Flooding in Cork

by maire - CHASE Wed Dec 23, 2009 00:17

Cork Harbour Alliance
For A Safe Environment
www.chaseireland.org

PRESS RELEASE - 22 December, 2009

Hammond Lane Explosion Highlights Need For Planning Sanity

Several Units of the Firebrigade struggled for over an hour and a half to bring flames from an explosion at the Hammond Lane metalworks in Ringaskiddy under control this evening. The Hamond Lane site is enclosed on three sides by the site on which Indaver Ireland plan to build hazardous and municipal waste incinerators.

The explosion, which happened shortly before 5pm, was heard throughout Ringaskiddy and visible from Cobh. An eyewitnesses from Ringaskiddy said "The blaze has been going strong for an hour and a half, fumes are absolutely noxious, there are about 10 fire-brigades battling with the fire, and explosions keep happening all the time."

Concerned residents in Cobh have tried to find out what is burning, however CHASE Chairperson Mary O'Leary said "There is no environmental service available. Phones have rung out in the EPA and Cork County Council, as big black palls of smoke still pour across Cork Harbour towards Cobh.

More than ever this highlights the need for planning sanity - this is an explosion right in the middle of a would be incinerator site, where highly flammable hazardous wastes are to be stored, and which is already classified as a high risk Seveso site. The hazard posed is unacceptable to people living and working in Cork Harbour. That hazard has been brought to life this afternoon, and we need An Bord Pleanala to recognise this."

by maire - CHASE Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:51

Could not agree with you more. This was brought up again and again with anyone who would listen at oral hearings and with the EPA. Indaver recently through their spokeperson J. Hennessy denied that their site flooded, -' only the road '. please refer to the photos in the Gallery of the Chase website www.chaseireland.org showing clearly that the road floods OK but also their site itself. Insurance companies please take note.

by Rational Ecologist Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:19

Have you looked at who is going to insure this facility? They will need insurance against floods and storm-surges. I don't think any insurance company, in their right mind, will insure Indaver.
The insurance companies are becoming very concerned by Climate Change ( enhanced ) and I think it would be productive to explore this angle.

by maire Sat Dec 12, 2009 00:30

John,
I had a walk myself down in Ringaskiddy, and looked at Gobi beach.
Wondered at the family walking their dog on the beach, and how things could change for them with the simply loss of this facility, by the building of two incinerators on a confined site which is prone to flooding.
If we are really planning for the future it can never happen, the incinerators would endanger the public.
The flooding from storm surges I am afraid is predicted by scientists, and more frequently.

by John Mon Dec 07, 2009 20:36

Took a drive down to Ringaskiddy yesterday to look at the sea and check on the trees that have been planted there on the site over the last 5 years or so.
They're all looking rather nice, starting to show above the brambles all around the foot entrance to the site.

by Rational Ecologist Mon Dec 07, 2009 17:01

Hello Splash. In answer to your question:I have been DOING a hell of a lot, as it happens! My attempt to open a debate on tactics is a valid one. This may not be the forum for that, however.
The question of the next step is vital. I have always been a supporter of CHASE( in practical ways ). I hope I am proven wrong but if not, we have to consider where this goes from here.

by Splash Mon Dec 07, 2009 14:58

Rational, for all its millions thrown around and for all your opinion about playing the rules being a waste Invader still hasn't got a digger into the site after ten years of trying.

That's down to CHASE and others imho.

What have you been doing yourself?

by Rational Ecologist Mon Dec 07, 2009 14:37

Hi Jo Jo. In your scenario the incinerator has been built, I'm afraid that that would be a nightmare. No point being wise after-the-fact. I am keen to get a debate going on this issue, and others, on the tactics used and the playing " by their rules " approach. I notice no-one from CHASE has addressed my question to this effect.

by jo jo Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:41

Maybe if flood waters come up their ankles, and up to their knees, contaminated with toxins they may feel the evil.

by SEAGULL Sun Dec 06, 2009 13:50

That sums up Indaver's attitude to flooding in Cork Harbour. Cork people have spend half a million euros over eight years trying to tell these people what they do not want to hear. They can't build their incinerators in Ringaskiddy.

by Splash Sat Dec 05, 2009 20:59

Invader has been trying for nine years to get the builders onto this site. It has spent millions in the effort.

It still hasn't made it.

by Rational Ecologist Thu Dec 03, 2009 09:35

Maire. Is it not completely and blatantly obvious that the powers-that-be are not listening?
Are we not in denial here? They haven't listened for 7 years so why should they start now. The floods angle will not-I hope I am wrong-stop this insane development. What's the next option? More money for solicitors and so-called experts. Playing the game by their rules does not work. A more radical approach is needed. By that I mean, the local community reclaiming their community and calling this system what it is-INSANE.
I really hope I am proved wrong, however, I fear I won't be.
Engineering solutions will be brought forward and that will deal with the flood, in the eyes of the public.
I wish you well.

by maire Thu Dec 03, 2009 01:44

Splash, I really do hope they are listening.

Jane Hennessy, Communications Manager, Indaver Ireland, in the Irish Times, states that their expert flooding advisor proposes to raise the height of a key section of land on the Ringaskiddy site by two metres to "provide for sophisticated water management systems on site." What the hell does that mean?A euphemism for flooding by rising tides. ?

Trying to alleviate the threat of flooding to an OPW recognised flooding site (twice flooding in the last five years) is flying in the face of all warnings of risk by virtue of climate change. .It is an enormous building with a toxic transfer station near the road and bus stop and is on top of a crumbling coast line.

God help us if they are not listening.

by Splash Wed Dec 02, 2009 20:13

Máire people are listening

by Rational Ecologist Tue Dec 01, 2009 13:40

Incineration is the concrete expression of the insanity of our consumption-culture. We may argue about floods and other practical issues, which indeed we are correct to do, however, what we need is a more radical analysis of the way we live. We abuse the planet and we abuse children on a daily, casual basis. Ours is a deeply flawed, sociopathic system and we need to say so-OUT LOUD.
I hope the floods issue defeats the incinerator, however, if it doesn't do we continue to enrich the legal profession?

by maire Fri Nov 27, 2009 00:05

If you had knowledge on how to avoid a catastrophic flood in the future, you would spread the word.
Well, representatives of 30,000 people in the Cork area have told the Authorities, the planners, the EPA that a developer is attempting to build a toxic incinerator with a transfer station on a listed OPW flooding site, a site predicted to experience in the future frequent storm surges and flooding but nobody is listening.

by Galway Tent Thu Nov 26, 2009 17:13 galwaytent at gmail dot com

>>" Yes, as Rational Ecologist Rightly states, incineration KILLS, but the authorities seem not to recognise that"

The authorities *DO* recognise that incineration creates micro-particles which kill.
Think about that.

Hints: Fools or Crooks, Fools and Crooks.

-----------

Science:
http://galwaytent.blogspot.com/2009/09/italian-science-....html

Green Party:
Floods allow J Gormley, D Boyle & Greens to wash their hands of the EPA:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qdRqFPGZw2o/ShCip-V-reI/AAAAAAAABjM/xzj2oo4ta_Q/s400/EPA_Insider_002.jpg

Green Party: EPA-Ireland is Utterly Compromised.
http://galwaytent.blogspot.com/2008/12/green-party-cull....html

by Linda Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:45

Yes, as Rational Ecologist Rightly states, incineration KILLS, but the authorities seem not to recognise that. And the decision due next week is supposed to be a GOOD PLANNING decision. Putting a incinerator on a floodplain, as well as being conrary to WHO guidelines is clearly a BAD Planning decision.

The WHO guidelines for siting hazardous waste facilities says that these facilities shouldn't be built on flood plains. Indaver seem to think that it says engineer a solution, but it doesn't, it says don't build.

It isn't a case obviously of put it somewhere else on a higher site, the recently launched Internatioal Policy Review recommendations, should negate the need for incinerators, and certainly make them a very high risk for any investor.

But it's this proposal, this site, that we await a decision on, with one week to go, that has flooded. Surely, this is a sign that the higher power above has already made a decision.

by maire Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:29

I am all for planting trees all over Ireland, and I know from the knowledge I have read that incineration - burning resources will kill, through respiratory illnesses. but flooding deserves to be looked at in isolation with planning. We have been urged to -

Adopt a sequential approach to flood risk management and guide
development away from areas that have been identified as being at risk through
flood risk assessment; In areas of high risk, for example you should see water
compatible developments such as docks and marinas, amenity open space,
outdoor sports and recreation, while other more vulnerable development should
be directed towards areas of minimal or no flood risk..
Local knowledge of flooding in areas is being totally ignored, Who takes responsibility for bad planning.

by Pooka McFee - Nameless Faery Horde, Wed Nov 25, 2009 00:43

A good opportunity for our organisation to make the point that if you humans want to help the situation you need to plant trees. In the short term it gives you hope. In the medium term the trees will help to bind the soil together and slow down the water. In the long term they may even help stabilise the climate and repair some of the imbalance that you are helping create.
You do not need permission for this. You know it is necessary.
Get on with it and show some inter-species solidarity.

by Rational Ecologist Tue Nov 24, 2009 15:34

Is the suggestion that they build on a hilly site, elsewhere in the state or is the opposition to incineration per se?
A site like this can be flood-proofed. There are, I have no doubt. engineering solutions.
My opposition is against incineration under any circumstances.
There is a cancer epidemic, that is my concern.
Be careful of this tactic, which while valid could be counterproductive.
Incineration KILLS!!!!