View Full Version : Caithness Nuclear Free Zone Declaration?
With all the nuclear reactors in Caithness in the decommissioning stage, is it a good idea to declare that Caithness is now a nuclear-free zone? In order to shift attitudes towards renewables in Caithness for the future, I think it would be a high profile statement to say that Caithness is open to renewable energy businesses if we erect Caithness Nuclear-Free zone signs at the county border. Of course they will have translations in Gaelic as well... :D
On the contrary. Thurso became atomic city during the 1950s when some of the top pioneers in the nuclear industry moved north and settled in Caithness. We should fly the nuclear flag high up on Morven so the whole country can see it. Caithness is open for business and nuclear is its speciality.
Until the waste that is stored becomes inert or is moved out of Caithness then that will never be a tag that Caithness can honestly claim.
In order to shift attitudes D
I'm not interested in propaganda.
I'm not interested in propaganda.
Yes but if signs were put up at the border then people can have a proper gander at them.
So long as there is natural radiation then it would be untrue.
A poor idea in my opinion.
I am sorry but what a load of bunkum nuclear free my bum! We live in a big old world out there and we can declare to be nuclear free, carbon free, well any free you like but who would give a rats a--e
I am sorry but what a load of bunkum nuclear free my bum! We live in a big old world out there and we can declare to be nuclear free, carbon free, well any free you like but who would give a rats a--e
Public opinion against renewable energy and a dream that nuclear will return to Scotland (that will never materialise) is an obstacle to renewable energy development in the north of Scotland. Renewable energy is the only player in town, it has to be the only player in Caithness. We have only got to look at the public opposition to current plans for infrastructure that support renewables to see that there is a problem with current public opinion in Caithness.
For years we have had fiction pedalled as fact from the anti-wind brigade in Caithness and it has spilled out against other renewables like tidal and wind, are we to ignore that propaganda? It is corrosive to creating wealth and a cleaner environment to hand on to our kids.
I think we need GIRL POWER!!!
I think we need Swirl POWER! :)
There is nothing positive for the people of Caithness to get excited about regarding renewable energy while we pay more for electricity than friends and relatives in the central belt. The biggest obstacle to renewables is the inequitable way it is funded.
There is nothing positive for the people of Caithness to get excited about regarding renewable energy....
Unless, of course, you are a landowner. Then you can just sit back & watch the money come rolling in for next to no effort at all...
There is nothing positive for the people of Caithness to get excited about regarding renewable energy while we pay more for electricity than friends and relatives in the central belt. The biggest obstacle to renewables is the inequitable way it is funded.
There is estimated to be 300 jobs to be created when the offshore windturbine fields get the go ahead.
tonkatojo
28-Mar-16, 20:02
There is estimated to be 300 jobs to be created when the offshore windturbine fields get the go ahead.
This has always fascinated me, 300 jobs are created looking after turbines, they must take an awful lot of servicing.
This has always fascinated me, 300 jobs are created looking after turbines, they must take an awful lot of servicing.
That is not surprising really is it? Out at sea is one of the most demanding environments for a piece of steel and a turbine. You know, I am not going to be convinced now that Windfarms are providing jobs is the new critique of wind farms that folk are gonna rally round after years of being told that wind farms don't provide any jobs at all.
There has to be at least a grain of joined up thinking if you want to convince others to be against something.
Tubthumper
29-Mar-16, 12:21
Serious doubts about:
High levels of subsidy required;
Landscape blight, noise and inconvenience to neighbours;
Efficiency, safety and reliability of the technology;
So I don't think it's worth pursuing nuclear in the County any further.
However I think declaring a 'nuclear-free zone' for Caithness would be a bit disingenuous: We hosted some of it on behalf of the world, proved that bits of it did or didn't work, and now we're showing how to deal safely with the legacy.
Like it or not it's part of what we are, and a lot of people's lives have been (and continue to be) dedicated to it.
That it's a dying industry shouldn't hold us back - we've been banging on about Wick's halcyon days of herring for years!
Perambulate
04-Apr-16, 21:06
a dream that nuclear will return to Scotland (that will never materialise) .
Why? What information do you have to substantiate this? All that has to change is a pro nuclear Scottish government. Ok governmental change is easier said than done but surely in a county where the foundations of nuclear have been laid it makes sense to build upon what is already there.
Why? What information do you have to substantiate this? All that has to change is a pro nuclear Scottish government. Ok governmental change is easier said than done but surely in a county where the foundations of nuclear have been laid it makes sense to build upon what is already there.
tbh, I don't think energy consumers can afford another nuclear power station when there are cheaper alternatives. The price tag for Hinkley C is now in the region of £24,000,000,000 and it seems to be rising whereas the cost of renewables seems to be continually going down.
I was delighted to read in a recent report that the good folk of Scotland are enthusiastic about renewable energy and even more delighted that they thought solar was the way to go, I've been saying that for years.
It's about time that every new build has to have solar panels fitted and existing builds are encouraged to fit them. They are not a blot on the landscape and can cut household bills by a considerable amount.
I was delighted to read in a recent report that the good folk of Scotland are enthusiastic about renewable energy and even more delighted that they thought solar was the way to go, I've been saying that for years.
It's about time that every new build has to have solar panels fitted and existing builds are encouraged to fit them. They are not a blot on the landscape and can cut household bills by a considerable amount.
Have to disagree there, in my opinion they are more of a Blott than any Windfarm... Now, if they where integrated into the roof instead of just stuck on the top like a sore thumb then that would be better.
Don't get me wrong though, that's just the price of progress.
Green_not_greed
05-Apr-16, 08:22
I'd suggest its a far better idea to declare Caithness a land-based wind turbine-free zone, in order to boost tourism to an unspolit Caithness. It could also offer a high profile statement to say that Caithness is open to solar and ground source heat, and off shore developments, but not huge industrial whirly things close to houses that no-one can safely live near. Lets erect Caithness Land-based wind turbine-Free zone signs at the county border!!!
There are now panels that can be integrated into the build Alrock.
There are now panels that can be integrated into the build Alrock.
Yes Lizz you are right. A year or two back we looked into the possibility of having pv panels and found that solar slates were available. I agree with Alrock in that I think the standard surface panels are a bit of a blot on the landscape and we really would have liked to have the slates. Now I can't remember the exact figures but after some research we found out that the slates cost something like 25% extra to buy compared to standard pv and they also generated around 25% less electricity. So not very economic but if funds are not an issue and especially if you have a steading conversion or traditional looking property I think they are great. For now we don't have pv but it is certainly an aspiration for the future. In the meantime does anyone know how to hook up my exercise bike to the fridge freezer?
Ha ha, never thought of nimby creep before.
"Oh I really hate those new wind turbines that look like trees, the leaves look so fake up-close"
Tubthumper
08-Apr-16, 09:29
...but not huge industrial whirly things close to houses that no-one can safely live near. People do live near these things quite safely. get your facts right please.
Green_not_greed
08-Apr-16, 12:29
People do live near these things quite safely. get your facts right please.
My fact are right. It depends what you mean as "safe" I suppose. Try this - one of many articles showing the adverse effects of wind turbines on human health. Of course it depends how far you live from the turbines - city dwelling wind turbine lovers can't appreciate the adverse effects which turbines have for nearby rural residents.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653647/
This study, by the College of Family Physicians in Canada, concludes:
"Industrial wind turbines can harm human health if sited too close to residents. Harm can be avoided if IWTs are situated at an appropriate distance from humans. Owing to the lack of adequately protective siting guidelines, people exposed to IWTs can be expected to present to their family physicians in increasing numbers. The documented symptoms are usually stress disorder–type diseases acting via indirect pathways and can represent serious harm to human health."
This is only one of many such articles world-wide. The well-connected wind industry has been trying to discredit such reports for years, rather than properly research the issue and put turbines further away from houses.
I'd suggest that if you are so gullible and consequently got stressed out from all the BS from the anti-wind farm brigade then it would come as no great surprise that you could get ill living near a wind farm. Talk about a self-reinforcing bias eh?
My fact are right. It depends what you mean as "safe" I suppose. Try this - one of many articles showing the adverse effects of wind turbines on human health. Of course it depends how far you live from the turbines - city dwelling wind turbine lovers can't appreciate the adverse effects which turbines have for nearby rural residents.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653647/
This study, by the College of Family Physicians in Canada, concludes:
"Industrial wind turbines can harm human health if sited too close to residents. Harm can be avoided if IWTs are situated at an appropriate distance from humans. Owing to the lack of adequately protective siting guidelines, people exposed to IWTs can be expected to present to their family physicians in increasing numbers. The documented symptoms are usually stress disorder–type diseases acting via indirect pathways and can represent serious harm to human health."
This is only one of many such articles world-wide. The well-connected wind industry has been trying to discredit such reports for years, rather than properly research the issue and put turbines further away from houses.
Hang on, this isn't research, it is based upon a literature review. And the references include links to wind-watch.org and N.Pierpont the author of the debunked Windturbine Syndrome theory.
Green_not_greed
11-Apr-16, 09:48
Hang on, this isn't research, it is based upon a literature review. And the references include links to wind-watch.org and N.Pierpont the author of the debunked Windturbine Syndrome theory.
Its an article. As stated. And one that's not been paid for by wind turbine operators, so independent. And by medical professionals, not journalists or politicians. Or people "in the pocket" of the developers. Dr. Pierpont's work has not been debunked, BTW, just "reviewed" by wind industry connected sources - to try and shamefully discredit it and keep the myth going that wind energy is not harmful to those living nearby. After all, turbines can't cause people to feel sick, they make far too much money for developers or the industry to worry about people's health !
Some governments have started to take proper consideration of adverse health effects of wind turbines. Finland is just one recent example.
Tubthumper
11-Apr-16, 12:26
Rather than just raking around the internet till you find something that fits the bill, why not look at the local situation.
Do people live near wind turbines? - Yes
Have people bought homes near windfarms? - Yes
Is there a huge spike in referrals for wind turbine initiated stress disorders locally? - No
Is there a massive campaign to save the lives of those whose lives are apparently ruined? - No
Commission some research please. Or just admit you're wrong.
Green_not_greed
11-Apr-16, 15:15
Rather than just raking around the internet till you find something that fits the bill, why not look at the local situation.
Do people live near wind turbines? - Yes
Have people bought homes near windfarms? - Yes
Is there a huge spike in referrals for wind turbine initiated stress disorders locally? - No
Is there a massive campaign to save the lives of those whose lives are apparently ruined? - No
Commission some research please. Or just admit you're wrong.
On the contrary, look at the wider situation which is far more representative of reality, with some people living closer than the majority in Caithness.
Just google "wind turbine health issues" and read just about any of the articles - you will find the same thing over and over and over again, world-wide. Are all those people wrong ? I don't think so.
The vast majority of articles agree that human health suffers the closer you live to a wind turbine. Shamefully developers and the industry have tried to cover this up rather than accept it and put turbines in more suitable areas - as its cheaper for them to place developments close to existing power lines - which is where people live.
In any other industry, health and safety - especially to the public - come first. Not with the wind industry, profit comes first.
You may not be aware of it but there are indeed noise and health concerns locally from wind turbines. One of the reasons the Forss Business Park was abandoned by some companies was the numbers of headaches being experienced by employees. Blinds on offices facing the turbines were often closed 24/7 as a precaution against this. I am also aware of similar issue regarding Baillie since it went operational, and that residents, the operators and the Council are still trying to work together to resolve things.
I did a quick search and found sites stating wind farms could affect people's health and sites which said they did not affect health. I guess it depends which ones to believe. Some people just think that living near them causes problems when it could be a number of other issues.
You will get the same type of sites if you search health issues and nuclear power stns, fracking, coal fired power stns, etc etc. they all have positives and negatives.
A wind turbine blows up loss of life would be low and work and living would continue in the area. A nuclear power stn blows up and what happens to loss of life and the surrounding area........ It's all relative
If you are so worried about the health effects of living next to a windfarm then play it safe & move to the city well away from windfarms & enjoy the health benefits whilst you choke to death on traffic fumes & other pollutants.
captain chaos
11-Apr-16, 21:13
And just to ensure Caithness is Nuclear free we would have to get rid of the CT scanner and X-ray equipment at Caithness Genral hospital, remove all the smoke detectors from every house, because they contain Am241.......Nuclear Free what a load of BS
Its an article. As stated. And one that's not been paid for by wind turbine operators, so independent. And by medical professionals, not journalists or politicians. Or people "in the pocket" of the developers. Dr. Pierpont's work has not been debunked, BTW, just "reviewed" by wind industry connected sources - to try and shamefully discredit it and keep the myth going that wind energy is not harmful to those living nearby. After all, turbines can't cause people to feel sick, they make far too much money for developers or the industry to worry about people's health !
Some governments have started to take proper consideration of adverse health effects of wind turbines. Finland is just one recent example.
The article is just rubbish and the author who is a doctor specialising in geriatric care is also an active anti-wind activist.
The article is just rubbish and the author who is a doctor specialising in geriatric care is also an active anti-wind activist.
Hey you'll be old some day.
Probably with a bad case of wind.
Green_not_greed
12-Apr-16, 08:53
The article is just rubbish and the author who is a doctor specialising in geriatric care is also an active anti-wind activist.
"Just rubbish " is only an opinion.
And does being an "active anti-wind activist" make the writer wrong ? In your opinion, almost certainly. But this is someone who has seen fit to highlight a real medical issue and put their own name - and professional reputation - on the line. The paper - like a bunch of others - highlights the growing problem of human health issues caused by the stress and noise of living near wind turbines.
These issues have been known about since the 1980s and it is disgraceful that this has been covered up and denied over and over again by the wind industry. Its only in the past 10 years or so - with the huge growth of land-based turbines encroaching on people's homes - that the number of health complaints have become so prevalent that medical professionals started to question what the source of the problem was, identified it, and took it from there. This isn't a one-off, its world-wide, with the same symptoms over and over again. You can't put that down to "rubbish" and facts which don't fit your beliefs. You're supposed to be a scientist - look at the evidence !
How can it be a 'Nuclear Free Zone' with 240,000 tonnes of RADIOACTIVE Waste buried at Dounreay?
"Just rubbish " is only an opinion.
And does being an "active anti-wind activist" make the writer wrong ? In your opinion, almost certainly. But this is someone who has seen fit to highlight a real medical issue and put their own name - and professional reputation - on the line. The paper - like a bunch of others - highlights the growing problem of human health issues caused by the stress and noise of living near wind turbines.
These issues have been known about since the 1980s and it is disgraceful that this has been covered up and denied over and over again by the wind industry. Its only in the past 10 years or so - with the huge growth of land-based turbines encroaching on people's homes - that the number of health complaints have become so prevalent that medical professionals started to question what the source of the problem was, identified it, and took it from there. This isn't a one-off, its world-wide, with the same symptoms over and over again. You can't put that down to "rubbish" and facts which don't fit your beliefs. You're supposed to be a scientist - look at the evidence !
It isn't a true medical issue though is it? What evidence? There is none. Does the BMA recognise it? It doesn't score more than the nocebo effect. If there was evidence to suggest that turbines affect health then the BMA would recognise it.
And just to ensure Caithness is Nuclear free we would have to get rid of the CT scanner and X-ray equipment at Caithness Genral hospital, remove all the smoke detectors from every house, because they contain Am241.......Nuclear Free what a load of BS
How can it be a 'Nuclear Free Zone' with 240,000 tonnes of RADIOACTIVE Waste buried at Dounreay?
I wouldn't bother waiting for a reply, seems he's more interested in baiting his "buddy" lol.
Green_not_greed
13-Apr-16, 09:26
What evidence? There is none.
Blinkers firmly on then! Doesn't surprise me in the least. You shouldn't cycle if you need a white cane, y'know...
Tubthumper
13-Apr-16, 13:11
I've been away for a long time. Can someone remind me who wins on this site - Is it the one that keeps banging on about their obsession despite anything anyone else might say, or the one that gets it right?
Blinkers firmly on then! Doesn't surprise me in the least. You shouldn't cycle if you need a white cane, y'know...
I tell you how unscientific N. Pierpont's research is.
She put an ad in a local newspaper which covered the area which had a large wind farm; she was asking for people who lived next to a wind farm to respond if they felt ill. That isn't scientific or even worthy of going through the peer-review process as it immediately introduces a bias.
It is a Nimby's charter.
I wouldn't bother waiting for a reply, seems he's more interested in baiting his "buddy" lol.
I made it clear that 'nuclear free zone' was appropriate for an area which did not have and nuclear reactors running. It was clear that Captain Chaos and Beks was trying to subvert the discussion.
So a "non critical nuclear reactor zone" would be more appropriate but then if you had a sign with that as you came over the Ord, most people would probably think who cares and therefore pretty much ends your initial point IMHO, :Razz
I made it clear that 'nuclear free zone' was appropriate for an area which did not have and nuclear reactors running. It was clear that Captain Chaos and Beks was trying to subvert the discussion.
neilsermk1
14-Apr-16, 12:55
It isn't a true medical issue though is it? What evidence? There is none. Does the BMA recognise it? It doesn't score more than the nocebo effect. If there was evidence to suggest that turbines affect health then the BMA would recognise it.So the BMA would recognise it would they. Just like they reconised the issues with such conditions as Gulf War syndrome, Post traumatic stress syndrome, ME and loads more eventually accepting there was an issue when the vast amount of evidence and personal experience was staring them in the face.
Green_not_greed
14-Apr-16, 20:17
So the BMA would recognise it would they. Just like they reconised the issues with such conditions as Gulf War syndrome, Post traumatic stress syndrome, ME and loads more eventually accepting there was an issue when the vast amount of evidence and personal experience was staring them in the face.
Well said....
Caithness is actually a solar-free zone most days.
So the BMA would recognise it would they. Just like they reconised the issues with such conditions as Gulf War syndrome, Post traumatic stress syndrome, ME and loads more eventually accepting there was an issue when the vast amount of evidence and personal experience was staring them in the face.
If you are trying to make comparisons between living with a war zone experience to that of living near a windfarm as some form of justification for the debunked Windturbine Syndrome then words truly fail me. What you have done kind of reminds me of Godwins Law.
So a "non critical nuclear reactor zone" would be more appropriate but then if you had a sign with that as you came over the Ord, most people would probably think who cares and therefore pretty much ends your initial point IMHO, :Razz
Quite agree with your point, all those THOUSANDS of tons of radioactive material sitting a few metres below the ground simmering away for a few thousand years, will be a great invitation to the NCNRZ of Caithness.. hmm lovely AND the inviting beach at Reay with it's 'bit's that glow in the night, how romantic:D
Quite agree with your point, all those THOUSANDS of tons of radioactive material sitting a few metres below the ground simmering away for a few thousand years, will be a great invitation to the NCNRZ of Caithness.. hmm lovely AND the inviting beach at Reay with it's 'bit's that glow in the night, how romantic:D
You haven't seen the bit's [sic] glow, though, have you?
With all the nuclear reactors in Caithness in the decommissioning stage, is it a good idea to declare that Caithness is now a nuclear-free zone? In order to shift attitudes towards renewables in Caithness for the future, I think it would be a high profile statement to say that Caithness is open to renewable energy businesses if we erect Caithness Nuclear-Free zone signs at the county border. Of course they will have translations in Gaelic as well... :D
By your definition then maybe Russia should declare Chernobyl a Nuclear Free Zone.
neilsermk1
18-Apr-16, 12:41
If you are trying to make comparisons between living with a war zone experience to that of living near a windfarm as some form of justification for the debunked Windturbine Syndrome then words truly fail me. What you have done kind of reminds me of Godwins Law. I never attempted to make such a comparison, you did.
What I said was just because the BMA did not recognise an issue was no guarantee that there was no issue. Until any valid research has been completed no one will understand the long term health effects of living near to a windfarm.
p.s. your reference to Mr. Godwin is entirely inappropriate
You haven't seen the bit's [sic] glow, though, have you?
Nope, but the ground's nice and warm!
I never attempted to make such a comparison, you did.
What I said was just because the BMA did not recognise an issue was no guarantee that there was no issue. Until any valid research has been completed no one will understand the long term health effects of living near to a windfarm.
p.s. your reference to Mr. Godwin is entirely inappropriate
I very much suggest that if there was overwhelming evidence to link wind farms to ill health then the BMA WOULD recognise Windturbine Syndrome. As such, the evidence is simply not there. It is a complete fabrication.
But do I think that people can get Cause and Effect completely fuddled? You betcha. Same with MMR and autism, same with aromatherapy, same with powerlines and ill health, same with wi-fi, same with mobile phones, same with voodoo magic, dowsing, same with Gulf war syndrome, ad infinitum.
This is almost as good as the old days with the infighting !
With regard to wind farms, the flicker of the blades is most off putting and I can imagine it causing problems to folk who suffer migraine, epilepsy etc. The noise can be heard over considerable distances under certain conditions as I have experienced. I would also point out that any sort of noise has harmonics and there are those who's hearing could be affected.
I would also like to know how much carbon has been released from the blanket bog during their construction?
How many real jobs have they created for local folk?
How much wild life has been killed or disrupted?
How many people locally or tourists find them a blot on the landscape?
How efficient are they, all costs taken into account?
I could go on but I don't have all night... well not tonight !
Tubthumper
19-Apr-16, 13:15
Fair questions Liz but I think, for fairness, we need to ask them about other electricity generation methods.
With regard to wind farms, the flicker of the blades is most off putting and I can imagine it causing problems to folk who suffer migraine, epilepsy etc.
Give examples where this is happening in Caithness.
Give examples where this is happening in Caithness. Forss Wind Farm? there are points during the year shadow flicker from the turbines inconvenience a number of offices, devices ensure the turbines automatically stop when the shadow would fall on the buildings.. why would they do this if there was no flicker??
captain chaos
19-Apr-16, 19:30
Give examples where this is happening in Caithness.
Just along the road from you at Forss Business Park the owner of the turbines had to install a camera that when it detects the flicker shuts the 2 turbine's down and yes the reason that they had to fit was exactly the reason Lizz gave
Step outside of my back door under certain conditions, try living at Broubster or Westfield, ask the residents there.
And as usual this thread has meandered off topic .
And as usual this thread has meandered off topic .
Has it though - OP was asking with regards to changing support from nuclear to renewables and others have posted replies to why renewables have doubters, not far off topic for the org lol :)
Just along the road from you at Forss Business Park the owner of the turbines had to install a camera that when it detects the flicker shuts the 2 turbine's down and yes the reason that they had to fit was exactly the reason Lizz gave
No that is not correct. It was a condition of planning that the turbines were shutdown to prevent flicker happening. Flicker is not happening. Still waiting for examples...
Forss Wind Farm? there are points during the year shadow flicker from the turbines inconvenience a number of offices, devices ensure the turbines automatically stop when the shadow would fall on the buildings.. why would they do this if there was no flicker??
I refer you to my reply to Capt. chaos. Careful planning conditions are the key.
Now I'm totally confused.
Rheghead said, that is was a condition of planning that the turbines were shutdown to prevent flicker happening. Flicker is not happening.
So if it's not happening why are they shutting them down ?
I have seen the flicker effect and found it most disorientating, so much so that I had to look away.
I have seen the flicker effect and found it most disorientating, so much so that I had to look away.
I have to do that with the sun.
Oh come on Reggy, stop being pedantic - planning? eh, i.e. shadow flicker causes problems!
"When the first phase of Forss Wind Farm was constructed, the offices now used by New Park Management were vacant. since the buildings became occupied, it emerged that at a few points during the year shadow flicker from the turbines could inconvenience a small number of the offices. RES, along with Siemens Wind Power, have installed shadow flicker devices on the turbines nearest the buildings. The devices ensure the turbines automatically stop at the times when the shadow would fall on the buildings, alleviating the problem.
http://www.forss-windfarm.co.uk/media/496392/ForssNewsletterAug10.pdf
Now I'm totally confused.
Rheghead said, that is was a condition of planning that the turbines were shutdown to prevent flicker happening. Flicker is not happening.
So if it's not happening why are they shutting them down ?
I have seen the flicker effect and found it most disorientating, so much so that I had to look away.
They shut them down so that flicker does not happen on the buildings. Flicker is not an issue with local wind farms. It is part of the planning conditions.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.