• Three Official UKAEA Reports re. Dounreay
• An informative summary of Pollution by Plastics Waste Worldwide.
• Royal Oak - Slick Stuff from the Silent Service

Three reports bearing the date March 1999 and the U.K.A.E.A. imprint have been received by ECO. They are:

• UKAEA - FC 023a. CDR “Aerial Radiological Survey of the Area around Dounreay”
• UKAEA - FC 028a. CDR “Dounreay Particles”
• UKAEA - FC 029a. CDR “ Radioactivity Levels Outside the UKAEA Dounreay Site : A Summary Report”

The first has 21 numbered pages and eight additional pages of coloured statistical figures including a map of the area surveyed, and the contents include a Technical Overview, and a section explaining the ‘Basic Principles of Aerial Radiological Surveying” as well as a description of the survey, its objectives, methodology, results, and as a discussion and interpretation of results, with conclusions.

The survey was conducted in 1998 over an area of land extending about 8 km. beyond Dounreay’s site’s boundaries. Of the three types of ionising radiation - alpha, beta, and gamma - only gamma radiation can be detected by an aerial survey, as the other two types travel too short a distance through air.

The stated main objective of the survey was to establish the distribution and levels of activity of the man-made radionuclides of Caesium (Cs 137), Americium (Am 241), and Cobalt (Co 60).

The survey employed a gamma spectrometer using 32 litres of Sodium Iodide detectors mounted in a ‘Squirrel’ helicopter, flying at the recommended height of 90 metres.

The summary with which the report commences mentions that the aerial survey found evidence of radioactivity characteristic of that originating from nuclear weapons in the 1960’s and from the Chernobyl accident of 1987, but no radioactivity resulting from Dounreay’s operations that was not already known about from ground level monitoring surveys.

The second report - “ Dounreay Particles” - has 8 pages, not in this case numbered, and a further 5 pages of illustrative data: micrographs, maps, and charts.

The report is described as falling into two sections : A Summary Report addressing the main findings of the investigations carried out since 1995 on the cause and distribution of radioactive particles found since 1984 on the Dounreay foreshore, and a Technical Report describing in more detail the work carried out in reaching the main conclusions of the investigations into the origin of the particles. This second section (the Technical Report), however, is not included in UKAEA - FC 029a, but is stated to be available from mid-April (1999) on request.

The third report - “Radioactivity Levels Outside the UKAEA Dounreay Site: A Summary Report”- has 30 numbered pages plus 13 more containing 7 appendices (maps and tables), and 5 figures, these last being colour reproductions of the foreshore in aerial views annotated to indicate the locations of the particle finds.

One conclusion reached is worth quoting: “However, it has been established that the natural nuclides in the area contribute approximately 50% to the overall dose rate and Cs137 levels, from Dounreay’s discharges and fallout, comprises the remaining 50%” (sic!). Notwithstanding the odd grammar and punctuation, this appears to be a clever attempt to disguise the obvious conclusion that basically Dounreay’s presence is responsible for doubling the radiation dose experienced in the area!

These three reports are quite attractively produced, and well worth reading, albeit that the obscurity and unfamiliarity of the units of radiological measurement used by the nuclear industry prevent a ready understanding by a lay reader of the implications.

One dubious aspect, of course, relates to the use by the nuclear industry of the term “ significant” in such phrases as “levels well below those which represent significant risks to people or the environment”. This usage is presumably always in the context of what is legally permitted, and has no basis in actuality, for it is believed by such writers on nuclear matters as, for example, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, that there is no safe level of exposure to ionising radiation.

It is, nevertheless, encouraging to see this new openness on the part of the nuclear industry in examining its own activities and their potential impact on the public and the environment which these reports represent. Let us hope that this signifies the beginning of the end of the bad old era of secrecy and self-justification on the nuclear industry’s part which has always had such a damaging effect on its public image.

These reports are available free of charge on application to the Public Relations Office of the UKAEA at the Dounreay site. (Telephone no. 01847-802233) Another well supported Bag the Bruck operation recently confirmed that the Human Race (including, I’m afraid the Orkney public) has not lost its bad manners. In fact, those who drew the short straw and manfully cleared the beach next to the Weyland Bay sewage outfall would probably say that that some of the population are intent on destroying the planet by next week!

As usual the main culprit was plastic in one form or another. In beach surveys done world wide more than 90% of articles of rubbish found contained plastic - and Orkney is no exception. Locally, the most obvious and damaging debris can be traced to that usual suspect - the fishing industry and possibly its recent partner in crime - the fish farm. Nets, ropes large and small, with hundreds of varying lengths of nylon or polypropylene twine filled many a volunteer’s sack as they cleared the shoreline. Will next year be any better? Probably not if the local authority grants more licences to that “environmentally friendly” industry of fish farming.

But let’s get back to our subject. Plastics become an environmental problem when we no longer need them and the way we dispose of them. As plastic does not decompose, except possibly over the very long term, the amount of plastic waste in the environment is steadily increasing.

The marine environment is very sensitive to any extreme changes and plastic debris can disturb the fragile balance in the ecosystem. A recent U.S. report revealed that 100,000 marine mammals die each year in the world’s oceans by eating or becoming entangled in plastic rubbish. Wildfowl and sea creatures are hurt or killed when they mistakenly eat or become entangled in plastics. Once the wildlife get ensnared in plastic debris, they face starvation, exhaustion, infection from wounds or drowning. Plastics were found in every single type of of surface feeding bird and there is a clear correlation between plastics ingestion and reduced body weight in sea birds.

Looking at the amount of plastics used all over the world, and especially in the developing countries, many questions are being raised by environmentalists on the effects of plastic. Many have suggested a ban. But banning of plastic will not reduce the amount of our waste.Instead, we need to encourage recycling of packing materials, be they plastic, paper, metal or glass. The basic aim is to replace this plastic with materials that are biodegradable, recyclable and that can be incinerated safely.

There are two types of plastics, Thermoplastics and Thermosetting polymers.The Thermoplastics are used for making bottles, cups, plastic sheets, films,packing and piping.The Thermosetting polymers are used for adhesives, electrical components. fibreglass products etc.Thermoplastics can be recycled relatively easily, but Thermosetting polymers cannot be recycled.

For proper recycling of plastic, cooperation between people, industry and government is needed. Awareness among people about the negative side of plastics need to be developed. The basic problem with plastic is its excessive use on one hand and its careless disposal on the other. Proper waste disposal techniques and recycling methods need to be developed.

Part of an article: “Plastic, the Silent Pollutant” by Vikas Gora. in ATHEIST magazine (Published in Vijayawada, A.P. India. April 1999 by the Indian Atheist Centre). February’s gales were strong but ‘predictable’ (to use NATO military parlance). The swell generated in the North East Scapa Flow by persistent Westerly winds can be quite powerful and as the Royal Oak lies in comparatively shallow water, the wave effect may well extend down as far as the ship’s hull.

Late February found the return of the familiar sheen, this time accompanied by tar residues which drifted ashore, around the buoy marking the wreck. The Orkney Islands Council Harbour Authority had difficulty in taking good samples from the light slick, but all indications showed that oil was once again flowing from the Royal Oak. A diver’s inspection confirmed that the canopy, fixed in late 1998 to collect any leaking oil, had broken free and lay useless at the ship’s side.

So what now? - from here on the acronyms fly thick and fast - The DOH (Director of Harbours) of OIC has advised ECO that the MOD has appointed DERA (Department of Evaluation and Research Authority) to carry out modelling at their facilities either at Wallingford or Haslar in order to ascertain the effect of wave action at the site of the wreck. Also hydrodynamic tests are to be carried out by the MOD contractors Briggs Marine to see if the canopy will work! As Captain Bob Moore (DOH) suggested, it might have been prudent to investigate these matters prior to the installation. ERT of Stromness has also been contacted to establish the rate of leakage of the oil.

Rear Admiral Gregory, FOSNENI (that’s Flag Officer Scotland, Northern England and Northern Ireland) will be in Orkney for a few days during the latter part of April. Harbour Department officials will make sure that the Royal Navy is left in no doubt as to the urgency of the problem.

Meanwhile, the familiar oily sheen remorselessly drifts on, sometimes to merge with the distillery waste of the Ratty Burn outfall.

SEPA (final acronym) where are you?