Scrutable

So, that master mind of infrastructure projects has raised this idea again...

Aside from the scale of the bridge, which makes the Queensferry crossing look dinky; the depth of the waters; the grottiness of weather around there (how often would the sodding thing be closed for high winds?); Beaufort's Dyke (assuming that Port Patrick is the Scottish land fall) and its little difficulties; there is the small matter of supporting infrastructure, such as roads to it...I mean, anyone who's visited Dumfries and Galloway knows how long a drive it is to get over to Port Patrick, let alone getting up to Mull of Kintyre...I struggle to see any cost-benefit analysis showing this to be a good idea compared to improving transport infrastructure in northern England (and I'm not counting HS2, 'cos that's all in the f.cking Midlands).

Is the f.ckwit in chief serious? Or is this another obfuscatory thing and what other announcements have been sneaked out? What is the bastard up to?

The key question to ask him is whether there will be customs checks at both ends or just one

I think the answer to that is: "Oh look! A storm petrel! Aren't they small?"

An article on what lurks in the Beaufort Dyke: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... -the-deep/

Has this option been considered?

dyqik wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:43 pm

Has this option been considered?

Wow, just think of the tidal power you'd get in the Solway Firth with that

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:15 pm

An article on what lurks in the Beaufort Dyke: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... -the-deep/

That article mentions, then skirts away from, dumped nuclear waste in the Atlantic. Blimey.

plodder wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:54 pm

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:15 pm

An article on what lurks in the Beaufort Dyke: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... -the-deep/

That article mentions, then skirts away from, dumped nuclear waste in the Atlantic. Blimey.

Mark my words. Johnson will unleash the kaiju with this reckless plan.

plodder wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:54 pm

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:15 pm

An article on what lurks in the Beaufort Dyke: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... -the-deep/

That article mentions, then skirts away from, dumped nuclear waste in the Atlantic. Blimey.

Here’s some info: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/file ... 684750.pdf

dyqik wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:43 pm

Has this option been considered?

From the look of that map, Londonderry, Omagh and Enniskillen have been gifted to Ireland, Lough Neagh has become a saltwater lake and the remaining ~60% of Northern Ireland has lost it's main source of fresh water.

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:01 pm

plodder wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:54 pm

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:15 pm

An article on what lurks in the Beaufort Dyke: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... -the-deep/

That article mentions, then skirts away from, dumped nuclear waste in the Atlantic. Blimey.

Here’s some info: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/file ... 684750.pdf

Wow. That article contains a large-scale map showing a dumping site which appears to be in the English Channel close to Dover. The sea is relatively shallow in this area and I suspect it's related to Dungeness nuclear power station, an area of highly mobile sediment that's sometimes proposed for dredging of marine sediment to replace beach shingle. This would appear to be a potentially very bad idea.

Nonsense. A beach in Pembrokeshire or Cornwall will be much more radioactive than a beach of dredged up Dungeness shingle. While flying to a beach in the Caribbean will give you more radiation again.

Is this bridge not just a dead cat, to cover the fact that the Gov just told all the UK's importers and exporters how much extra red tape they'll face in Jan 2021?

AMS wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 11, 2020 1:18 pm

Is this bridge not just a dead cat, to cover the fact that the Gov just told all the UK's importers and exporters how much extra red tape they'll face in Jan 2021?

Probably.

Though the red tape statements could just be tough talk prior to the negotiations.

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 11, 2020 1:29 pm

AMS wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 11, 2020 1:18 pm

Is this bridge not just a dead cat, to cover the fact that the Gov just told all the UK's importers and exporters how much extra red tape they'll face in Jan 2021?

Probably.

Though the red tape statements could just be tough talk prior to the negotiations.

You mean tough talk before Boris backs down to exactly what the EU requires as a matter of international and EU law.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:58 pm

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 11, 2020 1:29 pm

AMS wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 11, 2020 1:18 pm

Is this bridge not just a dead cat, to cover the fact that the Gov just told all the UK's importers and exporters how much extra red tape they'll face in Jan 2021?

Probably.

Though the red tape statements could just be tough talk prior to the negotiations.

You mean tough talk before Boris backs down to exactly what the EU requires as a matter of international and EU law.

Well Boris does have form with talking tough then backing down completely.

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 11, 2020 3:19 pm

Well Boris does have form with talking tough then backing down completely.

Does that mean he is less or more likely, to lay down in front of the diggers when terminal 6 and the new runway are started?

dyqik wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:58 pm

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 11, 2020 1:29 pm

AMS wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 11, 2020 1:18 pm

Is this bridge not just a dead cat, to cover the fact that the Gov just told all the UK's importers and exporters how much extra red tape they'll face in Jan 2021?

Probably.

Though the red tape statements could just be tough talk prior to the negotiations.

You mean tough talk before Boris backs down to exactly what the EU requires as a matter of international and EU law.

He really hasn't worked out that talking tough is for when you threaten someone other than yourself

lpm wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:34 am

Nonsense. A beach in Pembrokeshire or Cornwall will be much more radioactive than a beach of dredged up Dungeness shingle. While flying to a beach in the Caribbean will give you more radiation again.

I'd be interested to see the sums. But I take your point.

plodder wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:47 pm

lpm wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:34 am

Nonsense. A beach in Pembrokeshire or Cornwall will be much more radioactive than a beach of dredged up Dungeness shingle. While flying to a beach in the Caribbean will give you more radiation again.

I'd be interested to see the sums. But I take your point.

No sums, but may be of interest. https://www.ukradon.org/information/ukmaps

Also your pottery glaze (bathroom basin, toilet, for example) will be more radioactive than most of the things in the “active” lab at my place.

Grumble wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:58 pm

Also your pottery glaze (bathroom basin, toilet, for example) will be more radioactive than most of the things in the “active” lab at my place.

Why?

It's been an interesting derail that has taught me that Radon was also known as Thoron and Actinon as it wasn't immediately clear that the same chemical was emitted from Radium, Thorium and Actinium.

Blackcountryboy wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:05 pm

plodder wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:47 pm

lpm wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:34 am

Nonsense. A beach in Pembrokeshire or Cornwall will be much more radioactive than a beach of dredged up Dungeness shingle. While flying to a beach in the Caribbean will give you more radiation again.

I'd be interested to see the sums. But I take your point.

No sums, but may be of interest. https://www.ukradon.org/information/ukmaps

That's fun. But is radon the only signifier here? If bits of a broken concrete barrel filled with 1950's rubber gloves was dredged onto a beach presumably you'd high unacceptably high local readings, far higher than natural background radiation?

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:24 pm

Grumble wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:58 pm

Also your pottery glaze (bathroom basin, toilet, for example) will be more radioactive than most of the things in the “active” lab at my place.

Why?

Because zircon sands contain uranium, and other clays and soils used for ceramics contain uranium and thorium.

This paper from the iaea discusses it:
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/nclcol ... 115606.pdf