My opinion on this is that the repository (not dump) can only be a positive thing for Cumbria. The nuclear industry in Cumbria already provides employment for many many people, not only directly but with many other local businesses being contracted to work as part of the nuclear industry.

The underground storage facility can only be safer than the current arrangements, as most of the waste is currently on the Sellafield site stored above ground (according to: http://www.westcumbriamrws.org.uk/documents/251-Draft_Opinion_Survey_Questionnaire_for_Public_Comment_6_-_20_Feb_2012.pdf). And it can only be an advantage that we know the complexity of the geology of the area now so that the necessary arrangements can be made during the design and planning to ensure that the structure and secure storage remains integral for as long as may be required.

The public should not be mollycoddled into thinking that they are hearing all the facts from these biased experts that they are listening to. There are many positives to this project as well as the negatives, but if these are managed correctly the repository should be seen as an asset to Cumbria, it's residents and the economy.

I attended the lecture and found it very bias and selective with some assumptions. One been long lands was no good, even though it was not even tested as the application for a rock characterisation lab was not even agreed. Even without that for smythe to say because of this all of west Cumbria is not suitable is disingenuous. Whatever this community decides is fine but at leaste allow us to make the decision with all the facts.

I went to this lecture and found Smythes talk very biased and it conveniently avoids much of the truth about the geology of Cumbria. Whether or not we go for a deep repository, his kind of spin is not helpful as part of the argument.

My idea for safe storage of all types of nuclear wastes, handles all of the related problems for a surface facility that rivals a deep underground repository, as well can store Nuclear Waste for one million years, the idea is simple and inexpensive, yet there is know interest in this Idea as it solves the nuclear waste storage problem, one has to look, and relaize too many would be out of work, and the government would not get those needed votes.

The Eco Centre did a head count - over 200 people packed into the hall - not 100 as the above article states.

Prof David Smythe was joined by Prof Stuart Hazseldine who made the point that "groundwater will return to the surface within a few decades, if hot temperature, high level waste is also buried. That heat will also make the land surface rise. No earthquakes or extra rainfall are needed".

Councillor Timothy Knowles has been misinformed by the MRWS. The International Guidelines for an as yet unfeasible high level nuclear dump have been agreed by:
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA; pre Nirex 1995 Inquiry guidelines)
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (with Pangea, 1997-2002)
IAEA – new draft guidelines
European Union
British Geological Survey
Finnish Geological Survey
None of them put voluntarism ahead of a systematic geological search.

So the "generally accepted" criteria are:

The host rock is NOT so important at the first stage
The regional setting of the site IS most important
Long geological stability
Low hydraulic gradients
Simple geology
Suitable geology precedes community assent / veto

So -West Cumbria is out of kilter with the "generally accepted" criteria.

Cumbria is being led along the toxic garden path - step by excruting step

What is it with West Cumbria and their love of Nuclear Waste, they spoil it for the rest of us in this beautiful County!

No more nuclear.

Good grief -did the 'Managing Rad Waste Safely' PR team write this article?

There were over 200 people there according to the Eco Centre's own head count.

Professor Smythe was joined on the evening by Prof Stuart Haszeldine who has said "this groundwater will return to the surface much faster, within a few decades, if hot temperature, high level waste is also buried. That heat will also make the land surface rise. No earthquakes or extra rainfall are needed".

The geology of Cumbria is only "suitable" in the hungry eyes of the MRWS (ie government)

The following organisations have agreed, on the same principles (bearing in mind that geological dumping of high level wastes has not yet and may never be carried out anywhere in the world)

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA; pre Nirex 1995 Inquiry guidelines)
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (with Pangea, 1997-2002)
IAEA – new draft guidelines
European Union
British Geological Survey
Finnish Geological Survey
None of them put voluntarism ahead of a systematic geological search.

Summary of Criteria

The host rock is NOT so important at the first stage
The regional setting of the site IS most important
Long geological stability
Low hydraulic gradients
Simple geology
Suitable geology precedes community assent / veto

So West Cumbria is out of kilter with several of the "generally accepted" criteria and is being led up the toxic garden path step by step by step