Dounreay Stakeholder group.

[concerned resident]

I attended the meeting last Monday evening, and it appeared from the first meeting it was clear and transparent, that it was still a collection of men in grey suites. The new members of the committee, were representatives from organisations invited by Dounreay,
For many organisations their was a conflict of interests, others were a grey area, as I had no idea if they were employed, received pensions, money donations, etc from Dounreay.As they stated, they should operate a open and transparent policy, I would like to have seen more independent and impartial, seen to be involved.
A bit of a waste of my time as you couldn’t hear what was being said, as they were sitting behind their tables facing each other, while the general public were down the other end of the room, and their voices didn’t carry that far.
I and other members of the public, could have been offered a free bag of radioactive particles, and would never have known.I was not impressed, did anybody else attend, as i would like to hear their thoughts on the evening. Was impressed with committee
getting their expense forms handed out, so they could make their claims for attending.

[concerned resident]

I would hope that the New Dounreay Stakeholder Group, would be able to look into some form of compensation for tourism etc, as we now find that the contamination has now spread to Dunnet Beach, and passed Murkle Beach. Holiday makers visiting these beautiful beaches, would be wise to say to their children, do not build any sand castles, or give them a bucket and spade. One Question, some of the Dounreay Stake Holder Group
Have signed the Official Secrets Act, so its possible they might not be able to respond to some questions, put to them by the general public.

[scotsboy]

It seems that you are the main "concerned resident", compensation for loss of tourism......the number of visitors who populate Murkle and Dunnet beaches during the summer (I'll give you spring, autumn and wonter as well) months may just buy you a meal and a couple of pints.........but just you do your best to scare them off :roll:

As for the advice, I suggest that you start looking for needles in haystacks as you are far more likely to encounter them than you are a particle.

[concerned resident]

Scotsboy compensation for loss of tourism......the number of visitors who populate Murkle and Dunnet beaches during the summer (I'll give you spring, autumn and winter as well) months may just buy you a meal and a couple of pints......

Its not just these beaches that will suffer, its the whole of Caithness, as people read the news papers. And as for your comment about a needle in a hay stack. particules,and my conerns, then I just looked at the first part of your location, and all became clear.

[jjc]

I just looked at the first part of your location, and all became clear.
a) If you are suggesting that Scotsboy is being blasé about the nuclear industry because he is safely removed from it in Berkshire then it's worth noting that there are more nuclear facilities in Berkshire than there are in Caithness (which employ quite a few ex-Dounreayers).

b) If you are suggesting that Scotsboy isn't entitled to an opinion on this subject because he doesn't live in Caithness then I guess that rules a large number of us out of continued debate on this forum… :roll:


Its not just these beaches that will suffer…
Fair's fair… it seems to me that he was responding directly to your suggestion that Dounreay pay compensation to the tourism industry because of the 'contamination' to the beaches and that holiday makers 'visiting these beaches' should stop their children from playing in the sand. It was you and not Scotsboy who limited the scope of the issue.

It also seems to me that it isn't reading newspaper articles about the particles that will keep tourists away; rather it will be reading articles written with the same 'impartial' slant that you have shown in this thread which will frighten them off.

[concerned resident]

Jjc First, a register of interests: I have worked at Dounreay… ( previous forum on Dounreay.)I was looking for the opinion of an independent and impartial person, not from some one where there is a conflict of interest, I could go to the New Stakeholder Group for a biased opinion.

[scotsboy]

I have to come clean......I am not in Berkshire, but I am also not in Caithness....I am however Thurso born and bred (not that it really matters). I really think it strange that you think someone who has worked at Dounreay is incapable of being impartial.......someone who comes from Caithness, has family and friends, loves the county for all it is.......but can't be impartial because he/she has somehow been linked to employment at the Dounreay site.
There is more chance of a tourist dying on the road travelling to Caithness than coming remotley close to a particle never mind being effected by it...........should we stop manufacturing cars? (please dont lets slide into a global warming/carbon emissions debate)

[jjc]

I was looking for the opinion of an independent and impartial person, not from some one where there is a conflict of interest, I could go to the New Stakeholder Group for a biased opinion.
Question 1:

What has my having once been employed at Dounreay got to do with either your suggestion that non-Caithness residents shouldn't have a say on this thread or with your swift change of focus inland when Scotsboy questioned the number of tourists who visit Caithness for her beaches?

Question 2:

What makes you think that my previous employment at Dounreay makes it impossible for me to approach this issue without bias?

Question 3:

As I am an ex Dounreay employee who receives absolutely no monies (or, indeed, benefits of any kind) from Dounreay, could you tell me which of my interests I am conflicted by here?

Question 4:

Considering the number of Caithnessians who have links, in some way or another, with Dounreay, are you suggesting that the majority of the population should be excluded from further discussion on this topic lest they be company stooges, related to company stooges or in some other way linked to company stooges?

Question 5:

You are clearly not an impartial contributor here and your prejudices are quite blatant. Could you explain why you reserve the right to hold an opinion whilst rejecting anybody else's right to do the same as a 'conflict of interests'?

Question 6:

Your last post wasn't, by any chance, an attempt to avoid actually dealing with the points raised, was it? :roll:

[concerned resident]

jjc / Scots boy

Question (1)
I am looking for what is best for Caithness as a resident, What right has anybody to say what is best for Caithness sitting in an arm chair 100’s of miles away, We have politicians for that.
I can remember times past when a tourist couldn’t get B&B in Caithness in the summer.

(2) You had a previous relationship with Dounreay, and are still under the official Secrets Act.

(3) As question 2, Also possibly know of some of the misdeeds that were done in the past.

(4) As long as they are open and transparent with their connections with Dounreay.

(5) I would like my Grand children to be able to build sand castles on dunnet beach, with out there being any concerns of particles, Due to the incompetence of Dounreay in the past. That is my prejudice.
As for conflicts of interest’s, the people concerned were or still are part of a company that has contaminated part of the north’s coast line. They still receive monies, pensions, or work on contracts, and could not tell the truth even if they wanted too. (Official Secrets Act)

(6) I do not put my head in the sand and hope it will disappear like some people. Anyway if you put your head in the sand, you never know what you might find.

[scotsboy]

I own property in Caithness - do I get a say?

Strange that Minters consultants with their state of the art (sic) germanium detection system couldn't find anything on Sandside :roll:

I can also tell you that this official secrets act with regard to what goes on at Dounreay is hogwash. I will tell you anything you want to know about my work at Dounreay in the past.

I would quite happily let my kids play on any beach in Caithness, Sandside and Dunnet included.

[jjc]

I am looking for what is best for Caithness as a resident, What right has anybody to say what is best for Caithness sitting in an arm chair 100’s of miles away
So you would contend that any and all benefits which Dounreay might offer and any and all dangers it might pose are confined within the borders of Caithness?


I can remember times past when a tourist couldn’t get B&B in Caithness in the summer.
Would that be before or after the introduction of low-cost airlines flying out of Scottish airports to places like Ibiza and Tenerife on a daily basis?

It's very easy to suggest a link between 'A' and 'Z' if you ignore 'B' through 'Y', isn't it.


You had a previous relationship with Dounreay, and are still under the official Secrets Act.
If you think that my being a signatory of the Official Secrets Act somehow prevents me from thinking for myself then clearly it is not a document with which you are familiar.


Also possibly know of some of the misdeeds that were done in the past.
So now you are accusing me of lying in order to cover up breaches of health and safety regulations? Okay… might I ask if you have any evidence at all to substantiate that suggestion?


As long as they are open and transparent with their connections with Dounreay.
I have been but you still accuse me of… well, let's just leave it as 'you accuse me', eh?

Is it perhaps more accurate to say that you are happy for people with connections to Dounreay to hold an opinion so long as the opinion they hold matches yours?


I would like my Grand children to be able to build sand castles on dunnet beach, with out there being any concerns of particles, Due to the incompetence of Dounreay in the past. That is my prejudice.
Yes, 'prejudice' pretty much sums it up.

Taking into account the fact that a particle is roughly the same size as a single grain of sand and that they have been found buried as deep as 20cm there is pretty large volume of 'safe' sand for your grandchildren to fill their buckets with…

Also taking into account the fact that only two of the thirty-one particles found between November '03 and April '04 were above the level of detection required by SEPA and bearing in mind that the level of detection required by SEPA is only 10% of the level considered to be a 'significant risk' to public health (and that not one of those thirty-one particles was actually of a level of detection sufficient to be considered a 'significant risk'), I think that most people can see that the risk posed is minimal.

That's not to say that there isn't a risk… but then there's also a statistical chance that I will win the lottery every Saturday for the next three weeks…

Of course if you want to keep your grandchildren away from Dunnet Beach because a particle has been found then that's your choice… but you might also want to nail their doors shut to keep them from stepping outside because there's a risk they will be hit by a falling meteorite… :roll:


As for conflicts of interest’s, the people concerned were or still are part of a company that has contaminated part of the north’s coast line. They still receive monies, pensions, or work on contracts
Either this means that you would see the entire staff of Dounreay fired each time a particle is discovered, or it means that you know precisely who is responsible for each and every particle discovered. Care to tell us which?


and could not tell the truth even if they wanted too. (Official Secrets Act)
You seem to be quite reliant on the Official Secrets Act without truly understanding what signing it means. Being a signatory of the Act does not mean that you cannot report breaches of health and safety to your manager (or their manager… or their manager's manager… ). Being a signatory of the Act does not mean that you cannot report breaches of health and safety to the Nuclear Safety Directorate.

If I were aware of a breach of regulations and if, having followed every official route open to me and found that I was simply being ignored, I 'went public', could you please tell me which section of the Official Secrets Act I would be in breach of?

[concerned resident]

jjc

From what you are saying, you know what is best for our grand children’s health, and we should have no concerns. This advice is from the same people who were throwing, god knows what down a shaft, on site, and lost a lot of nuclear particles from somewhere.Unfortunately I cannot accept SEPA’s information, as they show their teeth, when the farmers silage pit is leaking, but when it comes to Dounreay and the contamination of the coast, they appear to have lost their teeth, and have more excuses than Dounreay.
I am not really interested in your excuses, of depths or size of particle, it should not be there, and I think Dounreay are accountable for incompetence, in the past.
I like your reasons for the down turn it tourists over the years, but I still feel that tourists reading about nuclear particles on beaches, in national newspapers,this puts people off, and it is no good criticising the papers, they are only telling the truth.
You don’t think you can be held to account under the Official Secrets Act, recommend you go on to the UK Parliament site, and read what exactly you signed up for.

[scotsboy]

I think we all agree that things that occurred in the past would be deemed unacceptable by current standards, however that is hardly unique to the nuclear industry in general or Dounreay specifically.

I don’t think JJC said he knew what was best for his grandchildren’s health; simply that he was trying to put the risk of exposure to the particles into perspective. Kinda like Lorraine Mann who has on record said that “Some of them are radioactive enough to kill outright” – how many of the Health Physics Surveyors who found, uncovered and removed these died instantly?

I hardly think that Dounreay can be held responsible for the decline of an industry (tourism) that never existed in Caithness in the first place – if anything the decline may be something to do with the demise of the Dounreay visitor centre, which used to be the biggest attraction in the county! But we are into pseudoscience again.

Anyway do you think it acceptable that farmer’s silage pits leak? If no, then surely you should be congratulating SEPA.

[Drutt]

I like your reasons for the down turn it tourists over the years, but I still feel that tourists reading about nuclear particles on beaches, in national newspapers,this puts people off, and it is no good criticising the papers, they are only telling the truth.
I'm sorry, but this is just delusional. All British seaside resorts have experienced massive downturns in tourist numbers in the last few decades. Blackpool, Bournemouth, Brighton, Ayr even - they all acknowledge the decline since their heyday for what it is. It's cheaper to go abroad for a week than to holiday for a weekend in the UK, and the weather's more reliable elsewhere too. So people go abroad. I hardly think Dounreay's got anything to do with it.

If anything, it's the sheer lack of hospitality or welcome offered to tourists. We act as though we're doing them a favour. We act as though these irritating people who have the audacity to speak another language within our earshot are inconvenient. We rip them off given half a chance. We don't bother to learn any foreign languages. This happens in many parts of the UK, not just in Caithness, but it goes someway to explaining the decline in the tourist industry.

Open your eyes, concerned resident. Much as it might suit you, Dounreay is not responsible for everything. Oh no, that's right. You blame the council for some of it too. Just so long as none of it falls on your shoulders, huh?

[jjc]

From what you are saying, you know what is best for our grand children’s health, and we should have no concerns.
I didn't say that at all. If you look back you'll find that I fully acknowledge that there is a risk… I simply suggest that you weigh up the severity of that risk before you run screaming for the hills. If, after doing so, you still feel that the threat that they might be exposed to a particle is greater than the risk they face simply getting to the beach then that's your choice… but at least try and make it an informed choice, eh?


This advice is from the same people who were throwing, god knows what down a shaft, on site, and lost a lot of nuclear particles from somewhere.
Once again; you are either suggesting that everybody at Dounreay should lose their jobs when a particle is discovered or you know precisely who is responsible for each of these accidents. I note, however, that you have still not said which it is…


Unfortunately I cannot accept SEPA’s information, as they show their teeth, when the farmers silage pit is leaking, but when it comes to Dounreay and the contamination of the coast, they appear to have lost their teeth, and have more excuses than Dounreay.
So you believe that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, a public body, is lying about the detection levels of the particles found and is lying about the risk those particles pose to public health?


I am not really interested in your excuses, of depths or size of particle, it should not be there, and I think Dounreay are accountable for incompetence, in the past.
Of course they shouldn't be there… nobody has said otherwise. And of course Dounreay is accountable for them being there… nobody has said otherwise.

But this isn't about 'who is accountable for what' because that was agreed a long time ago. Rather it is about individuals and 'organisations' twisting the 'what' in order to create fear amongst the public.


I like your reasons for the down turn it tourists over the years, but I still feel that tourists reading about nuclear particles on beaches, in national newspapers,this puts people off, and it is no good criticising the papers, they are only telling the truth.
There's telling the truth and then there's telling the truth.

"Warning signs have been put up at Dunnet Beach by Highland Council to alert visitors to the potentially deadly risk" – Sunday Express, March 27th

'Potentially deadly risk' – a truthful statement, but hardly an accurate representation of the situation.

Oh, and then there's just populist nonsense:

" Countless radioactive particles have been spread around the beaches and rocks of Caithness, rendering some of the most beautiful stretches of coastline uninhabitable for anyone without a protective suit." – The Sunday Herald, March 27th

As for my the downturn in tourism… other than your 'gut feeling', have you anything else on which to base your decision to completely discount all other factors aside from Dounreay?

Revenue from tourism dropped across Scotland from £5.1 billion in 1997 to £4.2 billion in 2001. As you contend that Dounreay is responsible for the drop in tourism in Caithness and you also contend that the effects of Dounreay are limited to Caithness, how do you explain this drop elsewhere?


You don’t think you can be held to account under the Official Secrets Act, recommend you go on to the UK Parliament site, and read what exactly you signed up for.
I've signed it three times. I read it each time I signed it. I've also read the electronic copy on the UK Parliament site. Now, which section of the Act would I be in breach of if, after exhausting all official channels, I went 'public' with health & safety concerns?

[Rheghead]

If it was the same Government scientists that said there was WMD in Iraq that said there was a remote but potentially deadly risk from these particles then I can't blame concerned resident to be highly sceptical of any government/public body reassurance.

[jjc]

If it was the same Government scientists that said there was WMD in Iraq...
You seem to be confusing 'government scientists' and 'the security services'... nice try though... :roll:

[jb]

I donot think 'Concerned Resident' was blaming Dounreay for the previous decline in tourism in the county of Caithness but more that the headlines and press reporting would lead to a further decline in the future in an industry that we may have to rely on more for our future.
The press have a lot to answer for as they write the story based on fact to sell papers. They acheive this by using words and phrases that while are based on fact are twisted to present the worst side of the situation. As is widely known good news doesnot sell papers only a bad news shock horror story does that.
The problem that this leads to is who do you belive? Both sides and all in between tell stories based on fact but finding out how much spin is applied and in which direction is the problem. Maybe someone can produce a computer program that can detect spin and remove it so that we lesser mortals might at least get close to the true story.