be turned into a museum/exhibition centre then it will need offices.....

[gleeber]

I had heard that there was a call for the classic 1950s offices to be preserved, any movement on that one?
Now your just being silly Rheghead. :roll:
Maybe your right. Maybe it is an eccentric idea but so was climbing Everest. :lol:
Fair play to john Little for his enthusiasm. He has all the credentials considering his local connection.
Good luck.

[Rheghead]

Now your just being silly Rheghead. :roll:
Maybe your right. Maybe it is an eccentric idea but so was climbing Everest. :lol:
Fair play to john Little for his enthusiasm. He has all the credentials considering his local connection.
Good luck.

I wasn't being silly at all. When I first came to the area I happened to mention to someone that I bet the locals would be happy to see the back of an ugly eyesore seeing as it was being decommissioned and I got the rebuff that the dome was an icon of British engineering and that someone in the Groat had written in to say that the classic 1950s architecture was worthy of preservation as the same style is being demolished all over the country.

[gleeber]

I wasn't being silly at all. When I first came to the area I happened to mention to someone that I bet the locals would be happy to see the back of an ugly eyesore seeing as it was being decommissioned and I got the rebuff that the dome was an icon of British engineering and that someone in the Groat had written in to say that the classic 1950s architecture was worthy of preservation as the same style is being demolished all over the country.
Maybe the person who wrote to the Groat was being silly then. Theyre just as daft them that write to the local paper as those who use internt forums.
The domes more than an engineering icon. It symbolises something important in human history. It could become as famous as Mickey mouse.

[North Light]

John,

Perhaps you should follow this link.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/steps

[John Little]

Thanks North Light for a good idea. I don't think I'll do it now though. Asking people to sign a petition requires some of their time - but two petitions might put 'em off. If the first one gets us anywhere it might be an idea to send it to Downing Street...but I hope not.
I have a sneaky feeling that the demolition decision might have been made with some reluctance- but we shall see.

[rich]

I hate anything to do with Facebook. But I want to preserve the dome. Can we do it without Facebook? If not, how strong an element should Facebook be in the campaign.

[Geo]

While it may be a great feat of engineering I think it's a bit of a blot on the landscape. However given how long it's been there and the work the site provided I can see why some people would like it to remain. Maybe in a few years everyone will feel the same way about wind turbines.

[John Little]

I have received a letter from Historic Scotland which I shall not put here unless the person who sent it is willing for me to do so - we shall see. The main import of it is that the decision to demolish the dome has no flexibility due to radioactive contamination.

I have queried this with regard to a steel dome.

I stood in that dome in 1990 and there was no lethal radiation in there then.

If there is a lethal level of radiation in there now then it is because it has been put there by the decontamination process subsequent to my visit.

Am I alone in thinking that this implies a certain carelessness in the process of decontamination?

One thing I was told did astonish me - that no consideration of the heritage aspects of the dome was made prior to 2007.

Heritage Scotland then asked DSRL to commission a holistic study into the future of the site and they asked a company called Atkins, a corporation with wide experience in large structures to produce a report on possible futures for the dome.

That is well - but it seems to me that any report produced by such an organisation is necessarily going to be hard-nosed, business like and concerned with matters of economy and finance.

But we are speaking of heritage here. And there are a number of heritage structures that I can think of that would not stand up to such analysis.

It seems to me that when we speak of heritage then we must vector in other factors - a sense of History and of significant landmarks in our onward progress.
And that if we destroy such things then we destroy waymarks in our past. And if you do not value your past then you are a rootless people without custom, tradition or sense of place.

But we are not such a people which is why historic places are visited by millions of people every year.


I'd like to see a study of the Dome done again- commissioned by Historic Scotland.

I would like to see a report by a body of experts independent of DSRL. They could form a committee with representatives from Historic Scotland, and most of all, representatives from the local community and perhaps from the Scottish Parliament..

It still appears to me that cost has been the prime consideration in what has happened since 2007.

Demolishing the Dome is simply the easiest and most cost effective way of dealing with a problem.

But I am far from convinced that it is the only one.

Scotland has something unique on its north coast.

In my humble opinion Scotland is owed another, and impartial, look before it is destroyed for ever.

[Rheghead]

The main import of it is that the decision to demolish the dome has no flexibility due to radioactive contamination.

What about neutron activation of contaminants in 1950s steel?

No amount of scrubbing will get rid of that one.

[John Little]

JL rule number 1 - don't argue about what you know nothing about. I'll leave that to the Org's Atomicers - who for the most part maintain a deafening silence......

Rheghead - I repeat- if the Dome is contaminated it will have to be decontaminated.

Mind you - some people think that the dome is only contaminated to a very low level. Some of the surrounding buildings have to go because they are very contaminated.....

If it is not decontaminated, then how can they expose the inside to the outer air by demolishing it?

If what you say is true and decontamination is impossible, then it would be best to do what the Americans did with theirs - abandon it after filling it with concrete. But even then the outside would have to be painted and kept in good order so that the weather did not create a breach....


Come to think of it - that's not a bad idea.......

The thrust of why the dome has to be demolished is financial is it not?


I can see why demolition would be the simplest option. Creating access to the site avoiding certain areas could be quite complicated.

But if demolition depends on finance then I think it avoidable.

[scotsboy]

What about neutron activation of contaminants in 1950s steel?

No amount of scrubbing will get rid of that one.

The sphere was not the primary reactor containment and therefore would not have been subject to the neutron flux which would cause activation. Even assuming it was then the primary activation product would have been Cobalt-60 with a half-life of around 5 years, it is considered that radioactive sources are de minimus after 10 half-lives. With the reactor ceasing operation in 1977 we only have around another 20 years decay to go.......and I think it is envisaged that the sphere will be there for at least that period anyway.

[Rheghead]

The sphere was not the primary reactor containment and therefore would not have been subject to the neutron flux which would cause activation.

Well I know for a fact that primary reactor containment only reduces neutron flux by a certain level, it doesn't contain it completely.

[scotsboy]

Well I know for a fact that primary reactor containment only reduces neutron flux by a certain level, it doesn't contain it completely.

You are correct, that is where the biological shield comes into operation.

[Rheghead]

You are correct, that is where the biological shield comes into operation.

Even so, that only reduces it.

[scotsboy]

Even so, that only reduces it.

So everything outside the biological shield at DFR was activated then?..........you really do not have a clue.

[Rheghead]

So everything outside the biological shield at DFR was activated then?..........you really do not have a clue.


Yes it was, low level probably but commensurate with the level of the neutron flux and the associated neutron capture properties of items outside the biological shield.

[John Little]

So am I to understand that anyone who went in that dome was exposed to this danger?

You are alarming me again.....

Do the thousands of people who passed through the dome have reason to be worried?

[Rheghead]

So am I to understand that anyone who went in that dome was exposed to this danger?

You are alarming me again.....

Do the thousands of people who passed through the dome have reason to be worried?

Probably not but who am I to say, supposedly I don't have a clue! [lol]

Seriously though, one of the most often over-looked isotopes (like tritium) because it is undetectable by any of the hand-held monitors that are carried around in Dounreay is carbon-14. Carbon is everywhere (up to 15,000 parts per million in some steels) and does get activated in a neutron flux, it has a half life of 5760 years so virtually none of it has decayed away since operations ceased.

[scotsboy]

Please highlight where enhanced levels of activated Carbon-14 in the metal structure of the DFR sphere have been indicated as a radiological hazard.

[scotsboy]

Probably not but who am I to say, supposedly I don't have a clue! [lol]

Seriously though, one of the most often over-looked isotopes (like tritium) because it is undetectable by any of the hand-held monitors that are carried around in Dounreay is carbon-14. Carbon is everywhere (up to 15,000 parts per million in some steels) and does get activated in a neutron flux, it has a half life of 5760 years so virtually none of it has decayed away since operations ceased.

Are you saying here that Carbon-14 cannot be detected or Tritium.....or both?

[Rheghead]

Please highlight where enhanced levels of activated Carbon-14 in the metal structure of the DFR sphere have been indicated as a radiological hazard.

Don't consult with me, go talk to DSRL as they are the ones who are claiming the dome is contaminated with radioactivity.

All I am saying is that carbon 14 is produced in the steels etc in the neutron flux of a reactor and that the neutron flux extends beyond the biological shield.

Dust is also a problem as it is mostly carbonaceous and will activate near the reactor then settle on the rafters due to convection within the containment vessel.

Checking to see if you are clear of carbon 14 is actually a long process to achieve and is not a matter of pointing your geiger counter at something.

[scotsboy]

Don't consult with me, go talk to DSRL as they are the ones who are claiming the dome is contaminated with radioactivity.

All I am saying is that carbon 14 is produced in the steels etc in the neutron flux of a reactor and that the neutron flux extends beyond the biological shield.

Dust is also a problem as it is mostly carbonaceous and will activate near the reactor then settle on the rafters.

Checking to see if you are clear of carbon 14 is actually a long process to achieve and is not a matter of pointing your geiger counter at something.

But you hve just said it was ACTIVATED not contaminated. I don't need to talk to DSRL, and was flabergasted at the article on this subject that they penned in the latest issue of the Dounreay News, if I get some time I will put together a post on it.

[Rheghead]

I don't need to talk to DSRL, and was flabergasted at the article on this subject that they penned in the latest issue of the Dounreay News, if I get some time I will put together a post on it.

Yes and the telling line is...


Large parts of the site,
including the sphere, are
radiologically contaminated and
the site itself is likely to remain out
of bounds to the public for almost
300 years after it has been
decommissioned.

[John Little]

All of which has a degree of subjectivity. No-one disputes that parts of the site are contaminated. But not all.

If it were all contaminated then there would be no people working there now. Would there?

So to what extent is a blanket ban on entry a simple convenience.

Could the Dome be made accessible?

If the Dome is contaminated, to what extent is it contaminated and may it (it has to be anyway) be decontaminated?

Could the Dome be (as the americans did with theirs be filled with low grade concrete or even sand?

Could the Dome be the memorial if such was the case - one that would require a coat of paint every 10 years?

There's a lot of sweeping statements about regarding contamination to the site.

I'd like someone outside DSRL to tell the public if the Dome itself is contaminated beyond redemption.

[John Little]

http://www.gopetition.com/petition/39548.html

Please sign up.....

[Rheghead]

All of which has a degree of subjectivity. No-one disputes that parts of the site are contaminated. But not all.

If it were all contaminated then there would be no people working there now. Would there?

So to what extent is a blanket ban on entry a simple convenience.

Could the Dome be made accessible?

If the Dome is contaminated, to what extent is it contaminated and may it (it has to be anyway) be decontaminated?

Could the Dome be (as the americans did with theirs be filled with low grade concrete or even sand?

Could the Dome be the memorial if such was the case - one that would require a coat of paint every 10 years?

There's a lot of sweeping statements about regarding contamination to the site.

I'd like someone outside DSRL to tell the public if the Dome itself is contaminated beyond redemption.

I think if a reassessment was made of the dome by an outside organisation and the outcome was that the dome could be saved and the risks were trivial then this would seriously undermine DRSL's credibility at assessing risk which is basically what is right at the heart of their reason for being.

[John Little]

Precisely.
DSRL has a lot invested in this - and not just cash.

Yet their credibility has taken some blows over the years with a few incidents.

But assessing what is worth preserving for Heritage reasons is not the same as assessing risk.

Whatever their motives, from a Heritage point of view, another look does no harm - from parties uninvolved with the whole weight of what is going on at Dounreay.

[mi16]

Who will be responsible for the upkeep of the thing should it be kept for posterity?
I believe the painting is not cheap to get done!!

[John Little]

Who will be responsible for the upkeep of the thing should it be kept for posterity?
I believe the painting is not cheap to get done!!


That's a good question. I believe that it was going to be Historic Scotland.

They are after all the government department charged with looking after heritage.

Failing that, maybe the National Trust or similar organisation - provided that it were handed over in a clean condition.

As to the upkeep, if such an organisation took charge of administration it would surely be a simple thing for them to fund raise - for example by setting up 'Friends of the Dome' and inviting people to subscribe. I certainly would.

Again, it depends what form the preservation would take. If the Dome were converted into a memorial and filled with concrete (as the americans did with theirs apparently when it went wrong) or sand (so future generations could remove it easily, then it is the outer skin which would need to be painted.
£500,000 every 10 years.....

Seems to me it could be done.

But it all hangs on one question.

Is the dome lethally polluted?

And even then it would have to be decontaminated....... and left standing clean....

If the dome can be decontaminated I see no reason why Historic Scotland should not stand by the original idea and take it into the custody of the nation.

To ask the demolition company to prepare a report on its future and then have it sublet to an international corporation seems a little too removed from human things and heritage to me. Too much into what can't be done.

I am more into what can be done.

[Rheghead]

Precisely.
DSRL has a lot invested in this - and not just cash.

Yet their credibility has taken some blows over the years with a few incidents.

But assessing what is worth preserving for Heritage reasons is not the same as assessing risk.

Whatever their motives, from a Heritage point of view, another look does no harm - from parties uninvolved with the whole weight of what is going on at Dounreay.


Yes and companies who run the risk of having their reputations tarnished without further need tend to be uncooperative.

[Rheghead]

Perhaps you could get David Gilmour to head your campaign? His latest album thats just been released is The Orb: Metallic Spheres, suitably futuristic music as well?

http://www.metallicspheres.com

[John Little]

I may even do that!
This evening I have written to the John O Groat journal, Alec Salmond and to Gordon Brown.

Shall I try Billy Connoly I wonder.....

[Rheghead]

I may even do that!
This evening I have written to the John O Groat journal, Alec Salmond and to Gordon Brown.

Shall I try Billy Connoly I wonder.....

Well it won't be the first time he has used a power station as a backdrop for one of his albums! ;)

[Blarney]

I may even do that!
This evening I have written to the John O Groat journal, Alec Salmond and to Gordon Brown.

Shall I try Billy Connoly I wonder.....
Maybe you should try David Cameron too and ask if he would consider siting another reactor here. It's given the current generations such a good living in Caithness and, as you pointed out in another post, we have a wealth of specialist experience in our midst which is going to waste.

[scotsboy]

Maybe you should try David Cameron too and ask if he would consider siting another reactor here. It's given the current generations such a good living in Caithness and, as you pointed out in another post, we have a wealth of specialist experience in our midst which is going to waste.

The speciaist experience has gone Blarney.

[John Little]

I've got the report from the DSRL website and am having a good read. Up till now I've relied on what was in the media.

So, according to the published document on the future of Dounreay, this is it;

"3. Retention of DFR sphere and
DMTR
• Removal of contaminated plant &
equipment will only leave the metal
shells, this would almost entirely
remove evidential and technological
value"

So the metals shells are of no value as historic landmarks? Well there's a few castles we could tear down using that logic. Let's start with Urquart Castle. All the working bits have gone, so let's level the shell and sell it off to a hotel chain....

Nothing about human value? Sense of awe? Sense of history and achievement and progress?

"• Metal shells will never be 100% clear of
radioactive contamination as engrained
in metal surfaces, thus a hazard
remains"

As to the Dustbin, I know nothing. It may indeed be true, but I would love to know when the Dome was contaminated cos I went in it and so did loads of others. And some people tell me that it is hardly polluted anyway...


"• Cost of care & maintenance and no
identified funding. Painting sphere
costs c£0.5M every 10 years."

No identified funding? Why not? Is that not what Historic Scotland does? Preserves the national heritage? If they don't want to pay for it why not try to identify sources of funding? Was anyone else asked?
Seems to boil down to money.

"• Limited public access due to safety and
security issues with proximity of waste
stores"

Limited? How exactly? And how dangerous is that site? Should I and others be worried because we were allowed into a lethally dangerous area?


I'm reading on and shall read the whole document, but so far it all seems rather subjective.


"A combination of loss of cultural value due to essential decommissioning activities, radiological risk
and the lack of public access, has led NDA/DSRL to conclude that the retention of the DFR sphere
or any other facility, would not deliver significant benefits on a local or national scale. Greater
public benefit can be achieved through other measures that record and preserve Dounreay’s"
heritage.

So folks - it's all for your benefit it seems.

[John Little]

It's a very interesting read;



http://www.dounreay.com/UserFiles/File/Heritage%20Strategy%20consultation%20/Heritage_Strategy_Issue_2_Aug_2010.pdf

[John Little]

"Heritage activities require funding which must be sought from the overall site budget.
Because heritage is not directly concerned with reducing liabilities it cannot be the highest
priority for DSRL and the NDA. Consequentially, funding for heritage work from the site
budget is, and will remain, a challenge"

!!

[John Little]

"Where radioactive contamination is an issue, there is the added risk that despite best endeavours to clean up the facility / item and checking that it is free of all contamination, people may still be subject to a radiation dose above background levels. This may be through the process where absorbed radionuclides in steels slowly migrate back to the surface, or surface cracks in metal expand to release trapped contamination. As well as the public health issues, the associated public relation consequences would be very damaging to the industry. These serious concerns mean that DSRL and the NDA have a duty of care when deciding to preserve items that are known to be or have the potential to be, activated or contaminated, due to past work activities."

I am not an expert - but I could have written this.

Added risk

May still be

May be through

Duty of care....

I'm trying hard to understand whether there is a real risk from nuclear contamination or whether or not it's a phantom conjured up to scare folk.
Lots of May be in here and no 'is'.

Is the dome lethally contaminated or not? So far I don't know.

I'm getting a real feeling that this is written by Elf and safety....

[John Little]

"The DFR sphere is contaminated throughout and recent core samples from the vault indicate that the concrete has deteriorated more than anticipated and that original construction techniques may have been lax in some areas e.g. use of rounded rather than angular aggregate. As described in section 4.3.2, despite the most rigorous decontamination efforts, the risk of receiving a significant radiation dose may never go away."

May never?

And once again - if it is contaminated - to what level? Like walking in Aberdeen? Or to risk of life and health?

And if it is so, when did this contamination take place? Because if it happened during operations of the reactor, why on earth were people allowed in?

And how does a dome, previously safe enough to go into become dangerously
contaminated after the reactor ceases operation?

[John Little]

"The retention of the sphere would create a symbol of Dounreay’s transformative effect on the local region. However, the evidential value of the structure would be much reduced (even with maximum retention of items such as the Goliath crane) and it would only partly reflect the scientific and engineering excellence of Dounreay and the workings of a Fast Breeder reactor. In essence, the process would create a “shell” both literately and figuratively, with both the central physical asset and its core values removed. Should the
December 2009 concrete vault prove not to be retainable then all that would remain would be the outer shell; this would almost entirely remove its evidential and technological value."

So it would be possible to retain the dome - but they don't think it's worth it because it would only leave a shell. How subjective is that?

And the concrete vault (with the radioactive contamination) can (and indeed has to be) removed with its 'core values removed.

In their opinion.

I'm beginning to smell a big fat rat.

"The main factor for dismantling is the fact that radiological risk will still be present after practicable decontamination efforts."

May we please see that in writing from an independent panel from elsewhere in the Atomic Industry - and a clear statement of how radioactive the dome actually is?

[John Little]

"DFR Sphere as memorial:
As previously stated it has been reluctantly concluded that factors such as radiological contamination, recurring costs, restrictions on land use and the technical and economic requirements of decommissioning outweigh the arguments for retention of the sphere, and the long-range decommissioning plans will be amended to include provision for its dismantling. Retention of the DFR sphere would not deliver significant benefits on a local or national scale and greater public benefit can be achieved through other measures."


Havers! [evil]

DFR sphere
Of the 38 responses received to the stakeholder engagement, 17 agreed that the decision to demolish buildings, including DFR, was the correct thing to do, this was against the backdrop of jobs and economic value. 21 responses stated that the DFR sphere should be retained.




!!!!!!!!

[John Little]

I have read it.
I am unimpressed.

Oh I can see why they want to demolish it.

For DSRL it's simpler and bypasses the awkward question of how contaminated the Dome is and how it got like that.

I wonder how many people are wondering if they have been exposed to radiation - as I am, and if I get cancer......
Unless it was not contaminated until after DSRL took it over.....

As for Historic Scotland, I can see why they would not want it..... ££££.

So a 90 page effusion of flannel and obfuscation tries to tell the community that demolishing the dome is for their benefit.

And it plays down the importance of the Dome - not really special or significant. Nothing to get worked up about.


Except that it is. A unique piece of heritage architecture.

The Dome could and should be the memorial.

Please sign the petition;
http://www.gopetition.com/petition/39548.html

[gleeber]

So a 90 page effusion of flannel and obfuscation tries to tell the community that demolishing the dome is for their benefit.

And it plays down the importance of the Dome - not really special or significant. Nothing to get worked up about.


Except that it is. A unique piece of heritage architecture.

The Dome could and should be the memorial.

Please sign the petition

I agree and your doing a grand job. It's good to see Rich is interested too.
Ive been asking a few people locally and though some are indifferent others are open to the idea of saving the dome.
It's not only a local issue though. The dome symbolises an age in human history just as Stonehenge or the pyramids do.

[John Little]

Frankly I'm astonished. When I downloaded the report I expected to find a technical volume full of stuff that I could not understand. I expected tables, graphs and a lot of specialist jargon. I expected something intimidating.

But it isn't. It's a very subjective and over-long essay which consists mostly of History and a lot of self congratulatory tone about what a splendid study this is.

But apart from the potted history of Dounreay and the setting out of a lot of aims, objectives and procedure, this is a lot of puff and has about as much substance as a meringue.

If Historic Scotland have accepted it as valid then it's not, in my opinion, because it has convinced them, but because it is convenient to do so.

It is convenient to demolish the Dome. And the devil of it is that I can see why they want to.

A preserved dome would be an expensive headache for them

So they tell everyone there is no choice and that demolition is in their best interests.

Trouble is that I don't buy it.

Do you?

[gleeber]

I think a lot will depend on public support or public apathy and the energy you have to put into it. Im all for keeping the dome for posterity for reasons of symbolism of a defining age in human history and as a visiting place for the thousands of Tourists who pass through caithness every year.

[John Little]

Today I have written to 'The Scotsman'

Tomorrow I shall write to the Sunday Post. I will also write to the BBC

Tomorrow is another day....

[gleeber]

Tomorrows imagination. It never exists in reality. Only today. :eek:

[George Brims]

As for Historic Scotland, I can see why they would not want it..... ££££.
I remember being told (while standing inside the thing) that it took several TONS of paint just to put one coat on it. Could be a maintenance nightmare. Wouldn't want to see it with the paint flaked off and rusty streaks from the rebar corroding.

[golach]

I remember being told (while standing inside the thing) that it took several TONS of paint just to put one coat on it. Could be a maintenance nightmare. Wouldn't want to see it with the paint flaked off and rusty streaks from the rebar corroding.
George google the cost of painting the most iconic Scots modern day memorial.....the Forth Bridge.....the cost is phenomenal, and it has a purpose, to cross the River Forth.

[Dadie]

Och you would get more of a dose getting a dental xray than wandering round the dome for an hour or two

[John Little]

Och you would get more of a dose getting a dental xray than wandering round the dome for an hour or two

That is what I keep being told.

Put it this way - if I were to claim that there MAY be weapons of mass destruction in the Dome and it must be destroyed- would you believe me?


So if I tell you that there MAY be dangerous levels of radiation in the Dome - yet I give no tables of radiation levels, no graphs with red lines on showing where high levels of radiation are to be found - would you believe that either?




It appears to me that the report is an exercise in propaganda; a sea of ifs and maybes.

I find it to be not so much of a report as an excuse.

[ducati]

That is what I keep being told.

Put it this way - if I were to claim that there MAY be weapons of mass destruction in the Dome and it must be destroyed- would you believe me?


So if I tell you that there MAY be dangerous levels of radiation in the Dome - yet I give no tables of radiation levels, no graphs with red lines on showing where high levels of radiation are to be found - would you believe that either?




It appears to me that the report is an exercise in propaganda; a sea of ifs and maybes.

I find it to be not so much of a report as an excuse.

Personally, I find it entirely credible that the dome is riddled with radioactivity, pretty much every building and structure in the vicinity is, so why not?

[John Little]

Personally, I find it entirely credible that the dome is riddled with radioactivity, pretty much every building and structure in the vicinity is, so why not?

Well I think that Dadie's post actually answers that.... And she's not the only person who has said it to me either.

I rather think the onus is on DSRL and Historic Scotland to show that it is contaminated.

What is 'contaminated'?

Your own house is radioactive- and so is mine. Natural background radioactivity. And solar particles shoot all over the place faster than bullets.
Are our houses contaminated?

I know that some areas of Dounreay are lethally polluted.

But blanket assertions and subjective judgements prove nothing about the entirety of the site. Especially about the Dome.


Put it this way - if they admit that the Dome is lethally polluted then it has to have taken place when the reactor was operating, and just after.

And if they admit that then there's a few thousand people who are just going to have to consider their legal position at being exposed to it in such a way..... anyone who has visited the Dome and gone on to have cancer.


So can someone please explain to me - how has the Dome become polluted to such a level AFTER the reactor ceased operations?

And can someone demonstrate in hard data exactly what levels of pollution there are in the dome.

And failing that, could we just cut through the waffle and admit what the real reasons for demolition are?

[Geo]

Put it this way - if I were to claim that there MAY be weapons of mass destruction in the Dome and it must be destroyed- would you believe me?

So if I tell you that there MAY be dangerous levels of radiation in the Dome - yet I give no tables of radiation levels, no graphs with red lines on showing where high levels of radiation are to be found - would you believe that either?

Given the amount of reports of poor management of radioactive materials there have been over the years I would need a lot of convincing that the dome is safe. I think for some people the issue isn't the dome and the rest of the site, the dome is just part of the site and the history of the site isn't perfect. By association I have no desire whatsoever to go near the dome.

[ducati]

Well after all that, keep it or not, I won't be going anywhere near the place!

In fact, I'm thinking of moving further away.....like Kent :lol:

[bekisman]

Having been involved with the leisure service industry for c20 years, the 'Dounreay Dome' is a constant topic of conversation. Sixty years ago the sphere was called the ‘dome of discovery’ ,and was the initial fast breeder reactor to produce electricity for the UK.

It was at the forefront of the fast reactor research by developing fuel design, coolant technology, efficient reprocessing and nuclear waste management. As is stated: "The dome is a landmark that is recognised worldwide". So why the hell is it being knocked down?

A few years ago a visual display of the decommissioning was on view, which included "An artist's illustration of Dounreay in Mr Graham's presentation shows nothing but the iconic sphere left on the site." - why has this now changed, surely it was acceptable then, why not now?
Dounreay’s operators initially favoured its retention. But in recent years, site boffins have made what they claim is an incontrovertible case for demolition on safety, environmental and cost grounds. - all these items can be dealt with.
Pulling it down is this a commercial decision? more time, more money? the amount of money needed to demolish equals amount to decontaminate? and maintain.
Historic Scotland. Category A: Buildings of national or international importance, either architectural or historic. The Dome fits nicely into that classification?

'£1m facelift for Queen Mother's favourite Scots castle fails to provide tourist boost'.. 'A £3.6 million restoration of Blackburn House, a late 18th century country house built by George Moncrieff'..'Liberton Bank House from demolition, a £750,000 project through Cockburn Conservation Trust'... 'Laurencekirk Railway Station and Canopy £3.9m restoration' ... 'Meldrum House Stables and Coachhouse' £2.5 million ..
I'm not a local, and before folks mention leukaemia; I had two brothers die from that, and nowhere near a nuclear facility..

[bekisman]

Well after all that, keep it or not, I won't be going anywhere near the place!

In fact, I'm thinking of moving further away.....like Kent :lol:

Like Dungeness-A & Dungeness-B? ;)

[ducati]

Like Dungeness-A & Dungeness-B? ;)


Yes, ironically, or not, what they learnt and are still learning about decommissioning at Dounreay, they are applying at Dungeness.

If you go on to the Magnox website you will find it is quite difficult to live very far from a nuclear site of one sort or another. :eek:

http://www.magnoxelectric.com/

[Colin Manson]

And failing that, could we just cut through the waffle and admit what the real reasons for demolition are?

http://www.dounreay.com/social-responsibility/consultations/open/heritage--have-your-say

The main report (http://www.dounreay.com/UserFiles/File/Heritage%20Strategy%20consultation%20/Heritage_2nd_full_Draft_DSRL_Dec_2009%281%29.pdf) is linked on the above page.

Most people that work at Dounreay wont chat on a forum about their work because all communications about Dounreay should be done through official channels. Information is available on the website and it covers all aspects of the site.

You can also read the Dounreay News here

http://www.dounreay.com/news-room/dounreay-news

Cheers
Colin

[John Little]

Given the amount of reports of poor management of radioactive materials there have been over the years I would need a lot of convincing that the dome is safe. I think for some people the issue isn't the dome and the rest of the site, the dome is just part of the site and the history of the site isn't perfect. By association I have no desire whatsoever to go near the dome.

I sympathise with your doubts but I fear that the DSRL report is designed to foment just this sort of reaction.


Well after all that, keep it or not, I won't be going anywhere near the place!

In fact, I'm thinking of moving further away.....like Kent :lol:

I do not suppose that it would make any difference if I told you that the concrete core will have to be removed anyway and that, apparently, does not present overwhelming engineering difficulties?

Or that the inside of the steel sphere is smooth and that modern decontamination methods would easily remove any residual contamination?

That in fact the whole steel part of the Dome could be made completely safe?


Thanks for the links Colin - I saw those.

[ducati]

I do not suppose that it would make any difference if I told you that the concrete core will have to be removed anyway and that, apparently, does not present overwhelming engineering difficulties?

Or that the inside of the steel sphere is smooth and that modern decontamination methods would easily remove any residual contamination?

That in fact the whole steel part of the Dome could be made completely safe?




Nope, if half the people speculate that it might be safe, and the other half (the experts) tell me catagorically that it isn't, I don't give it the benefit of the doubt. :eek:

[John Little]

Hm..... don't you believe any expert opinions at all?

The problem with your position is that it stems from fear - which is quite understandable.

But in this case fear that cannot be allayed can also be used to to bring about outcomes.

If such is your position I can only ask that you do not argue for or against, but remain neutral in this.

Problem is that if the majority stay neutral- then down the Dome will go.

[John Little]

If the Dome is significantly polluted then there needs to be some publication of figures.

it may well be that safety standards have changed over the years but if the fabric of the Dome is emitting dangerous contamination then it may well have had an impact on the health of people who passed through it.

If this is the case then some publication of records of contamination levels in the Dome is surely owed to the public, and some sort of medical assessment as to the risk that visitors were exposed to?

If I were ill with something that my family history had no instance of, and yet could be linked to an innocent visit to a supposedly safe visitor centre, then I should not be very happy.

To say the least.

Publication of such figures, showing categorically that the Dome was dangerous and would continue to be so would, of course, necessitate the withdrawal of objections to and petitions for its retention.....

[John Little]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/6320103.stm

This an interesting article. The dome is supposed to be contaminated with Tritium in 2007.

Yet the reactor ceased years ago,

Forgive my ignorance but I thought Tritium was a short-term problem? IE - dispersed and gone within months?

The story seems to have changed in the last 3 years.

So the consultants came, they saw and they confirmed....

Must keep looking for stuff.

[bekisman]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/6320103.stm

This an interesting article. The dome is supposed to be contaminated with Tritium in 2007.

Yet the reactor ceased years ago,

Forgive my ignorance but I thought Tritium was a short-term problem? IE - dispersed and gone within months?

The story seems to have changed in the last 3 years.

So the consultants came, they saw and they confirmed....

Must keep looking for stuff.

"How dangerous is tritium?"
Interesting forum:

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=211109

[John Little]

That is an interesting site indeed. This what the 2007 article said;§


"The stainless steel sphere is contaminated with tritium, which is said to be notoriously hard to clean up."


So what was said in 2007 was........ not informed?

[John Little]

I am not entirely unfamiliar with nuclear stuff- I confess. My dad did work in the Dome- and became an instruments engineer. When we left Thurso he worked for the CEGB, eventually at CEGBHQ. Among his charges were Sizewell B and Dungeness....

I wish he were around now.

There is, of course, a difference between radiation and contamination. Radiation emanates from radioactive material. The radioactive material in the dome can be- and will be removed.

But contamination is where radioactive material has come into contact with another surface- and it can be cleaned.

The inside of the steel dome will have absorbed a certain amount of contamination - and over time it weeps out into the surface. Not at dangerous levels - I should be surprised if the readings of such contamination were very high. The method of restricting this weeping was to paint the inside of the dome.

Any attempt to dismantle the dome will remove that paint and contamination will be released into the atmosphere.

Hence it follows that the paint has to be removed before dismantling. Leaving bare metal .

Contamination will have penetrated into that metal through minute cracks and flaws. This also will have to be removed.

This is done through some sort of abrading process - I suppose sand blasting of some description.

But the depth of that contamination will be a few microns- that is to say, probably thinner than a film

And it will have to be done anyway.


If it is not done then the dome cannot be demolished.

And if it is done - why demolish the dome?

[John Little]

In view of what I have just said - I remembered that Scotsboy said something about it on the Sphere to be demolished thread - page 4


'The decision to remove or retain the sphere at Dounreay was not made on radiological grounds. It was made on financial grounds. The sphere currently presents an insignificant radiological hazard, and this can obviously be reduced further by direct intervention or just by delay and decay. There is surface contamination on the interior of the sphere, and there is potentially contamination due to gaseous emissions from stack discharges and other fugitive emissions during the operation of the Dounreay site. The decontamination process is relatively basic abrasion of the surface and could easily be used to remove any residual contamination – this will have to be done anyway if the metal from the sphere is to be disposed of effectively, as why would they want to consign such a large amount of metal as low level waste? The main concern was thought to be that of tritium (H-3) diffusion into the metal of the sphere, a study carried out by UKAEA resulted in the following paper being written, Penetration of tritium (as tritiated water vapour) into low carbon steel and remediation using abrasive cleaning (Lewis, Warwick and Croudance) which was published in the Journal of Radiological Protection (J.Radiol.Prot 25 (2005) 161-168 it concluded that tritium was mainly held in the paint or outer 40micron layer of the metal. Radiologically Tritium is a weak beta emitter (so not an external hazard – so Time, distance and shielding are not required), with a radiological half-life of around 12 years (DFR stopped operation in 1977 and therefore around 3 half-lives have already significantly reduced the tritium source. Its biological half life is around 10 days which makes it a relatively benign internal hazard as the short biological half-life reduces the total effect of a single incident ingestion (assuming there was a significant source which there isn’t) and also prevents chronic exposure due to any environmental build up of tritium.'

He seems to know a hell of a lot more about it than I do - II say, based on what I have been reading, that I agree with him completely.

It's about cash.
__________________

[Corrie 3]

If it is not done then the dome cannot be demolished.

And if it is done - why demolish the dome?
Ok John, I am not going to start a "Dump the Dome" petition or start a FB page to get rid of it but here is why I think it should go........
It was put up here by a British (English) Govt, as far away from London as is possible because if anything went wrong and it all blew up then it would be only a few thousand Scots that lost there lives, why else would it be erected at Dounreay? I despise the English Govt for risking the lives of Caithnessians in this way, it could have easily been another Chenobyl and I think we can thank our lucky stars that it wasnt.
It was and always will be a blot on the landscape, it does not belong here, it is now redundant and should disappear altogether from Caithness. I for one am fed up of the English Govt using Caithness to supply the power at the expense of our beautiful County, first nuclear and now the dreaded turbines....because we are so far removed from the rest of Britain we stand by and let the powers use our county as a dumping ground.
I admire you John for your determination and fight but I think its more sentiment than anything else and there is no room for sentiment where nuclear is concerned....it was here, now its gone, so lets bury it all and be thankful that we didnt get blown to bits by an uncaring English Govt!!!
And one final thing John, please dont tell me I am wrong and my post is nothing but rubbish, if I am wrong why wasnt it built in Kent?

C3....:roll:

[golach]

Corrie 3, Drat!!!!! I cannot add to your reputation, I need to spread it around a bit, consider this a great rep [lol]

[John Little]

My dear Corrie - why on earth should I rubbish your post? You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I don't agree with you - that's all.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the decision to build at Caithness in the 50s, I am British and to me it was a decision by the British government to do it. There have been rather a large number of Scots in the British government over the years, including quite a few Prime Ministers...

You think the Dome ugly. I think it elegant. Cool.

I like renaissance art and hate so called 'Brit Art'.

Sentiment? Yep- damn right.

Something remarkable happened in Caithness - a first for the human race. I do not think it should be buried and forgotten. I think it deserves a memorial and that the dome is a fitting one.

You disagree with me on that too.

Fine.

It may indeed be demolished.

But please - if it is demolished then let us be clear on the reasons- and I do not believe they have anything to do with contamination, radiation, or access.

It's cash.


Oh and I live quite near a nuclear power station - Dungeness.

[John Little]

One more thing - out of the dim and distant recesses of my memory. I seem to recall that the MP for Thurso/Caithness at the time lobbied like mad to have the dome placed in his constituency because of the jobs and money that came with it.
I'll have to look that up but I do not think I am mistaken.

[Corrie 3]

Thank you John for not rubbishing my post, it is appreciated !
But do you think I am right in my assumption as to why it was built up here?.......If it blew it would only be the far north that suffered?
Or have I got that wrong? I would be interested in your thinking on this.

C3....:roll:

[John Little]

I have actually found the article. It was Sir David Robertson who wanted the site to be in Caithness. As to his motives - well have a read-

http://www.iprom.co.uk/archives/dounreay/coldwar1.htm

[gleeber]

I have no doubt that an experimental reactor was built at dounreay because if anything happened then less people may be affected.
The fact that we are still here to talk the tale shows that the experiment was a success and the Atomic age was well and truly christianed at Dounreay.
I see it as another bow in the history of the dome. It's small details like that that create history.

[bekisman]

I thought Cumbria (that's in England) were mucking about with nuclear reactors a couple of years earlier than Dounreay?

'The two air-cooled, graphite-moderated Windscale reactors constituted the first British weapons grade plutonium 239 production facility, built for the British nuclear weapons programme of the late 1940s and the 1950s. Windscale was also the site of the prototype British advanced gas-cooled reactor.. With the creation of the (UKAEA) in 1954, ownership of Windscale Works passed to the Authority. The first of four Magnox reactors became operational in 1956 at Calder Hall, adjacent to Windscale'..

[John Little]

Just a suggestion.
The Dome must be cleaned anyway - whatever happens.

It's almost certain, in my mind anyway, that Historic Scotland don't want it.

But they are not the only people concerned with Heritage.

Nowhere can I find any suggestion that it's been offered to the National Trust for Scotland.
http://www.nts.org.uk/Home/

If DSRL would forgo the money they would recoup from selling off the steel and allow a narrow little access lane - I wonder if the Trust would be interested?

I forgot to say also that what is inside the dome does not weep through the steel to the outside. ONLY INSIDE.
The Dome is safe to approach.

[John Little]

Mind you - I've not seen published, and as far as I know, nobody else has seen, an action plan for demolishing the Dome.

I wonder how much cash the steel would fetch?


I do not know what sort of steel it is - but I see that medium steel sections are selling on the world market for £787 a tonne at the moment. The Dome contains approx 1600 tonnes so thats £1,259,200 which is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick I suppose.

[crayola]

Just a suggestion.
The Dome must be cleaned anyway - whatever happens.

It's almost certain, in my mind anyway, that Historic Scotland don't want it.

But they are not the only people concerned with Heritage.

Nowhere can I find any suggestion that it's been offered to the National Trust for Scotland.
http://www.nts.org.uk/Home/

If DSRL would forgo the money they would recoup from selling off the steel and allow a narrow little access lane - I wonder if the Trust would be interested?

I forgot to say also that what is inside the dome does not weep through the steel to the outside. ONLY INSIDE.
The Dome is safe to approach.The National Trust for Scotland is nearly bankrupt and is likely to be shedding properties soon.


THE National Trust for Scotland has admitted it is considering selling part of its vast property portfolio in a bid to stave off the financial crisis that is threatening its survival.

National Trust admits assets may be sold off - Scotsman.com (http://news.scotsman.com/news/National-trust-admits-assets-may.6550250.jp)

[John Little]

My suggestion was just that. A suggestion.

There are other bodies such as;
http://www.conservationtrust.co.uk/shbt/

My overall point is that no other funding has been explored. It's all been decided between NDA, DSRL, and Historic Scotland - and for various reasons none of them want it.

In the end it is cash but I suppose the face-saving stuff obviates having to set a precedent that you demolish Heritage that you cannot afford to keep.

[John Little]

Above all, I dislike being told that there is no flexibility in the plan because of radioactive contamination, when I and a host of others it seems, know damn fine that there is.

[John Little]

I look at this window and all I can do is laugh......
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=olrig+street,+thurso&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Olrig+St,+Thurso,+Caithness+KW14,+United+Kin gdom&gl=uk&ei=_sGxTPG1JNaSjAfp9ujaDQ&ved=0CBYQ8gEwAA&ll=58.594641,-3.520466&spn=0.000985,0.002811&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=58.594793,-3.520569&panoid=6LJN5QvAKSXjWjcyNc69YA&cbp=12,81.45,,1,4.62

Oh the irony of it.

DSRL - I have a new motto for you;

Quod volunt perdere faciunt insigne

[scotsboy]

Just because something is contaminated does not mean it needs to remain so. The expertise certainly used to be on the Dounreay site to carry out all sorts of decontamination operations. A flat (or slightly curved) smooth metallic surface is a realtively simple one to decontaminate, and this can be done in a safe manner.

[John Little]

Lots of people on the Org right now.

Please sign the petition to save the Dounreay Dome.

http://www.gopetition.com/petition/39548.html

[Rheghead]

How about contacting Griff Rhys Jones and getting the dome on the next saveabuildingathon thingy? :confused

[John Little]

Not a bad idea actually. I shall do it tonight. Thankyou.

[John Little]

On the other hand - maybe I won't...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/6961482/Griff-Rhys-Jones-dropped-as-presenter-of-BBCs-Restoration-spin-off.html

:confused

But I shall look at the programme's website......

[John Little]

Well I just had an interesting phonecall. I have been told that a lot of the older generation in Thurso feel very strongly that the Dome should stay and that there is a lot of conversation about it. By older I mean people who generally do not use computers.

I was also told that there's some folk trying to get up a petition about it locally.

If anyone knows anything about this I would very much like to get in touch with the people doing the petition....

[John Little]

I thought I'd explain my position a little more. I don't like smokescreens. In 2007 it was being intimated that the Dome could not be saved because it was contaminated with Tritium. That was havers.

Now the Atkins report tells us that the Dome cannot be saved; it is contaminated with radiation and would cost too much.

That's also havers. There's a letter on the Save the Dome Facebook group which explains why.

Access is also given as an objection - but that's for the whole site. The Dome could be accessed if desired- as it is now.

I'm too old a bunny to be put off by a smokescreen and being from an atomicer family means that the buzzwords of 'radiation' and 'contamination' don't bother me. I'd happily put on the paper suit and go into the dome tomorrow for an hour or so.

I know it needs cleaning. And it will be, whatever.

I don't want DSRL and Historic Scotland to be demolishing that dome for a load of fudge. If they can't afford to keep the Dome then IMHO they should man up and say so.

It's about cash. And if they just straight out and said it then people might think about doing something. I'll start it off by pledging £100 a year for its upkeep - that'll buy a few tins of paint. Who knows what might happen then- but not necessarily to the cost of the tax payer"

[John Little]

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/letters/Letter-Save-the-dome.6575820.jp

[Corrie 3]

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/letters/Letter-Save-the-dome.6575820.jp
Nice letter John..I wanted you to know that I am NOT "MacNasty" in the replies section....:eek:
I am not in favour of keeping the dome but I wont do anything to tarnish your quest to keep it, in fact I wish you all the best in your campaign.

C3.....;)

[John Little]

Thankyou - I do appreciate that. It is perfectly possible for people to disagree yet stay fine with each other, You're a pretty cool guy and I did not suspect for a moment that McNasty would be you.

As to the stuff about Kent - words fail. It's just chauvinism - Little is a good lowland scots name and I am inordinately proud of my scottish roots. For all he knows I could have an accent as broad as the Moray Firth.

Let's be clear though - they may indeed demolish the dome - but let's have the real reason out in the open and not a load of hogwash.

cheers- John

[ducati]

It would seem that you have some fans John:

"We support the campaign to keep the Dome. It's historic and it's super".

Love and kisses,
Maud and Coco

eer I mean apart from here er and your wife er and my wife er.....

[Phill]

Apologies if we have already covered this, been busy recently with a few things so not fully up to speed with the thread, quickly skimmed through.

Regardless of the radiation / contamination (and whatever other scary buzzwords we can think of) the dome will have to be 'cleaned' up as it was or before dismantling / removal wouldn't it?

Or were they planning just to bulldoze it down the shaft and have done with it?

The decontamination has to happen anyway and, unless I have missed something, it would bring a cost saving not to demolish the dome. This cost saving could then go towards a longterm upkeep project supported by the lottery etc. etc.

[John Little]

Well the Facebook group is up to 191 and the petition is up to 56. That's not bad for a start. I hope a few more will sign as word spreads.

One letter in the Scotsman will not change a lot. But if a few others write then maybe just maybe they'd send a reporter up there to ask a few pertinent questions.

This matter needs the cold sharp light of clarity to shine on it.

I still cannot quite take in that the majority of the Dounreay Stakeholders voted to keep the Dome yet DSRL decided that it will go and published a load of McGubbins to justify it.

In the old westerns that sort of thing was called railroading I believe.

Bed.

I'm tired. Goodnight orgers.

[squidge]

It would seem that you have some fans John:

"We support the campaign to keep the Dome. It's historic and it's super".

Love and kisses,
Maud and Coco

.....

So THAT'S where they got to

[John Little]

Well they live in a beautiful place- lucky girls - must be one of the most beautiful in Caithness I think.

The Facebook group needs 5 more people to be 200.

Come on folks - sign up - you know you want to.... :lol:


to.http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=141657212543519

[golach]

Well they live in a beautiful place- lucky girls - must be one of the most beautiful in Caithness I think.

The Facebook group needs 5 more people to be 200.

Come on folks - sign up - you know you want to.... :lol:


to.http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=141657212543519

Oh no I don't :(

[John Little]

Indeed- how many personalities do you have? ...:eek:

[golach]

Indeed- how many personalities do you have? ...:eek:

just the one Mr Little, just the one.

[John Little]

Ah - it was the plurality that threw me. Never mind - the group has gone to 197.


You would not feel like signing the online petition I suppose?


http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save-the-dounreay-dome/signatures-page1.html



..........maybe not.........

[Moira]

So THAT'S where they got to

Gosh, Maud & Coco?! It's been a loooong time. Squidge, methinks they must have been working "undercover". ;)

[Moira]

Ah - it was the plurality that threw me. Never mind - the group has gone to 197.

You would not feel like signing the online petition I suppose?

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save-the-dounreay-dome/signatures-page1.html

..........maybe not.........

I'm not promising the Facebook thing but I'll sign the online petition. :D

[John Little]

You are altogether too kind - it is growing.

The point about the Dome is that it should have a chance.

Railroading it to the scrapyard, ignoring the majority of the stakeholders and producing a load of bumpf to say it is dangerously radioactive when half the population of Caithness seems to know that it ain't is not the way to go.

If the thing were really looked at then maybe the community/Scotland/ the UK could get to decide whether or not to keep it and how to pay for it - probably through a voluntary fund where Historic Scotland appeal for donations- to which I would insist on being the first.

But the way it's been done, it's a done deal, and it should not be.

If it is scrapped then it should be for the real reason - not balderdash.

[hunter]

If you go back and read the announcement, they say there hasn't been any practical proposal come forward.

That looks like code for "you can have it if you want it, but what are you going to do with it and how will you pay for it?"

Thing is, in Mr Cameron's "big society", public bodies will doing a lot less than what they've been doing in the past.

So I don't think you will get very far looking to others to do something. You'll have to come up with something yourself.

You know I don't think it's worth keeping - its radioactive rust that the country rejected. It's not a national treasure.

[John Little]

Other practical proposals would founder on the assertion that the dome is contaminated and cannot be accessed.

The assertion that there's no other practical considerations came from the same report that says that the Dome is (by association) rotten with radioactivity.

After hearing that I can well understand why Historic Scotland immediately applied a hands off approach.

As to funding, I have already said that I'd be happy to contribute to a Friends of the Dome fund - and I doubt that I would be alone. I am quite happy to put some money into my mouth- within my means.
As to running such a fund I would not know where to begin - far better done by an organisation used to doing such things.

After all, even if I knew how to set up a charity and raised cash to do it we could end up sitting with a pile of cash and doing nothing for years....

But the radiation havers does not allow for that - or even a proper debate.

And it just occurred to me. The £500,000 figure to paint the Dome every ten years came from the same report.

I wonder how accurate that is?

[scotsboy]

Is painting the only option? Are there other protective coatings or methods that could be applied, would sacrificial anodes/cathodic protection system be cost effective? Have all options for the limitation or corrosion been identified and assessed in the report....................two years? It makes you wonder what they were doing.
I have no doubt that there are areas of the sphere which are subject to corrosion, has it been detailed? What portion of the sphere is currently significantly corroded? Pictorial evidence suggests the vast majority is in fairly good condition, which of course it would need to be if it was being used as containment for decommissioning operations.

[John Little]

That is an excellent point. Do you know if there are any local contractors who could/would provide a realistic quote for doing it? I'd like to nail this £500,000 figure down and know how it was arrived at......

Scotsboy - pardon my ignorance- but is care of the Dome's exterior a bit like having to paint a ship? Would a marine painting contractor be able to give a realistic figure for coating the dome or putting some other sort of protection in place. The more I think about it £500,000 buys one hell of a lot of paint and labour.

I take it that it is a special paint? And does anyone know if the painting is done in-house or is put out to tender?

After all, if painting the Dome could be done cheaper than that it might become more realistic for any body that wishes to start an appeal....

[golach]

It is costing £13 million to paint the Forth Rail Bridge, with a special paint, allegedly going to last 30 years, already there are problems.
I would surmise that as the Dome is further north than the Forth Rail Bridge, and in Caithness, well known for its inclement weather conditions, the cost of just painting the Dome would be prohibitive.

[bekisman]

'An earlier repainting scheme [forth rail bridge] should have been completed in 2001, but was abandoned early because of problems. Only about £500,000 a year was spent on painting, with new coats applied on top of existing paint in areas where it was needed, which lasted up to ten years.'

"Only about £500,000 a year" Eh?



http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Theyve-got-it-licked-.5058126.jp (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Theyve-got-it-licked-.5058126.jp)

[scotsboy]

I don’t know anything about corrosion control to be honest, but surely there are different options.
As for the problems at the Forth Bridge............just because they have chosen an expensive option which appears to have problems does not mean that a suitable cost effective protective coating system cannot be found for a facility in Caithness!

[Phill]

The Forth rail bridge is technically more complex and, per surface area, more labour intensive, not to mention the difference in size so not a good comparison.

I have found a company that coats gasometers, not quite a straight comparison however worth a shot to see what kind of figure they can come up with.

One of the key issues I would imagine is scaffolding, this will be a major cost factor. However does the gantry going up from the walkway at the centre move? If not, it would over the longer term, be cheaper to have one or two gantries that could rotate around the top half of the dome.

This would allow for ease of access for an ongoing maintenance program including coating / painting.

[scotsboy]

There is a gantry which currently rotates around the top of the sphere and a walkway that goes around the middle. Painting in the past was done by stage and bosuns chair I think (?)

[John Little]

The Facebook group is now 200.

[Phill]

There is a gantry which currently rotates around the top of the sphere and a walkway that goes around the middle. Painting in the past was done by stage and bosuns chair I think (?)


Well there we go, the £500k figure is either tosh or for diamond encrusted coating.

[John Little]

Phill - are you prepared to ask that company for an idea of how much it would cost please? Or if you have not time pass it on?

It seems to me that we have arrived at a particular place and I want to review where we are. I recognise that there are people who would like to scrap the dome because they think it an eyesore or symbolic of something that they do not like, but I would ask them to consider that as a different debate because this thread has morphed into something else.

It is not really about the Dome going or staying because that debate has been
overwhelmed before it really got going. Or I should rather say that it was over-ruled when the majority of the stakeholders were outvoted by the Atkins report which acted as a veto on their decision.
The Atkins report leaves no room for debate. No choices. No manoevre.

The Atkins report condemns the Dome to demolition ; and the case for it rests on four theses.


Thesis one.
The dome is afflicted with radiation and contamination, and must be demolished.

Yet logically it cannot be demolished without the radioactive material being removed entirely and the contamination cleaned up. The steel of the dome itself is contaminated - yet we have it on good authority that it can be cleaned. We also have it on good authority that removal of the radioactive material presents no overwhelming engineering problems. And will have to be done anyway.

Thesis number one is discredited.


Thesis number two.

It would be difficult to access the Dome as the site will be closed for 300 years because of contamination.

Yet the Dome, when cleaned, will not be contaminated. And dozens of workers access the area round it now. There are areas onsite that will have to be fenced off - but not the dome. Access to the dome, perhaps laned off from the rest of the site will be no more dangerous than passing by on the main road.

Thesis number two is a chimera.

Thesis number three

The dome, if retained, would provide no benefit to the community or, since its workings will have been removed, any historic value.

This is so subjective a statement that to place it in a 'report' takes my breath away. Some people hate the dome and some love it. But to accept this as a reason why it should be scrapped is asinine. Many buildings of historic interest have had their innards stripped out - eg Urqhart castle - but they do not face demolition because they are just another boring old castle. The dome is not just another boring building. It is an almost unique structure - indeed for all I know, it may be unique in the UK now. Its presence, its ability to strike passing tourists to pause and look at it and the sense of awe and wonder that it inspires may not be of use - but have educational benefit and an ability to uplift the older spirit that reflects on what human beings are capable of. It may be that some people up there are too used to it - you have 'dome fatigue', but I assure you that to someone who sees it infrequently its effect is almost magic.

The third thesis is no thesis at all. It's an opinion.

The fourth thesis is a compounding of several reasons lumped together. It asserts that no viable future use could be found for the dome with running costs of £100,000 a year. Even if sealed up it would have to be painted every 10 years at a cost of £500,000.

I accuse myself of muddy thinking, for it should have occurred to me to question that figure before now. Of course it did not have a viable future if it was contaminated. Nobody would touch it with a barge-pole, least of all Historic Scotland. And even if it the contamination thing were done away with, there would still be the expense.... Yet as Phill said - you are probably talking diamond encrusting for that sort of cash. Frankly I want to know how much it really cost to paint the dome - for if the figures quoted in Atkins are correct then the UKAEA was being done!

As far as I am concerned, the fourth thesis is in doubt.

So where does that leave us?

In my own mind it leaves the Atkins report completely discredited.

I call on Historic Scotland, to whom I shall be sending another letter, to think again and ask for an independent review of the Atkins report. I do not believe that preserving the Dome would cost anything near what they have been told.

I would ask those in the local community to look at this report, question it in your own mind and ask yourself if you find it satisfactory.

When, and only when, this piece of flummery is set aside can the supporters and opponents of the Dome have a real debate.

But to scrap the dome for the reasons given is absurd.

And until that debate takes place the dome should not be allowed to deteriorate.

[bekisman]

26 September 2007: 'Hotel proposal for Dounreay dome' The iconic white dome of the Dounreay nuclear plant could be turned into a hotel under proposals put forward by the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA)."

Hmm, they thought it was fine then...:confused



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7014266.stm

[ducati]

That is an excellent point. Do you know if there are any local contractors who could/would provide a realistic quote for doing it? I'd like to nail this £500,000 figure down and know how it was arrived at......

Scotsboy - pardon my ignorance- but is care of the Dome's exterior a bit like having to paint a ship? Would a marine painting contractor be able to give a realistic figure for coating the dome or putting some other sort of protection in place. The more I think about it £500,000 buys one hell of a lot of paint and labour.

I take it that it is a special paint? And does anyone know if the painting is done in-house or is put out to tender?

After all, if painting the Dome could be done cheaper than that it might become more realistic for any body that wishes to start an appeal....

I'll do it for £350,000 using Hammerite and a roller. (might take a while).

Actually, I withdraw that quote I've just remembered Hamerite is about 40 quid a litre :eek:

[John Little]

What do they paint oil rigs with? And who does it?

[bekisman]

I'll do it for £350,000 using Hammerite and a roller. (might take a while).

Actually, I withdraw that quote I've just remembered Hamerite is about 40 quid a litre :eek:

No it ain't B&Q: Red Hammerite £16.96 a ltr! ;)

[ducati]

No it ain't B&Q: Red Hammerite £16.96 a ltr! ;)

Cool, we could finish it in time for Red Nose day :cool:

[John Little]

Nope - doesn't have to be red;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hammerite-Direct-Smooth-Finish-White/dp/B00360YRUA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1287121487&sr=8-2


At that price your tender might be accepted- you are the saviour of the dome! :cool:

[ducati]

Nope - doesn't have to be red;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hammerite-Direct-Smooth-Finish-White/dp/B00360YRUA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1287121487&sr=8-2


At that price your tender might be accepted- you are the saviour of the dome! :cool:

er.. how tall is it? I only have a step ladder. :lol:

[John Little]

Actually I intend to look at that.... I want to calculate coverage for Hammerite and see how much it would cost.... my stepson is a building contractor so I'll bounce the idea off him.

I'm not saying Hammerite is suitable - but it's pretty good stuff so a rough idea.......

[Phill]

I know a guy who'd do it for a few grand, pay cash and he'll do the inside too. Contaminated or not!

[John Little]

LOL - if you are serious please ask him - I'd love to know what a local contractor would charge!

[Phill]

I've been out of the game a while so I can't quite number crunch the cost on this without some referencing.
I do think think the £500,000 figure is pretty much made up, I would always be sceptical of any 'cost' figure that lands at 250K, 500K or 1m. They are nearly always made up or seriously rounded up.

If they had said £450,000 it would have been believable, just.

I'm using vague figures from tinterweb but I get a surface area of 6070m Sq.
Using ducati's hammerite at, lets say £20 per SqM (£121,400) plus the cost of application, lets be generous and allow £5 per SqM. (£30,350).
We'll be fair and throw in a few dust sheets and a couple of rollers, oh we'll want a proper job so he'll need a wee brush fer cutting in. OK, so consumables, equipment hire, hard hat, goggles and a few tinnies of tennants to quench the thirst. (£50,000).

121,400
30,350
50,000
_______
201,750

Allow a 30% contingency £60,525

_______
£262,275

So, let's call it £300k fer a lick o' paint.

OK, that's the dome sorted, budget deficit next......

[John Little]

Well blow my stack! And I just about do and all.

That would make quite a difference would it not? Bit of a difference from £500,000

Every 10 years.

That company you found - any chance we can get a figure from them to compare with?

Armed with that I feel another letter coming on.

They have slung just about everything but the kitchen sink to make that dome look bad and make it unloved.

To make folk shrug and walk away.

But where I'm standing - it don't stack up.

Thanks Phill - food for thought there.

[Dadie]

sorry..
but its not just the painting that is considered..its the internal/external monitoring (for staff) erecting and servicing and hire of scaffolding..safety peeps etc...
blocking off access....et al...

[Phill]

This is very rough.

However it is based on a post decontaminated dome so monitoring is not accounted for.
Scaffolding (minimum req'd would be for base and easily mobile, upper section also in stages or use existing gantry) or MEWP hire (plant/equipment).
H&S, CDM etc. can be lumped into contingency.

Additionally I would expect the coating (if paint) to be significantly less and also the application cost at £5 SqM is way over.

As I said, needs more referencing and also current specialist experience.

[John Little]

To Atkins Heritage.

Hello

Could you tell me please - when your company prepares a report on a heritage site, do the experts you send in include people with a knowledge of how to assess radiation and pollution on that site?

thankyou

John Little


Well it's a simple question.....

I wonder if I will get a simple answer?

[peter macdonald]

Bearing in mind there is no monument to the herring fishing industry in Wick and the people who lost there lives working in it
Bearing in mind it took nearly 50 years to get a memorial to the Caithness people who lost their lives in the Jervis Bay
Bearing in mind there is no monument to all the Caithness men who served in the RNPS in WW2 ........
£500k to keep this ugly lump of metal in paint seems a total waste of money...................

Perhaps the money would be better spent on restoring the 2 Kirks of Bruan as a museum After all they contributed a heck of a lot of money to the Caithness economy...ask any Fisheries historian ...

[John Little]

I do not dispute any of that.

Except I do not think the Dome ugly - like a few others I think it beautiful.

Trouble is Peter that we can't have that debate. There is no flexibility in a report which claims that it is contaminated and radioactive. If true, then they say it must go.

In order to have that debate we have to doubt that report. While it stands, debate is fruitless.

[crayola]

The Dome isn't ugly. It's a dome and domes are domes. They don't have degrees of ugliness.

It's not a case of building a memorial. It's a case of not destroying a piece of history.

I wouldn't expect PM or his pal BH to want to save the dome. In fact I would be disappointed if he did. At least now I know there's something worth fighting for.

[peter macdonald]

A monument to the Herring Industry which shaped the make up of Caithness for almost 2 centuries would cost about £1k.......and sorry when you look toward the east from Sandside harbour as the sun comes up ..it really is ugly
Good luck with getting the thing preserved.....
PM

[peter macdonald]

Looks like our posts crossed Whos BH ? And why is my opposition so vital to keeping the dome??? Please read my last sentence
PM

[John Little]

Thankyou for the good luck.

Beauty is, of course, in the eye of the beholder.
And C is right of course - ugly or not, it is about not destroying heritage buildings.


Start a fund for your idea, or find a body willing to - I'll donate. It's a good idea.

J

[peter macdonald]

Thanks John ........We were trying to involve some local representatives in the idea but they found more populist things to do like dissing the Mod and the Gaelic language
We will get there sometime
All the best
PM

PS Still not a clue who BH is and why my perceived opposition is so vital to the domes survival

[Moira]

Bearing in mind there is no monument to the herring fishing industry in Wick and the people who lost there lives working in it
Bearing in mind it took nearly 50 years to get a memorial to the Caithness people who lost their lives in the Jervis Bay
Bearing in mind there is no monument to all the Caithness men who served in the RNPS in WW2 ........
£500k to keep this ugly lump of metal in paint seems a total waste of money...................

Perhaps the money would be better spent on restoring the 2 Kirks of Bruan as a museum After all they contributed a heck of a lot of money to the Caithness economy...ask any Fisheries historian ...

This is a different project Peter, in a very different industry but there is no reason as to why some of us can't support both.

I remember a thread here a while back about organising a memorial for the fishing folk. Here it is :-
http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=92220&page=4

[peter macdonald]

Moira ..your are right .both should be retained ..ugly looking thing it is..my point is that what are the chances of retaining the dome at 500k for painting the thing..when we cant get a monument to the herring fishermen at c£1K and hardly any one even contemplates a wee stone plaque to the RNPS??
PM

[John Little]

Peter - I am questioning that 500k figure. It's too convenient - like something plucked out of the air. That's why I'd like to see some figures done by a professional or company.

Frankly I'm finding £500,000 hard to swallow. Like some other stuff about the dome.

[Moira]

Moira ..your are right .both should be retained ..ugly looking thing it is..my point is that what are the chances of retaining the dome at 500k for painting the thing..when we cant get a monument to the herring fishermen at c£1K and hardly any one even contemplates a wee stone plaque to the RNPS??
PM

Thanks Peter. I don't think the Dome is ugly.

I see your point too. Who says we can't get a monument to the fishermen?

I'm not sure who the RNPS are. Remind me please... :)

[peter macdonald]

http://www.harry-tates.org.uk/
These guys had probably one of the worst jobs in WW2 ..A lot of Caithness men were involved with this operation, However other than a monument in Lowestoft there has been little recognition of their efforts
PM

[Moira]

http://www.harry-tates.org.uk/
These guys had probably one of the worst jobs in WW2 ..A lot of Caithness men were involved with this operation, However other than a monument in Lowestoft there has been little recognition of their efforts
PM


Ok. Let's take this to the other thread.

[Phill]

Perhaps the money would be better spent on restoring the 2 Kirks of Bruan as a museum After all they contributed a heck of a lot of money to the Caithness economy...ask any Fisheries historian ...

I stand up ignorant of this. But willing to know more, if you need a platform for web based publicity I have www.lybster.org.uk (http://www.lybster.org.uk/) which is of need of content. Please PM me.

http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/37461246.jpg


There is a huge wealth of history in and around Caithness needing preserved for various reasons. Each individual will have their own deeply held view on each, and many.
I am merely an incomer however there is so much I can see that needs saving and restoring, maybe the more similar minded people that can join together the better! Despite the individual feeling of a particular 'subject'!

?

[bekisman]

We must not forget the economic benefits that Dounreay provided and still does;
"for more than 50 years. One in every five jobs in Caithness is located at Dounreay. A socio-economic baseline study undertaken in July 2006, estimates that Dounreay supports one in every four jobs in Caithness. However including all indirect employment, it is estimated that as many as one in three jobs in Caithness depends on the decommissioning programme at Dounreay.
It is estimated that in 2007/08, £80 million was injected into the local economy as a result of the decommissioning programme at Dounreay. Therefore the decommissioning and closure of Dounreay results in major social and economic challenges for Caithness and North Sutherland."

[John Little]

Oh Bekisman - you raise a spectre up in front of me- I'm on 3662 words now....
How often do they say the same things over and over again!!!!!

[John Little]

I see that the UK government has determined to build eight new nuclear plants at sites round England and Wales.

It would not surprise me in the least if the Scottish government were to announce something similar very soon.

Dounreay?

Looks like Britain is going nuclear again. Perceptions may have to change.

[crayola]

The SNP government is vehemently anti-nuclear. Read any of Alex Salmond's utterings on the subject. However there is an election in May. Most of my politico friends think Labour will win it. Some think they will walk it. I'm not so sure.

[John Little]

You can be vehement about not going into a slaughterhouse.
Doesn't stop you eating meat.

The cheapness of nuclear power may over-ride other considerations just as fear of nuclear power over-rides consideration of engineering and design achievement.

And politicians do have this habit of back-tracking...

We shall see

[bekisman]

You can be vehement about not going into a slaughterhouse.
Doesn't stop you eating meat.

The cheapness of nuclear power may over-ride other considerations just as fear of nuclear power over-rides consideration of engineering and design achievement.

And politicians do have this habit of back-tracking...

We shall see

You mean like this one:
"Another Salmond U-turn; now he's fighting to keep Faslane" Sept 2010

[John Little]

Exactly so Bekisman. :)

Here' a wee game for you.
Spot the difference;

EBR-1 reactor – USA – preserved and open to visitors A national historic landmark

Hanford B- USA; access to public on a limited basis and future under discussion

X-10 reactor USA. Limited visitor access. Designated a historic landmark

Chinon A1.reactor France. Sphere retained after decommissioning and used to house national atomic museum

Chicago Pile 1- USA – removed and commemorated with a memorial.

Nuclear ship Savannah; preserved as a memorial.

USS Nautilus USA. Preserved and designated a National Historic Landmark.

Calder Hall, UK. Will be decommissioned and removed.

Big Rock Point, USA - decommissioned and removed entirely

Dounreay DFR (The first dome of all) to be destroyed....

[John Little]

Anybody - please help ageing memory.

I seem to recall that when the Dounreay exhibition centre was open that there were only a small number of places available on each tour - that it was not actually 'enter when you arrive'

Am I remembering correctly??

[ducati]

There is a very good visitor centre now at Caithness Horizons (largley funded by Dounreay) as part of several collections and exibits pertinent to Caithness, all brought together in one place :D

[bekisman]

Anybody - please help ageing memory.

I seem to recall that when the Dounreay exhibition centre was open that there were only a small number of places available on each tour - that it was not actually 'enter when you arrive'

Am I remembering correctly??

Mrs Beks & I did a tour back in (we think) c1989 - took two German friends with us.. we were put on a small type of bus, they kitted us out with overalls and hard hats and clipped a film badge on our lapels ? - Remember our German friend putting his arms into something like long rubber gloves and operating some levers.. all very interesting I seem to remember..

[John Little]

Aye - I did the same in 1990 but I think the numbers were strictly limited at any one time - am I right?

[gleeber]

It's good your taking a stand over the domes existance. I wouldnt have the energy but I support the cause. :cool: I'm not the only one either. Ive mentioned it in passing to various people ive met in the course of my daily bread and keeping the dome seems a popular idea. Mind you, at the most its been about a dozen people ive mentioned it to. :lol:
I dont know how strongly people feel about keeping it but its good the dome has a champion.

[John Little]

Gleeber- the dome has many champions. You are one of them.

There is a very strong case for retention of the dome. It is my hope that the dome's friends can make it convincingly before too long.

[Phill]

I wuz there in August 2008. I don't recall any restrictions, we just pitched up and went round. We were very welcomed and felt very comfortable being there until I asked what was upstairs (at the top of the former air traffic control tower).
http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy337/Phill_Rawlins/itsalljustrandom/IMG_3283.jpg

My interests lay with the aviation side of the building however they did seem somewhat apprehensive of my query, I can only guess this may be due to the fact that I understand that there were provisions for using the site aeronautically in case of emergency but I may be wrong.

[Aaldtimer]

Phill, it's more likely that they didn't have a clue what went on upstairs!:)

[John Little]

And lo - it came to pass that the big boss had a vague idea.

'It should be a big steel ball' he said. I have no idea how to build such, for I am not an engineer. Find me an engineering company and bounce it off them'.

So his minions did a few vague sketches, for they had never built such a thing - no-one on the planet had. Then they looked in yellow pages and found a firm in Motherwell and rang them up.

'Can we come and see you?' they said.

'Sure!' they said.

When the minions got there and showed their sketches there was much sucking of teeth.
'Aye - well that's a new one' said the Scots- 'No-one's ever done that sort of thing before. Well we'll give it a go.'

And they put their designers and their engineers together who were men of quiet genius and quite unsung.

And designed and engineered and built the first great steel dome in the entire wide world.

.....................................

Into the Dome the big boss put a nuclear reactor. It was a notable reactor and did a lot of good work, pulling off a notable first.

But, as such things do, it ran its span of life and had to be cleared out.

And nuclear became unpopular, like unto the Death eaters in Harry Potter.
And radiation and the sniff thereof did stink in the nostrils of the populace and of the men of power.

And the dome fell into the hands of men who saw it not.

All they could see was the reactor and the fears and dislikes of the populace.

They saw not an unparalleled feat of engineering and design genius, the prototype of all its kind.

They saw an empty shell, not an answer to a challenge or an inspired and unique building, the product of Scotland's second industrial revolution, designed by Scots and built by Scots.

So they wrote a report on it which concentrated on the area round it, and on the reactor. And condemned it.
...............................................

Ignore the reactor. It's irrelevant.

See the building.

[scotsboy]

I wonder where they got their inspiration?

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/ariel-schwartz/sustainability/dubais-technosphere-biological-bubble-twist

[John Little]

I wonder if Tim Smit would be interested in Dounreay?

http://i927.photobucket.com/albums/ad118/johnlittle21/eden-project.jpg

I wonder if anybody even asked about possible futures? It's by no means clear in that report.

[John Little]

In France of course they take their Dome, clean it up and turn it into a nuclear museum.
And theirs wasn't even the first in the world.


http://i927.photobucket.com/albums/ad118/johnlittle21/images-1.jpg



Dounreay was.

[John Little]

"...by late autumn of 1955 a giant ‘bowl’ had taken shape as the skilled platers and welders of Motherwell Bridge & Engineering Co Ltd completed the bottom half of the sphere, which contained the shielding. Another Lanarkshire firm, Alexander Findlay & Co Ltd., were erecting the internal structural steelwork..."

[John Little]

Alexander Findlay & Co. made structural steelwork; stanchions, girders, beams and columns, the skeletons of buildings, support frames for overhead cranes and pressure vessels. They supplied and erected over 5,000 tons of steelwork for the Dounreay site, including the labyrinth of girders around which the Fast Reactor sphere was built. This sphere, one of the great symbols of the Nuclear Age, had a surface area of 1½ acres, weighed 1,500 tons and contained over two miles of welds, every one of which was radiographically inspected. With a diameter of 135 feet, as well as being the largest sphere in Europe, the Dounreay dome was three times the size of any similar vessel built in Britain before that date. And it was air-tight, too. Motherwell Bridge were chosen to fabricate and erect this famous structure. It was seen by them as both an engineering challenge, and a commercial opportunity, the Dounreay project being perceived as the father of an extensive family of fast breeder reactors to be built in the near future.

The men from Motherwell arrived at Dounreay in July 1955, Motherwell Bridge moving into a specially equipped workshop in one of the large airfield hangars, where many of the steel plates for the sphere were to be formed and welded together by an automatic process, designed to reduce the effects of the frequently inclement Caithness weather. A dedicated electricity supply powered by portable diesel generators was imported to cope with the heavy demands of welding plant, the Hydro Board's supply lines being notoriously failure prone at that time. Certain heavy and specialised fabrication work was carried out at Motherwell prior to being transported to Dounreay by road and sea, the first to arrive being the largest single section of the sphere's lower half. This had to travel as deck cargo, there being no crane large enough at Scrabster harbour to unload it. Jack Forrest, Motherwell Bridge's site erection manager, was much relieved when this giant load was safely secured on the low-loader which was to take it on to Dounreay, an operation involving waiting for low tide when, the ship's deck being level with the low-loader, skids and skilfully orchestrated brute force were used to lever the load ashore.

Time was an important factor in the construction of the Dounreay site. Schedules were tight, often to the very limits of what was humanly possible, the weather playing no small part in the forward planning. The Fast Reactor sphere required to be built in two stages; the lower half between July and December, 1955 and the top half in the corresponding months of 1956. Internal construction work was carried out between January and June, 1956. Windless days in Caithness are few, but in summer the daylight hours are long. Welders and steel erectors often worked on beyond midnight, perched precariously on staging high up in the night air, or lying horizontal in cramped spaces, sweating, cursing, hammering away, forcing the great project forward.



Built by giants. I am lost in admiration.

What an achievement. What a building! What endeavour!

"Above it flew the Scottish Saltire, a fitting tribute to the Lanarkshire firms, Motherwell Bridge and Findlays, who had built it."

[John Little]

Looks accessible to me...


http://i927.photobucket.com/albums/ad118/johnlittle21/Untitled.png


"Although most of the Dounreay site is free from significant levels of radiological contamination, some contamination exists on the site due to historical practices and legacies. Surveys have identified these areas, locations have been recorded and discrete spots of surface contamination have been removed."
2006


The historical importance of the Dounreay Fast Reactor (DFR) sphere has led to the structure being considered as worthy of retention as a possible listed building.

Readers will please note that it the sphere itself that was being considered as worthy in 2006. Yet by 2010 it has been decided that it would just be an 'empty shell' in the Atkins Heritage report.

[John Little]

"At present, the Council's preferred site end use is for the area to be redeveloped as a business/ industrial park or science and technology business centre. The Council will review potential options for the re-use of the site with the site licence company, other regulators, and local public and stakeholder groups, once the need for facilities associated with decommissioning becomes more apparent." 2006

What changed?

Was it because someone told them that the site was polluted and could not be used?

Well they'd better shut the gates now then!

[John Little]

"The main entrance is a giant airlock door and the exit a radiation screening chamber. The lobby is dominated by a red crane, and the place one would expect to find the bar is a control room filled with panels of multi-coloured flashing buttons, diodes and meters.

Everywhere there are valves, ventilation ducts and oxygen monitoring systems and in the middle — where any self-respecting holidaymaker would expect to find the pool — is a nuclear reactor.

It may not quite be ready, but if you are already thinking of booking your summer holiday for 2030 you could do a lot worse than stay in the former Dounreay Fast Reactor (DFR) on the northern Scottish coast.

Provided some windows are built, it will boast breathtaking views across the Pentland Firth to Orkney. So long as the “Danger of Death” signs have been replaced with something more welcoming and the 20ft-high electric fences torn down, it could be a thoroughly agreeable place to while away a week with the wife and kids.

For novelty factor alone, a stay at Fallouty Towers — as it has been dubbed by the Scottish Sun — will almost certainly be unrivalled.

It may sound like something straight out of a science-fiction fantasy, but the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) said last week that it had drawn up a list of possible future uses for the sphere-shaped building that has become one of industrial Britain’s most recognisable landmarks.

As part of the process of decommissioning the Dounreay complex and returning it to a brownfield site, it is considering whether to save the famous DFR — dubbed the “Golf Ball” by locals — and preserve it for future generations. Possible options, according to the authority, include turning it into a hotel or nightclub, a conference centre, a space observatory, a nuclear museum or a leisure centre. Although demolition is still a strong possibility, a fuller range of options will be drawn up in the spring, when industrial archaeologists will examine the issue in greater depth."


Not in enough depth!

[John Little]

"However, James Gunn, a senior technical officer at UKAEA and project manager for the site’s “heritage strategy”, insisted that the idea of converting the DFR into a hotel was feasible. “All you have to do is look at the sorts of things that are being built in Dubai to see that this sort of thing is not impossible. It would be a totally unique experience,” he said."

[John Little]

"The atomic age had arrived in Scotland, the experimental Dounreay Fast Reactor (DFR) had reached criticality, demonstrating that it was an active means of producing energy.

Its scientists and engineers had stolen the lead in the global development of nuclear power.

The design committee for a British fast reactor was set up in 1951 and its vision had become a reality eight years later. Drawing a parallel with President Kennedy's ambition in 1961 to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade, Mike Brown, decommissioning manager at DFR, said what was achieved in Caithness was comparable.

"What Britain did in the 1950s was every bit as impressive, if not more so, than what Nasa did in the 1960s. This was Britain's man-on-the-moon moment, if not better. From the creation of a design committee in 1951, Britain had delivered a working fast reactor by the end of the decade, without the full facts in their possession. That knowledge only came with the experimentation.



"Putting a man on the moon was the next step in a rocket programme that was already into space. Designing, building and operating a fast reactor from scratch, at a time when the knowledge was scarce, I believe was an even bigger accomplishment."

Half a century on and attention is again focused on the iconic, sphere-shaped building as efforts continue on what the pioneering workers, revered for their skills and ingenuity in building and fitting out the reactor gave little thought to: that it may eventually have to be knocked down."

So the sphere has little value and would be left as a 'shell' eh?


I wonder what bogeyman scared everyone off looking at uses for it and finding funding for it?

[John Little]

“There were suggestions in the past that buildings like D8550 could never be decontaminated safely. This decommissioning project team has shown that even the most radiologically contaminated areas can now be decommissioned safely and efficiently.”
Charlie Fowler, Dounreay
http://www.sdi.co.uk/Export/Find-New-Markets/international-business-opportunities/~/media/SDI/Files/pdfs/capability-statements/Nuclear%20Decommissioning%20capability%20statement .ashx

[John Little]

"The question of what else should be kept is now in the hands of consultant Atkins, which has been awarded an £88,000 contract to prepare a heritage strategy for the site.

Its project, which will run until November, will look at the impact Dounreay has had in a local, national and international context, and will include ideas on how to preserve facilities and artefacts of potential historical significance.

Atkins has also been asked to consider options for the landmark Dounreay Fast Reactor (DFR), the golf ball-shaped dome. Last year, a number of ideas were put forward for the future of the sphere, including a hotel, museum and recreational centre, as well as demolition.

It has been estimated that knocking down the DFR after a clear-out of radioactive and chemical contamination would cost £13.7 million. Retaining and maintaining it over the next decade would cost £10.1 million, but the sphere support structure and adjacent buildings would need replacing after ten years, at a total cost of up to £35 million."

£88,000 for that! I'd have done it for a couple of thou!

Shall we- can we, please come clean?

It's not about radiation, contamination or access.

That is, in fact, complete drivel.

If it's about money then try selling the thing off.

If it's about painting it then give it a lick of paint every few years - it won't cost as much as you think.

But in the end - it's about cash. And where are all these figures coming from anyway. They are not in the report! Don't you owe the sphere a few itemised bills of expenditure> Or are they just fished out of the aether?

It's about cash.

And nobody has actually said that.


You - yes YOU - could just offer it free to bidding entrepreneurs......

[John Little]

If I were in charge of something big and I wanted to do something big, but I did not want it to sound bad, then I would find plausible sounding reasons for it that would obscure my baser ones.


I would hire an expensive sounding firm to produce a big thick report.

That report would sling all sorts of mud about and reach conclusions which I would then release to the media.

This would implant in the popular consciousness the thought that what I was doing is completely unavoidable. And if all the newspapers and the radio and the television and the magazines said it, then what was in the report would assume the dignity and weight of truth.

It would in fact have the appearance of inassailable truth.

But underneath - would all be havers.


And anyone who disagreed with it- well what would they do about it?


That's what I would do.

It's called 'Propaganda'.

[John Little]

You are right. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

Everyone is either asleep about it or does not care.

I have hammered this thread as far as it will go.

When I have something new to say, I will.
In a new thread.


The Atkins Heritage report is an exercise in hot air.

For now, thread closed.