Call for Cardiff Council to support testing of ‘nuclear mud’ dumped outside the capital

If it's safe, they can dump it in the Thames, next to the commons.

Thinking on, it really is time Wales dumped muddyLabour too!

What are "marine radioactivity specialist" Tim Deere-Jones's actual qualifications? Google gives me nothing more specific than "marine pollution consultant, environmental journalist". I hope we're not all being led up the garden path by an alliance between a scaremongering hippy and a bull-in-china-shop populist politician.

What's new..radioactive waste from england, social cleansing from england...we have to stop being a skip for what england wants to rid itself of.

Those who want to find out more about why this is such a dangerous and detrimental proposal can read the report to be found here: http://www.greenaudit.org/dumping-radioactive-mud-near-cardiff-new-report/

Dr Chris Busby is a distinguished scientist with long list of peer reviewed publications and is himself a sought-after reviewer for scientific journals in radiation biology. Of course the powerful, well funded nuclear lobby resorts to personal attacks in attempt to discredit him precisely because he represents a serious threat to them, by exposing the real risks of radiation. For example his evidence was instrumental in the defeat of Sweden's plan for Forsmark deep radioactive waste disposal, announced by Swedish court today. And Rob Bruce what are your academic credentials?

With the nuclear industry if anything goes wrong it's catastrophic. Having worked on the design of nuclear power stations with a higher engineering degree I can assure you that they have triple redundancy safety systems but nothing is totally safe just extremely low statistical possibility of something going wrong. So check and Triple check. But I wouldn't live near one myself. Just like the Bernoulli equation and technology keeping airplanes aloft if anything goes wrong you can't just park the plane, it's catastrophic, but very low probability. If there's any chance of mud being radioactive (and there is a low probability) I want it to be well away from me.

I would urge you to read the motion put to the council meeting by McEvoy.it was gibberish.this is not about radioactive waste but all about any publicity he can get out of it. His speech was pathetic (available on the webcast soon)short on facts and plenty of ifs. The motion stated that there were no tests below 5cm and the next line says there were 5 test below 5cm.(Actualy there was a test to 5m in 2009) And that found nothing. McEvoy is an embarrassment to all nationalists.

You may be right (I have not read the motion nor did I witness the speech) but the point he makes is nonetheless correct. Hinkley Point has experienced at least one significant release of radiation and much of what has been released is still there in that mud where it has produced local cancer excess in coastal population as a result of resuspension into atmosphere. Also it's not enough to wave a Geiger counter around and say 'look no problem, the gamma is close to background'. The greatest danger arises from alpha emitting microparticles that are much harder to detect, that can give cancer once breathed into lung. The best thing for all concerned is to leave this mud undisturbed. Madness to dig it up and put it close to much larger Cardiff population.

Cllr Michael was unable to.understand the difference between some testing below 5cm and testing which establishes a radioactive dose. The latter was not done and only 5 samples below 5cm were taken back in 2009. I feel it is more than reasonable to want more testing. Also, why on earth should we be dumped on at all?

McEvoy.You want any cheap publicity you can get from this only. Plaid in Cardiff have only three policy's. 1.Jump on any Bandwagon. 2.Bullshit. 3.Scaremongering. That is the full political spectrum for this opportunist. Trying to pretend you know what you are even discussing at council was funny.i could see the faces of the councillors as you spoke. Donald Trump is more believable. Not credible. Not taken seriously by one one . As Real Plaid have found out.the truth and McEvoy are strangers. Keep digging.

Oh dear the McEvoy supporters club are off making all kinds of spurious and untrue allegations about the council getting something. I am afraid the motion was all about scaremongering and cheap publicity. No one in Cardiff takes anything that Cardiff Plaid or whatever name they call themselves this week seriously. No evidence was produced to support the motion and remember McEvoy has done scaremongering before.its the one thing he can do.misinform. And to answer your question on my calling McEvoy a liar,your right In fact ,what I said was "his own party say he lies in public" Separate fact from bullshit. McEvoy is the master of bullshit and lies. It seems to me more important to his ever diminishing number of believers that it's ok for him to lie but you must not call him out. Face facts Neil McEvoy is finished in politics,still he can always join UKIP.

Mr Costas-Michael's contribution to this extremely important issue seems to have less to do with the dangers of radioactive mud taken from a nuclear power station on the Somerset coat and dumped on our coast (if it's so safe, why don't they just keep it there?) than with his own petty, personal feud with Neil McEvoy, a dispute that led to this court case over defamation: https://high-court-justice.vlex.co.uk/vid/claim-500589530). I suspect that no one else on this thread has the slightest interest in the rights or wrongs of this personal feud, which is being used here as a classic 'straw man' attempt to distract attention from the real issue. As a member of the Labour Party, I can find no defence or justification for this appalling decision by Welsh Labour to allow us to be used as a dumping ground for dangerous waste. Perhaps Mr Costas-Michael could take a break from his ongoing row with Mr McEvoy and tell us what benefits he believes this dumping of Somerset mud onto our coast will bring us? We can all see the potential downside so presumably there must be some upside, some benefit that outweighs the risk. Could he tell us what this benefit is? If there is no benefit (and I can't see one) then it is an insane decision to allow it.