Marine life ‘put at risk’
Friday 24th April 2009, 3:00PM BST.
Lara Luke, Andrew Syvret and Dave Cabeldu at the Environment Scrutiny hearing. Picture by David Ferguson (00675425)
DAMNING claims have been made which suggest that huge dangers are being posed to the Island’s marine life by construction work on the Waterfront.
Campaigners from the Save Our Shoreline group made their claims at a Scrutiny panel hearing yesterday which was looking into the possible effects on the Ramsar site of the new £100m energy-from-waste plant at La Collette.
The group said that the system used to store toxic ash at La Collette was ‘not fit for purpose’ and may be causing heavy metal contaminants to leach into the environment.
When giving evidence to the Environment Scrutiny panel they cast doubt on the safety of the methods being used to store toxic materials excavated from the Castle Quay construction site and from the new incinerator.
They claimed that heavy metals were being transferred by tidal flows to the seabed. In time, these would affect marine life, including shellfish.
Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are also available online.
Travel
To, from and around the Island
Airport Arrivals/Departures
Harbours Arrivals/Departures
Bus Information/Timetables
JOIN US ON...
Facebook and Twitter
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Got a story? Get in touch
KIT 4 CLUBS
Win a share of £10,000
2012 is the year of the London Olympics and to celebrate this great event the Jersey Evening Post, in association with sponsors Ogier is giving all sporting clubs a chance to win a share of £10,000.
This is Jersey
Jersey Evening Post
Useful links
Why was it sited there when Bellozanne is central transport wise, and why was the so much cheaper cleaner Plasma gassification option that produces no toxic fly ash and produces six times more electricity rejected…?
Don’t beleive..? go see Richland plasma gasification on Youtube…4mins 22secs.
Report abuse
I have problem with the Save Our Shoreline group and their objections. The target for objection appears to ne the new energy from waste incinerator where the real problem is the toxic waste. It is not the incinerator which produces toxic waste, but it is you and I.
RAMSAR scores 10/10 for objection but 0/10 for solutions.
Report abuse
This is could be another disaster in the making for which no one is responsible.
Report abuse
Mark Le Sueur 2. couldn’t be more wrong. I suggest he looks at old States Minutes where SOS put forward a practical solution based on sound scientific principles ,to contain the ash in sealed pits where it could be monitored and checked (I am being necessarily brief here).. The result was Public Services employed WS Atkins (I think) at £250K++ to come up with a solution… the result sealed pits where ash could be monitored etc etc…
You have to remember that Prof.Mulready (emeritus) had pronounced that all critisism was wrong and that straight dumping into the sea exposed areas would be perfectly safe as there was no evidence to the contrary… which was correct… because no one else in the world had been stupid enough to do it and the Paris an Oslo Conventions (OSPAR) specifically prohibited it.!!
Report abuse
Do you trust the States to get this right? I don’t. Anyone remember the leachate debacle?
Report abuse
well said Mark.
Not even gassification will destroy heavy metals.
Dont think we can rely on youtube for reliable scientific information.
Of course I could post something on the internet claiming to have a totally clean process with no residual waste, will take anything which is thrown at it, will produce 10 times more electricity than any other process. at a cost of say 20 million. Now of course for the states to have any chance of this brilliant technology, I will want most of the cash up front. then a few years down the line when the plant does not work, I’ll have done a runner, leaving a limited company to go bust, but I wont care I’ll be sunning myself on a nice beach with a large cool drink.
Lets get real, there are lots of people claiming great processes, but where are the full scale processes running with similar waste streams as Jersey? They dont exist they cherrypick what waste can process, then say how great their process is. If their process cant handle a particular waste, they send it to be landfilled or sent somewhere else. Not an option here.
Report abuse
If I was an oyster/mussels farmer at La Rocque by god I would be worried
Report abuse
I would be more worried if I were to eat either of the above. Pollutants will travel with the tidal currents, how do we know what pollutants are entering the ramsar site from the reclamation site?
As per heavy metal I love it but I hate heavy metals as they cause ecological damage especially to marine life.
Report abuse
Why did nobody care about all the Creatures who lost their homes in the sand and stones that have been covered by all the waterfront expansion? Species such as Ragworm (known locally as Redcat)and many others lost their half tide environment under landfill. The same at La Collette.
Where were all the concerned marine biologists then? Or didn’t they even know that the unfortunate marine animals lived there?
These are questions which need answering.
Report abuse
If this is correct should we avoid eating any local fish or shellfish? Especially as there is also the E.coli scare currently.
Report abuse
RG Bougourd 9. Is wrong too!! I had a number of stand up rows with the late Senator Derek Carter of Public Services.His final line that the States accepted was that the new rock boundary would be bigger and better than the area it replaced!! That of course was utter twaddle.
Report abuse
well it is not often than one can be pleased to be told one is wrong but on this occasion I am delighted.
That’s because I was unaware that “Hiding under a rock” had tried to save the very critters that I mentioned in my previous post.
Yes, H.U.A.R., I too would have been annoyed at the suggestion that enlarging the circumference of the coastline would somehow improve it.
Exactly the same trick was tried with the London Green Belt. “We will move it further out thereby making it much larger”.
No mention of the fact that the original one would lose its function and become building land!
Report abuse
Thanks RB Bougourd .You should note that the ‘new’to be announced formally, extension to La Collette will cut into the RAMSAR boundary (wrongly positioned ,so this now gives us an opportunity to place it correctly! is the Rowlocks this time). My Father/Grand Father/Great GrandFather all swam at the Low Cement , how ironic that name now is!
Report abuse
Ah the low cement!
The entire La Collette expansion is a toal disgrace as far as spoiling the shoreline is concerned.
Although not outstandingly beautiful unlike some other bays, the area around the “low cement” and out to sea towards the Dogs Nest had some very interesting rock formations and some good secluded sunbathing areas. Jersey being Jersey they were designated “men only”.
Perhaps if female naturists had been allowed to sample the ambience there might have been a stronger lobby against landfill.
I can see Ramsar getting walked all over and then getting built all over by the “Growth is Great” movement.
Make no mistake, some would have an airport, industrial estates, out of town shopping malls, the list is limited only by the dreams of avarice, surrounded by a new sea wall from Elizabeth Castle to St Catherines via La Conchiere and Karame. Oops, I forgot Le Fondre’s
barrage as well.
I am astounded by people who consider the low tide seascape in the south to be ugly and uninviting. Perhaps they should take some time
down there on a big tide in the summer.
Hopefully the island itself will survive attempts by Jersey the community to destroy it.
Report abuse