Saturday, 30 November 2013

Manston Airport changes hands, first indicators of any new directions.

Yesterday Infratil sold Manston – Kent International Airport to Ann Gloag and intial indicators are that she is going down the road of trying to make the airport viable as an airport.

As far as I can see from the various news articles Ann Gloag has added Alastair Welch to the board on Manston Airport, I am fairly certain that it was Alastair Welch who ran Southend airport.





I guess for me the key issue with Manston Airport is their ongoing failures to become environmentally compliant, the main issue being the failure to the work necessary to obtain an environmental permit (EP) from the environment agency. I have posted about this one in the past and here is the link to one of my previous posts about it http://thanetonline.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/kent-international-airport-at-manston_10.html

The history of Manston Airport as a commercial airport goes back to the 1960s and frankly it hasn’t been a good history from a commercial point of view, the first commercial operator there Air Ferries floundered in 1968, the picture above is of a DC 4 loading at Manston, Air Ferries operated several out of Manston and most of them left Manston and arrived on runways at other airports, apart from Oscar Golf that flew into some trees on the approach at Frankfurt killing everyone onboard, and Kilo Yankee that flew into a mountain killing everyone onboard.

One of the main snags with Manston is that most air accidents take place near the runway and with Manston the town of Ramsgate sits at the end of the main runway.

The other large snag with Manston in terms safety is that it sits on to of the underground drinking water reservoir.

The main commercial snag for the airport is that it is mostly surrounded by sea so it is a disadvantage in terms of catchment area  compared with rival airports in southeast England.


Obviously no one would build a commercial airport with the disadvantages that Manston has and I think in the past there have been cases where airport operators have bought Manston Airport without understanding these problems.

I think the main difference this time around is that the new airport buyer Ann Gloag has most likely bought the airport while being fully aware of its problems.  


I am inclined to look at this sort of deal along the lines of – if I wasn’t a shop assistant – whether I would consider doing the deal myself.

In this insistence I can’t see how it would be possible to lose money on the deal, in the first instance the southeastern UK is entering a period of major hub airport expansion, either this will involve expanding one of the existing airports or building a new hub airport. This is likely to lead to periods when the existing airports can’t cope with the traffic, so there is a fair chance that in the short to medium term of if not making a profit then at least minimising losses.    

And in the second instance if she can’t make it succeed, either selling it on or splitting the assets and selling must result in a profit. 
More to come on this one, basically dependent on how busy my bookshop is today. 

I guess the underlying question for us locals is would having a successful airport be beneficial to the area?

Obviously as the airport has never been a successful commercial airport, there is a sense that we don’t really know the answer.

Certainly one of the most difficult problems economically is having a large business in the area with one key aspect being total uncertainty about the direction it is going in.   


212 comments:

  1. Excellent news! It's what Thanet needs.

    ReplyDelete
  2. She's obviously not aware of the water supply under the runway. Or like Infratil is hoping that TDC snd KCC will help cover up the pollution problems.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is good news. I wish Manston well. Ann Gloag has a proven track record as an entrepreneur.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good news about more Manston pollution? And Gloag hsd never run an airport. And Infratil failed even by removing the monitors.

    The Police need to be all over Manston as Tdc and Kiacc and KCC have failed to protect the public.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anon I believe the stories show that Ann Gloag used to own Manston at one time

    ReplyDelete
  6. Gloag used to own Manston? Are you sure Barry?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Infratil had a proven track record of make 20% plus returns for their investors across a wide section of business including airports. \then along came Manston.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Clearly turning round Manston is not going to be easy after years in the doldrums, but Alistair Welch has proven expertise in the field. Add the fact that the KLM new service is achieving the passenger targets planned and there is probably more hope than there has been for some time.

    I like the idea of using it as a Master Diversion Airfield for Heathrow and Gatwick as, whatever the ultimate decision on the London airports capacity, there is bound to be a period when work on new airports/runways will create a need for back up elsewhere.

    Let us also hope that a new owner, seeking backing from KCC and the government, will want to ensure the airport complies with EA requirements. A boost to this East Kent corner is much needed, but it needs to be done with proper consideration to environmental issues and good neighbourliness.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More public funds should be invested in Manston?

      Delete
    2. Was the KLM passenger target for the Amsterdam service really just 3,800 a month, William? (See CAA statistics)
      New owner needn't worry about the certainty of what you describe as backing from the KCC and what others might call more of our money being handed over to a private concern. The county council has "form"in this respect.

      Delete
    3. Infratil had more annual profit than the entire KCC budget. Which numpty councillors thought they needed public funds too

      Delete
    4. Thought you said Infratil had made a loss.

      Delete
    5. No. Infratil group made the above profit. But manston was a loss. We don't yet know the full value of public funds put into manston. Not good is it?

      Delete
    6. Paul Carter told us Manston was safe as planes flew straight out to sea and was drumming up Government money with Buchanhan knowing monitors were removed and pollution levels dangerously high. And is with Gale in calling for a Parkway railway station at Manston.

      Both of them seem to be dumping on Thanet while being paid from our tax.

      Delete
  9. It will be good news if the water remains safe, she can make a profit and (most importantly) Thanet benefits from this. Just because the airport is here it is not a foregone conclusion that we will see the benefits along with the risks. Only time will tell on this one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How can Thanet NOT benefit from a successful airport?

      Delete
    2. The sooner manston closes and Buchanan is arrested the better.

      Delete
    3. Manston's on the up dear boy! If you don't like it I suggest you move away.

      Delete
    4. Of course it is Pete do you have any other words of wisdom for investors or cancer victims

      Delete
    5. Yes, they could always invest in Ramsgate restaurants.

      Delete
    6. Pete, he is already trying to move away because his house at 106 South Eastern Road Ramsgate is on the market with Gibsons. He knows Manston is on the up really.

      Delete
    7. Nice area. How much is it going for?

      Delete
    8. You forgot the cancer victims Peter. Any advice for them over Manston.

      Delete
    9. 1.02 PM, £350,000 on Gibson's web site.

      Delete
    10. Anon 1:08, I am a cancer victim, currently undergoing treatment, and I find your comments offensive and distasteful. I come on here for a bit of relaxation, not to be constantly reminded.

      Delete
    11. There certainly is a lot of cancer from Manston cancer victim. You must be upset thr safety measures were removed by the council and Infratil? What kind of cancer do you have?

      Delete
    12. Anon 1:25, this is not a subject for open discussion, but I am not upset with the council or Infratil. I am sorry now that I smoked in my early adult life, maybe I used to drink too much, my diet has not always been sensible and for years I led a very sedentary life style. Any one or a combination of those factors could have contributed.

      Delete
    13. 350k for a house? Manston is only a quid and that's acres and acres. The land registry detais all property values any other interesting one? Lauras must be on the market soon. 400k for Spencer Sq?

      Delete
    14. You brought it up for discussion cancer victim and you are anon here. An airport with illegal safety standards would be a key factor especially for children. Are your children affected? There are lots of rare cancer cases in thanet

      Delete
    15. Does peter live near manston? What is his house worth?

      Delete
    16. You like to ask me questions, but you refuse to answer any of mine. So I'll try again: why don't you get a blogger ID and sign in? That way I'll be happier to chat to you.

      Looking forward to your reply.

      Delete
    17. Property on Stone Road is valued at 379k for example too.

      Delete
    18. Can't be bothered to get a blogger id or to chat with you as you cannot explain why manston is on the up

      Delete
    19. Because I'm an upbeat optimist instead of a downbeat pessimist, dear boy. I also have faith in the woman who took over it.

      A bit out of my price range 1:58. I'll stick to my lovely studio flat with a sea view for £75 per week.

      Delete
    20. Gloag won't run manston she's hired Welch. Shes in her 70s and retired and knows as much abou airports as you. Not sure any compsny can just buy and run an airport?

      Delete
    21. Somebody (like 1:58) obviously believes the drive by valuations put on property by Zoopla. Property values in Stone Road could vary from about £130,00 to £850,000 and you would need to see inside to give an accurate figure.

      Delete
    22. Thor would affect the values too?

      Delete
    23. Nonsense 5:25 interior conditions rarely affect house prices much. Number 12 was the £379K value or sale. Many of the houses there are retirement homes so can have different values.

      Delete
    24. So what, anon, and since when were you a property valuer. Inside condition, improvements, modern kitchens, original features can all effect house values. Many houses in Stone Road are not retirement homes, but there are a mix of flats, town houses, bungalows, semi and detached, post 60s, Georgian, Victorian and 20s. The North Foreland end probably attracts better prices than the Broadstairs end and gardens and garages also have a bearing. Why pick on 12 and number 8 has just sold for £435,000. Do some research if you want to talk property values.

      Delete
    25. And since when were you a property valuer 7:46? especially as you agree that interior decor is usually less significant in the property cost. And Stone Road is a retirement area with converted houses/retirement homes and the resulting fall in value with along with ambulances day and night and fall in the economy. And the Thor mercury pollution must be a concern there. And gosh the street has houses built over different eras? Well I never. Number 12 seems of little value compared to 8 seeing as you point it out.

      Delete
    26. Cllr Epps lives at 12. He's of little value too.

      Delete
    27. I love the idea of a "property valuer" as if this is some kind of profession. Estate agents value properties on the basis of what similar local properties are selling for. If the bottom drops out of the property market, the property is worth a lot less than they valued it for. In other words, property has an intrinsic value but this value is nowhere near what properties in the UK actually sell for. When you value a property you are just guessing what someone would pay for it. We can all do that.

      P.S. the stuff inside a house plays a part in making it saleable but has very little to do with the price you can sell it for. Sales prices are driven in the main by numbers of rooms, potential to expand, space, parking and location, location, location.

      Delete
    28. Values placed for lending purposes are by qualified members of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. Hitherto there was also a Valuers Institute and a Chartered Auctioneers institute but they merged into the RICS some years ago. Chartered Surveyors are a profession necessitating the passing of examinations over a number of years. Some also hold a degree in estate management.

      Estate agents, on the other hand, are mainly unqualified and do market appraisals rather than true valuations.

      Delete
  10. You mean the airport is on top of the drinking water and none of our councillors think this is bad?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But at least Laura has resigned because of your comments, well done nut job!

      Delete
    2. Laura has resigned because of the manston drinking water scandal?

      Delete
    3. That's what our regular "anon" seems to think (see ECR's blog). Obviously I don't want to spoil his moent of glory, even if it is imagined...

      Delete
    4. What is the glory in Manston or Laura or pollution water?

      Delete
    5. OK, here's another question for you... what do you honestly think is the most unhealthy out of these two:

      (a) A healthy diet, plenty of cardio-vascular exercise and Thanet tap water.

      (b) Sitting indoors overweight, getting stressed at a computer all day, but avoiding Thanet tap water.

      I know which one works for me.

      Do yourself a big favour: turn your computer off, go for a long walk or bike ride, have a banana sandwich, listen to some fun music such as Showaddywaddy, get your other half to pose for some nudie pics - and have a glass or two of water. Repeat at least 3 times per week. You might actually find you feel pretty damn good.

      Delete
    6. you sure about the posing bit Peter?

      Delete
    7. You could always do a swap and pose for her / him Barry! ; )

      Delete
    8. Meaning your other half of course.

      Delete
    9. Ok, in your case both of you just stick to the bike rides, banana sandwiches and Showaddywaddy.

      Delete
    10. The only problem with your funny view Peter is that the water is meant to be clean. And children cant follow your health regime. You've forgotten the air pollution too.

      Delete
    11. I think kids (even today) can cycle, eat banana sandwiches and listen to Showaddywaddy, though I suspect most of them won't be so keen on the latter! Seriously, STRESS is the biggest killer of them all. That's probably why pipe smokers tend to live longer, as they're generally less stressed people.

      Delete
    12. The main problem that Peter Checksfield has in discussing the Manston issue is that he doesn't know anything about it. He has clearly done no research whatsoever, and is just making things up which he thinks sound good. Unfortunately for him, a cursory glance at what he has written reveals him to lack any vestige of common sense. Any sensible person is not going to make a choice between exercise and clean water. It is obvious that you need both. The fittest person in the world can be brought to their knees by contaminated water. You really have to be some kind of nutter to believer that contamination of the aquifer can be mitigated by eating banana sandwiches and going for long bike rides.

      Delete
    13. Well I've lived in Thanet on and off for nearly 27 years, and I drink at least a couple of mugs of tap water EVERY day (as well as tea and other hot drinks). Doesn't seem to have done me much harm so far. In fact I haven't even had a bad cold in over 10 years!

      Delete
    14. That's good enough for me Pete how do I join your health club? With the Pipesmoker its reassuring to know idiots can live full lives. I am getting my kids a pipe and a bike tomorrow.

      Delete
    15. Your kids don't already have a bike???

      Delete
    16. He doesn't even have kids because he has been firing blanks for years.

      Delete
  11. Or become a pipesmoker. At five bowls or fewer per day you have a longer healthier life expectancy than a non-smoker.

    What does seem established is Thanet's high rate of ectopic pregnancy and I think polycystic ovary syndrome.

    The question justifies a proper epidemiological study looking at the disease patterns and the effects of chronic exposure to cyclohexanone in the drinking water. What is not known is whether the print manufacturer leak to groundwater was from 1963 to discovery in 1993 or whether it was between 1988 and 1993. The hospital consultant in Midlands had worked at QEQM and did tell us that when they were encountering high levels of ectopic pregnancy had asked each other if there was something in the Thanet water affecting girls through and beyond puberty.

    Cyclohexanone does effect female oestregen biochemistry. Beyond that it has to be a question for the experts.

    I thought Michael had previously covered the Manston potential for pollution and that satisfactory measures have been put in place ?

    I hope Ann Gloag makes a success of Manston.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt pipesmoking is healthy. Michael had said there was pollution at Manston then changed his mind and niw censors debate on it. Presumably sales of books are an issue. It is very polluted as you would expect.

      Delete
    2. The grooming of young Maskell against his will by the Three Stooges was only slightly less hilarious than the healthy pipesmoker comment. Michaels' blog might be full of pensioner idiots now but it is amusing in a freak show way.

      Delete
    3. 5.50 is absolutely correct, smoking tobacco is highly beneficial, especially now in the (electro-)polluted environment we find ourselves living in. Of course it must be organic tobacco, if it is not to not cause any harm.

      Acetylcholine is one of the bodies most important neurotransmitters. Nicotine intake stimulates the production of acetylcholine in the brain, which is why smokers are alert and focussed and can work physically hard, and operate well under less than optimum conditions. It has many other benefits as well.

      Niacin is a very well known and effective health supplement, what is not so well broadcast is that niacin is nicotinic acid.

      Smoking tobacco can also keep cancer at bay. I know that sounds insane, but if you do some research, on the internet, you will find the scientific papers to back that up.

      The reason it sounds crazy is that nearly all the tobacco sold in this country is radioactive with polonium 210 isotopes, I cannot speak for pipe tobacco, but the plants from whence British and American blends of cigarette tobacco are sourced, are fed with a mineral superphosphate fertiliser, mined in Florida, which has traces of radioactive material within it, this results in polonium 210 being absorbed by the hairs on the tobacco leaf.

      When smoked, this polonium 210 lodges in the lungs and has a half life of about four and a half months, all the while irradiating the body of the smoker, especially the lung tissue.

      The reason smokers of this poisonous crap live as long as they do, is that the tobacco itself is undoing most of the damage caused by the radiation. Obviously a heavy smoker of this crap will certainly die young, whereas a light to moderate smoker of the same crap should live as long as the non smoker, or as 5.50 says, longer.

      If your tobacco is totally organic, pesticide and additive-free and you roll it up in a natural, imported cigarette paper, you can smoke like a chimney and have no ill-effects whatsoever, quite the opposite, in fact, the benefits are legion.

      The only way to get your hands on such tobacco these days is to grow it yourself, which is fortunately very easy to do in the local climate.

      Delete
    4. This is idiot science Bluenote: tobacco is addictive and deadly in any form whether smoked or chewed or breathing secondhand smoke. The polonium point is idiotic too as tobacco is grown around the world eg Malawi.

      According to the World Health Organization (WHO), tobacco is the single greatest cause of preventable death globally.[29] The harms caused by using tobacco include diseases affecting the heart and lungs, with smoking being a major risk factor for heart attacks, strokes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), emphysema, and cancer (particularly lung cancer, cancers of the larynx and mouth, and pancreatic cancers).

      The WHO estimates that tobacco caused 5.4 million deaths in 2004[30] and 100 million deaths over the course of the 20th century.[31] Similarly, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention describes tobacco use as "the single most important preventable risk to human health in developed countries and an important cause of premature death worldwide."[32]

      Inhaling secondhand tobacco smoke can cause lung cancer in nonsmoking adults. In the United States, approximately 3,000 adults die each year due to lung cancer from secondhand smoke exposure. Heart disease caused by secondhand smoke kills approximately 46,000 nonsmokers every year.[33]

      Delete
    5. When we going for that run blueface?

      Delete
    6. 5M deaths each year from tobacco and 100M in the 20th century. Horrifying. Plain packaging and banning tobacco from new retail stores and those near to schools are needed.

      Delete
    7. Presumably air pollution from cars and planes and ships needs tightly regulating too: the sooner we have all-electric engines the better for all our lungs.

      Delete
    8. Or get more people out cycling!

      Delete
    9. If you are sourcing your knowledge from the WHO website, 9.23, you are being fed misleading data. Do some research into Rockefeller's grip on 'modern medicine', you will soon discover that corporate health care is a complete and utter fraud, and the UN/WHO/FDA are an integral part of that fraud. I've no doubt that some of the stats are accurate, but they do not tell the whole story; stats are usually manipulated to push a particular agenda.

      If you read my post again, you will see that I concur that British and US brands of cigarette tobacco are poisonous crap, and personally, I would not touch them with a bargepole nor even stand in the vicinity of someone who is smoking them.

      Go back in history, you will find that humans have been smoking tobacco for thousands of years. Now why would they have been doing that if it was harming them?

      North American Indigenous people traditionally grow their tobacco using buffalo dung as a fertiliser, I used to buy it here in the UK, up until a couple of years ago, when the nazi EU passed a 'law' that all tobacco must be treated with 'fire-safe' additives, which was just a cover for making organic tobacco as poisonous as the polonium-tainted crap.

      Why the UN/EU want us to stop smoking tobacco is for the reasons I stated above, that nicotine and acetylcholine are highly beneficial stimulants, while the powers that be are desperate to quell any nicotine induced alertness and vigilance among the plebs as they force us under global corporate-fascist governance. It has absolutely nothing to do with promoting good health, but everything to do with promoting the self-interests of their lobbyist paymasters.

      Secondhand smoke from polonium cigarettes is more dangerous than that inhaled by the smoker, because they are not getting the same benefits from the tobacco to offset the harm caused by the polonium.

      I am afraid it is your science that is idiotic, but then again we live in an idiocracy, so that much should be expected. You have a lot to learn, my friend.

      Delete
    10. Perhaps, Bluebottle, you should get an indigenous north American to send you some of the good stuff so you can smoke your pipe of peace whilst sitting cross legged outside the front of your semi. That would be one in the eye for the nasty old EU and Rockerfeller.

      Delete
    11. I get most of my info from showaddywaddy.net, but I'll also check out The Who's website, thanks!

      Delete
    12. Detached, and I grow my own good stuff, thanks all the same.

      Grow up Cheggers , for Christ's sake.

      Delete
    13. G'day, Blue, see you are still on about that Rockafella bloke. You need to chill out, mate, with a few cans of the amber nectar. Smoking bison's dung will be the death of you or leave you at couple of prawns short of a barbie.

      Delete
    14. So I've finally got your attention bluenob... what's it to be, an 8 mile run or a 40 mile cycle ride? We'll soon see which works best, tobacco or banana sandwiches.

      Delete
    15. Bluenote's a twit. If you eat a banana sandwich and smoke a pipe you'll be double-healthy Peter. You might fall off your bike though.

      Delete
  12. Goodness me, the comments and the tangled web of confusion and misinformation, still I guess the post was about the airport and the environment anyway for anyone approaching their tap with caution and wondering what Cyclohexanone is and if it is coming out of the tap, the answer is.

    Cyclohexanone in very small concentrations – a few parts per million – has a very strong smell which is a bit like a mixture of pear drops and nail polish remover, which would put most people off their cuppa. Also it isn’t a know cancer causing chemical and didn’t contaminate the part of the aquifer used for drinking water and wasn’t spilt at Manston but at Westwood.

    This seems to have generated anonymous comment that you may be better off smoking than drinking water, bonkers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Michael,

      But you and I both know that your accurate explanation will not deter our usual suspect.

      Delete
    2. Glad you clarified that Michael, I was about to buy 20 B&H instead of having a cup of tea!

      Delete
    3. Well said Michael although the Sericol pollution you refer to was several tons of chemical still being removed (at least supposedly). Thor mercury is worse certainly but not by much. You've ignored the point about the Manston pollution to the drinking water supply which sits under the runway though.

      The pipesmoking comment is excellent in demonstrating some of the idiotic views here.

      Delete
    4. Not really anon as it is covered in the body of the post, i.e. getting the airport to become EA compliant by getting an EP (environmental permit) it is important to understand that the existing aquifer pollution at Manston relates the historic use of fertilisers, with airport pollution being for the most part potential for pollution which would be mitigated by making the drainage there EA compliant.

      The bottom line being getting Manston to the normal standards set out by the EA and not getting sidetracked into normal levels of pollution universally allowed for industry and transport. Like looking to engine emissions of the planes when there is much more pollution from the motor traffic at the adjacent roundabout.

      World populating expansion means there is no return to a society without fossil fuel pollution at the moment, so the whole issue is about compromises to extend the now limited life of the planet.

      Delete
    5. This sounds nonsense Michael. Are you really saying the airport on the aquifer is polluted because of fertiliser not aviation fuel. And the jumbo jets are less polluting than the car traffic? This seems as idiotic as the pipesmoking views.

      And if there is no real pollution problem then why is the airport not already EA/EP compliant given the various pollution notices to Infratil to clean up the site?

      And a £5 bet says you wouldn't drink even a thimbleful of cyclohex the non-cancerous chemical?

      Delete
    6. How do you agree to a bet with someone who wishes to remain anonymous? Seems like you haven't really thought this through.

      Delete
    7. Pedantry shouldn't suit you Peter. Your view on Sericol and Manston pollution if you can tear yourself away from your Showaddywaddy records and flesh photos?

      Delete
    8. You are quite right anon I wouldn’t drink paint thinners, but this doesn’t make the carcinogenic.

      It would seem that unlike me you didn’t take part in EA’s EP consultation on the airport, there will soon be a new consultation which I will post about as I did the previous one and if you are genuinely interested I recommend you take part in it.

      But yes the fact remains that the amount of air pollution in Thanet from internal combustion engines relates to the amount of fuel burnt in those engines, hundreds of thousands times more fuel burnt in road vehicles in Thanet than in aeroplanes in Thanet.

      A 747 burns about 5 gallons of fuel per mile and Manston is about 2 miles from the coast at Ramsgate, so if I put 5 gallons of fuel in my car and use it pottering around Thanet I contribute about the same amount of pollution as one 747 takeoff or landing.

      The key here is to understand the problem and try to put it right, perhaps this depends on what you smoke in your pipe.

      Delete
    9. You seem to have disappeared up your rear end Michael? Clyclohex is not carcinogenic but is poisonous so that's OK is that it? Presumably poisons would be carcinogenic but you don't live long enough to develop tumours?

      No I didn't take part in the EP consultation as it seemed to be bumf pretending to be action. Manston is still polluted despite your form filling isn't it? Why would more form-filling change that?

      Don't understand your car-plane pollution. One jumbo jet is far more polluting than hundreds of cars - hence the 4x EU safety levels of pollution recorded by the Gazette.

      Your 5 gallons of fuel is funny. Please stop. It's worse than the pipesmoker. You seem to be smoking waccy baccy or are merely incredibly foolish. i hope it's waccy baccy.

      Delete
    10. Nonetheless 5 gallons per mile is what they consume and not hundreds which is why they don’t fall out of the sky after a few miles from lack of fuel. And the EA are the regulator so if you don’t take part in the consultation you have no say in the matter whatsoever.

      Delete
    11. You give me your view on Showaddywaddy and flesh photos first anon...



      Must confess that even I'm not keen on the idea of a flesh photo of Showaddywaddy though!

      Delete
    12. "A 747 burns about 5 gallons of fuel per mile." A fully laden 747 actually burns a tonne of fuel, just getting itself airborne. This amount of fuel generates approximately 3 tonnes of carbon dioxide occupying a volume of around 250,000 litres. On take-off, the plane is carrying around 200 tonnes of fuel. When burnt, this amount of fuel generates around 600 tonnes of carbon dioxide which occupies a volume of 50 million litres (or 50,000 cubic metres) of carbon dioxide.

      On a long-haul flight, it may well be true that a plane burns an average of 5 gallons of fuel per mile. However, vastly more fuel than this is burned on take-off and this pollution is layered around the airport (because carbon dioxide is heavier than air).

      As for the EA being a regulator for Manston, I'm afraid that this is very naïve. The EA has repeatedly failed to act over a range of concerns (the corroding fuel tanks and the the discharge consent being two prime examples). I would describe the EA as facilitators as they don't regulate anything.

      Delete
    13. You anon 7:18 burn a similar quantity of hot air and generate tonnes of methane and carbon monoxide gases as you break wind from your overly ample arse. Trouble is you talk through it at the same time.

      Delete
    14. So is it fertiliser polluting the water reservoir or aviation fuel Michael? And if the EA is incompetent at regulating Manston then why entrust them too continue not regulating the pollution?

      Delete
    15. Anon yep that is the fuel allowance for the whole of the full load takeoff, ground movements to full operational height, you may have noticed that the 747s don’t ascend vertically to their operational height, which I think is about 2 miles, before departing Manston.

      Most of the exhaust from the planes is carbon dioxide, this is a gas and doesn’t go into the ground.

      The pollution in the aquifer is mostly nitrates and got there mostly from fertiliser, this is the most common from of aquifer pollution worldwide.

      In terms of overall pollution from fossil fuelled journeys the average amount of fuel burned per person per mile is about the same for a car full of people and an airliner full of people.

      Obviously people travel more miles by road than they do by plane hence more pollution by car than plane.

      Obviously an airport like Heathrow with over a thousand takeoffs and landings a day would have perhaps a 100 times more air pollution than Manston and people don’t seem to be dropping down dead there.

      I am not seeking to defend fossil fuel pollution, just trying to point out to you that anonymously posting preposterously exaggerated pollution problems related to Manston is not the way to proceed when trying to resolve the very real environmental problems that do exist there and that I am attempting to help solve.

      Same with the aquifer there are and historically were problems, some of these have been solved or partially solved and some haven’t, at the moment the main problem now that crop fertilisation is much better regulated is domestic sewage leaks, not really a happy thought and a much less obvious target than the airport.

      Delete
    16. These are foolish points again Michael and disingenuous on the very real pollution dangers at Manston.

      CO2 from aviation fuel is a gas as you say but cools and falls as droplets onto the ground and water supply and lungs.

      People are dropping down dead at Heathrow: the cancer clusters and reduced life expectancy are well detailed.

      The exaggeration on pollution is by you that all is well at Manston. It certainly is not.

      Delete
    17. Anon CO2 isn’t a cancer causing chemical, it is – for instance – the gas used for the carbonation of drinks (the bubbles in fizzy drinks and beer) significant amounts of it in the Thanet water would be noticeable as it would fizz like Perrier water.

      People are not dropping down dead from CO2, people like engines breath in oxygen and breath out CO2, people not producing CO2 is however a sure sign they are dead.

      Delete
    18. You're being deliberately silly Michael. CO2 is poisonous when burnt as engine fuel. And causes cancer.

      Carbonating fizzy drinks is a separate technical process that has been tested to be safe.

      People drop down dead (from caancer and asthma and all sorts of nasty illnesses) from breathing CO2 from engine fuel around airports and roads.

      You're being silly now.

      Why do you feel the need to excuse the serious air and water pollution levels at Manston?

      Delete
    19. I'm sure that fire extinguisher manufacturers all over the UK are spitting tea across their desks at the earth shattering news that CO2 is flammable! Best get all those CO2 fire extinguishers outside quickly before they become and explosion risk!

      "CO2 is poisonous when burnt"

      Priceless!!!

      Who wants to post some evidence that CO2 is carcinogenic (causes cancer 12:16 ;) )

      Delete
    20. "CO2 from aviation fuel is a gas as you say but cools and falls as droplets onto the ground and water supply and lungs"

      droplets of CO2, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      Delete
    21. Hammy, you're actually talking sense today! ; )

      Delete
    22. An education for you anon :)

      3 tonnes of CO2 produced on take off for a 747 (which isn;t accurate, but i'll leave that to one side for a moment) would be the equivalent of 287 cars driving 30 miles in Thanet. I wonder how many cars drive that distance in Thanet per per hour.....

      Delete
    23. I always do cheggers, sometimes even the peons realise that ;)

      Delete
    24. Ah anon I think someone has teasing you, CO2 is a harmless gas that is a normal part of air, there is no special process used in carbonation you just pump compressed CO2 in and it I fizzes, get any publican to tell you, the pipe from the cylinder of CO2 goes straight into the top of the barrel of lager. And as I said before the oxygen you breath in gets turned into CO2 in your lungs and you breath it out.

      In simple terms the carbon in your food C or the carbon in engine fuel C reacts with the oxygen in the air 0 and you get energy this produces CO2, primary school science.

      Delete
    25. What on earth has it to do with Spanish-American farmworkers, or do you like dropping in words you think sound impressive?

      Delete
    26. Neither is CO2 flammable ;) FAR to funny to actually believe what he's saying.

      Delete
    27. It is not a case of believing, John, for the lights have been out with that one for a long time.

      Delete
    28. For once I agree with the Hamilton. The only way that aircraft fuel would directly affect an aquifer would be if there was a spill. Aircraft produce various kinds of pollutants, but none of them are likely to cause any more groundwater pollution than the cars in Thanet, particularly given the very light air traffic. Given that many times more flights take off and land over housing at Heathrow, a release of human toxins would be pretty obvious.

      It is possible there are historical pollutants at Manston, but it is hard to see that having a small airfield would make that worse. I suspect the inhabitants of Thanet have a lot less to worry about in their drinking water than the vast majority of the rest of the country.

      Delete
    29. First you are not my better, second because you are right on this does not mean that you are somehow anything other than an obnoxious spammer.

      Delete
    30. Joe you are wasting your time Aquifer man is as much a troll as Spamalot neither care about pollution they just want to dominate and stifle debate.

      Delete
    31. Oh Turner, every post proves most people, including me are most certainly your better my boy. And simply because you are humiliated by be every in every exchange we ever has doesn't make me a troll, it simply makes me your better ;)

      Delete
    32. This may help with your elementary science Michael - as stated burnt as aircraft fuel CO2 is polluting and cancerous:

      Emissions from aircraft originate from fuel burned in aircraft engines. Greenhouse gas emissions are the
      combustion products and by-products. CO2 and NOx are most important, but also methane, nitrous oxide and
      other by-product gases are emitted. The fuel use and emissions will be dependent on the fuel type, aircraft type,
      engine type, engine load and flying altitude.
      Two types of fuels are used. Gasoline is used in small piston engined aircraft only. Most aircraft run on kerosene,
      and the bulk of fuel used for aviation is kerosene."

      In terms of [polluting the aquifer of course a spill would and that's what happens form filling aircraft - over days and years - as wellas the other chmical deicers etc. Cars would have less impact on the aquifer - becuase the runway is on top of it so there are only 747 not a Ford Fiesta.

      Silliness or proManston loonies who knows. Especially when the Environment Agency have repeatedly asked Infratil to clear up the site as it is the most polluted in the South East?

      How will Gloag do that. Or cope with a crash and major spill on the aquifer? Thor hasn't even been cleaned up yet.

      Delete
    33. Anon CO2 just isn’t either burnt or hazardous, for one thing it doesn’t burn and for another it isn’t harmful to people or animals. The difficulty you have is that you are trying to construct a scientific argument without understanding primary school science.

      You need to shift your attention to the chemicals that are hazardous and the EP that the EA are asking for.

      Delete
    34. You're dissembling Michael. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and harmful to humans and animals. And is released as part of burning aviation fuel - along with other nasty chemicals. All of which you're attempting to liken to nothing more deadly than mere fizzy pop, rather than the serious contamination of the water supply underneath the Manston runway. And air pollution from low-flying aircraft into Manston.

      Are you seriously suggesting there is no pollution at Manston? And if there is, it's from fertiliser or cars rather than aircraft fuel as you say in your posts above?

      Delete
    35. No anon I am seriously suggesting that saying CO2 is a hazardous chemical, which it isn’t, detracts from the serious environmental problems related to Manson. I suggest that you look up CO2 on any of the primary school science websites, where you will find that it is an inert gas used extensively in the food industry.

      The quantities CO2 produced by modern life are adding to the greenhouse effect, but this is a different issue unaffected by Manston as the flights to and from Manston would still happen elsewhere, so closing Manston wouldn’t reduce the number of flight or the associated CO2 emissions.

      Delete
    36. Sorry Michael you're dissembling again. You've only recently raised CO2. You liken it and the pollution at Manston to nothing so dangerous as fizzy pop. Very briefly, it is dangerous as detailed above as both a greenhouse gas and mixed with other chemicals in aviation fuel.

      Flights at Manston would not happen elsewhere, that's a random opinion of your own making without any basis whatsoever. Closing Manston would end those flights.

      You are saying that aviation fuel is not the water pollution problem at Manston but fertiliser is - and Manston is not very polluted anyway aren't you? And even that the air pollution problem from 747's are less than car pollution?

      You seem desperate to downplay the very real pollution problems of the airport.

      Delete
    37. CO2 is a waste product in the blood, so you'd need very elevated levels for it to be toxic. It clearly is not cancerous. Carbon Monoxide in contrast is very toxic.

      A large spill would obviously affect the aquifer, but I am not aware of there having been such a thing. Small spills are not necessarily cumulative, one would have to prove that assertion, because I doubt it has any truth in it.

      Whilst aircraft clearly produce more pollution than cars, the main issues are in the atmosphere rather than at ground level. At ground level with the number of aircraft flying at Manston would be similar or less than the air pollution caused by cars. And even if there was significant air pollution at ground level, you'd then have to show a mechanism for this to pollute the watercourse. There isn't one, this is utter drivel.

      Delete
    38. Yes Joe Co2 is toxic at high levels in the blood. Like from aviation fuel. Not cancerous I don't know - probably as that would be toxic too?

      Small spills are not necessarily cumulative? That's right although they obviously are at Manston given the Environment Agency concerns over the pollution. Not a large spill at Manston? Who knows. Certainly a crash from an offroute or late plane would destroy the aquifer.

      Your point on cars vs aviation pollution is academic to some degree and has been refuted in the earlier posts. Reports on air pollution at and around airports are numerous: aviation fumes are very toxic and cancerous as you'd expect.

      We could monitor it at Manston except TDC and Infratil removed the monitors with Latchford et al covering it up even now. Although the Gazette recorded 4x the EU safe levels of emissions.

      Why are you so desperate to deny pollution at Manston?

      Delete
    39. Really... you really want me to comment about aviation fuel in the blood. CO2 is not cancerous and is not likely to be an issue at low levels unless you are in a confined space. I'd not thought about the problems of having aviation fuel in the blood, but you're right, that might be an issue. Where is there a facility where they are conducting transfusions with aviation fuel at Manston, tell me and I'll get right onto it.

      A crash at Manston might cause a problem. Would it pollute the whole aquifer? I don't know, and it doesn't sound like you do either. The point on cars vs planes is not academic! We have proper science that shows that agrochemicals pollute aquifers and you have a half-arsed theory that somehow emissions from planes could or would do it. Why? What is so hard to believe about the problems of water pollution from agriculture - absolutely proven science.

      I am not denying anything, but y'know I need some evidence from someone who actually knows what they're talking about before accepting any random claim. I can believe that there is some pollution at Manston, but to accept a very large claim such as those you make you'd need some very large evidence.

      Pay a qualified consultant to do the work if you are so convinced.

      Delete
    40. Increasingly ridiculous points Joe. Aviation fuel might be a problem in the blood? Might? Would a plane crash pollute the whole aquifer? You don't know. What do you think it would do? And fertiliser pollutes the aquifer as proven science but pollution from aviation fuel is somehow not proven science and wouldn't pollute the aquifer under the runway?

      You accept there is some pollution at manston but not much? Why? Why not stick to your previous argument that there is no pollution. Ridiculous. Go find the documents yourself from Infratil etc. You certainly have no evidence or facts for your opinions on the Manston pollution.

      Delete
    41. Well I was being ironic about the aviation fuel in the blood due to the rather odd comment you left for me to answer before.

      What are you asking me now? Dispersed agricultural pollution of aquifers is a known phenomena. I'm sure that a big enough spill of aircraft fuel might also pollute the aquifer. The question is whether a likely spill from an aircraft at Manston would be big enough to pollute the aquifer.

      I have only once been involved in the cleanup of an aircraft spill. It made an awful mess, but the spill was contained. Hence it is not possible for me to know whether there is a legitimate worry about aircraft fuel spills at Manston. I suspect not, but you'd have to employ someone suitably qualified to conduct a study if you really want to know the answer rather than just guessing.

      On the other hand, we can be pretty sure that agricultural resides from dispersed sources pollute aquifers, because we know that happens, particularly on rock that is highly permeable. Again, I cannot be totally sure because I haven't studied the geology of Manston in detail, but of the two explanations the agricultural source is much more likely.

      Fundamentally you have to prove that there is a) historical pollution at Manston that is sufficient to pollute the aquifer or b) potential for a massive spill at Manston that would pollute the aquifer. I don't have enough information to make that call. But given the number of aircraft and the size of the site at Manston airfield, I strongly doubt a) has happened and that b) is really a significant risk.

      Delete
    42. How would fertiliser pollute the Manston aquifer but not aviation fuel spills etc from the runway? The runway is over most of the aquifer anyway so it's not farmland. And the runway is on the high point of land so not much can run downhill into the aquifer?

      Delete
    43. Well at least you ask a good question. Regarding agrochemicals, it is believed that the practices over a wide area can end up having an effect on a water catchment. Hence the establishment of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones, where farmers in particularly problematic water catchments have to be careful how they managed the land.

      And, what do you know, the whole of Thanet is designated as a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone because everything drains into the aquifer.

      In contrast, pollution from any event at Manston would be a single event.

      So to recap: careless use of agrochemicals on the fields of the whole of Thanet are known to have an effect on the groundwater. A single (known in the trade as a point source) event at Manston Airfield would have to be massive to have the same impact.

      Moreover, there is a lot of tarmac and other materials at Manston (plus trained firefighters etc, who are presumably trained in how to deal with spills) which are designed to prevent a spill from leaking into the ground anyway.

      And, y'know, scientists are not stupid. They can tell chemically if the pollutants in the groundwater come from the airfield or from agrochemicals.

      Delete
  13. I can't tell if you are trying to be funny or whether you just didn't think about what you were typing before you wrote it. I had noticed that planes don't ascend vertically. I don't think I had suggested that they did. I was pointing out that fuel consumption is considerably higher on take-off than in flight. If you visit Hounslow council's web-site you will find that atmospheric pollution around Heathrow exceeds recommended EU limits and is considered to be a major issue. Personally, I wouldn't be so bold or foolhardy as to suggest that this will not have health implications for the people who live there. Of course, by the time data is available to prove this it may be too late for some people. As for making wildly exaggerated claims about pollution at Manston, I don't think I did.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you're so concerned about it, then why don't you stand for election at the very least as a councillor? Or do you think that posting anonymous comments on blogs is the best way to change things?

      Delete
    2. You do know how many flights take-off and land at Manston compared to Heathrow, yes? And how many people live on the Heathrow flight-path..?

      Delete
    3. Margate typhoid on Tony Ovenden's blog: let's hope we don't get it again with the sewers and what not. Broadstairs shouldn't be a problem with Thor mercury pollution hastening people onwards first!

      http://thanetcoastlife.blogspot.com/2013/12/typhoid-at-margate.html

      Delete
    4. Sitting up late, mindlessly twittering or blogging a complete load of cobblers. I wonder just who it could be?

      Delete
    5. Is it Cllr Epps? He must be worried about the Broadstairs pollution? How is it being cleaned up?

      Delete
    6. No, Anon 12:58, it is not I and I am actually not worried in the slightest about Broadstairs pollution which is no worse than many other places and probably a lot better than some. Some of us actually have lives which extend beyond fretting about things well beyond our control.

      What would concern me far more is the fact that nobody seems to be investing in research for a new generation of antibiotics which could push treatment back to pre-penicillin days if it is not tackled soon.

      Delete
    7. The Thor mercury pollution at Broadstairs is a very real problem. No doubt contributing to the Viking Bay pollution and one ideal for a town councillor like yourself to deal with William unless the buck can be passed?

      Delete
    8. Maybe this is something you can raise if ever you put yourself up for election 2:49. How about it? Do you think you might be on to a vote winner here? Let me know your thoughts.

      Delete
    9. Does the presence of mercury pollution (even if this is more than just a vague assertion) have any relevance to the airport or the watercourse. If so, please show me a chemical pollution report by a technically qualified consultant about it.

      Delete
    10. I find it interesting that Viking Bay, which achieved EU water quality approval though not a full Blue Flag, is somehow contaminated with mercury. Sea water contamination is invariably down to affluent pumped into the sea by water companies or shipping discharges not some historic inland industrial pollution. Look where the Thor site was on the Ramsgate Road, miles from Viking Bay and with higher ground between the two. If such pollution were to travel underground, which is not proven, it would go downhill towards Margate.

      Delete
    11. Joe Thor had a factory in Broadstairs and a serious pollution incident in southern Africa involving mercury, in the same way that 2 + 2 = 5 you therefore have mercury pollution in Broadstairs.

      Delete
    12. The limestone is permeable, William. Pollutants could wash straight through to the sea and/or the watercourse.

      Mercury is highly toxic, it'd be pretty obvious pretty quickly if this was a real problem for local inhabitants because their skin, hair and nails would start falling off.

      I am not sure if the EA test seawater for mercury, but there would also obviously be obvious environmental impacts of mercury.

      That isn't to say it is impossible that Mercury is found in elevated levels at the Thor site, but even if it is, there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that it is poisoning the rest of us.

      Delete
    13. Not me jumping to conclusions, Joe, and there is no actual evidence anywhere to suggest there is mercury contamination. It is just a pet topic of a couple of our anonymous contributors.

      Delete
    14. I love the way our regular anon goes very quiet whenever anyone suggests that standing for election is more effective than posting anonymous comments on blogs.

      Delete
    15. William there is evidence. It is an FOI response to Richard Card from Environment Agency. An ITV channel broadcast a documentary about Thor Margate in the early 90s but it may have not been shown in South East. The programme shew Thor worker(s) Margate who had developed Parkinson type symptoms. There was HSE action late 80s which ended certain processes at Thor Margate. The remediation project kept secret (until Rick's FOI) was for mercury and mixed solvents.

      You can google Alan Kidger murder and red mercury for yourself.

      Thor were trading with Dr Wouter Basson Head of the South Africa Nuclear Biological Chemical Warfare programme. He became variously linked with Dr David Kelly as a Porton Down contact and with James Shortt of Deal Royal Marines Barracks and gun range notoriety.

      Suspicions about Wouter Basson supplying Libya and Saddam etc were part of the bogus case made for invading Iraq.

      Where Joe may be right is that the evidence is of remediation relates to the Thor site. However as far as I know no research has been done into whether measures were taken to prevent the spread of contamination to the drainage system. And as far as I know no resaerch has been done to investigate for spread of mercury pollution. I think (and Tony Ovenden may know through his beachcombing) that mercury has been found by beachcombers.

      Red mercury itself may be a myth but if not it would be pretty dangerous stuff.

      A line of inquiry left uninvestigated by Kent Police to this day is the two military style landrovers which would call at Thor in the middle of the night from time to time. They were observed by night shift workers from the industrial estate.

      The Sericol remediation site had a scare with rising ground water due to a fractured water main. I don't know if the fire at Thor necessitated sufficient use of damping down water to cause a similar scare.

      Delete
    16. All very fine, but ending processes at Thor in the late 80s (like a quarter of a century ago) and military Landrovers arriving at night is not actual evidence of ground contamination. The South African, Lybian, Saddam, Porton Down Deal Barracks and gun range connections are about as relevant as I had a bacon sandwich for breakfast. Perhaps you could get Dan Brown to write a book about it called the Iranian Code.

      Delete
    17. Then why was the Thor Margate still open with the fire in 2007?

      How is the clean up going as the pollution would slip through the chalk membranes into Broadstairs not Margate - although William was claiming Thor was actually below Broadstairs. Sounds like a desperate councillor trying to avoid the problems.

      Delete
    18. I know you like to ask questions rather than answer them "anon" (and we all know who you are), but how about answering this one for me...

      If the water from our taps in Thanet is really poisonous, then do you only use bottled water for preparing and cooking food in your restaurant? How about cleaning, do you use bottled water for that too? And what about bathing & showing indoors, and the laundry? Is it even safe to flush the loos with?

      Delete
    19. Michael and Thor pollution: http://thanetonline.blogspot.com/2009/12/thor-chemicals-margate-explosion-update.html

      Roger Gale and Thor pollution: http://birchington.blogspot.com/2007/12/thors-hammer.html

      Phew. There is no contamination right Cllr Epps?

      Delete
    20. Anon 5:35, after you have answered Peter's question, I will make you an offer. Direct me to one on line site that gives details of a fire at the Thor site and mercury spillage and I will undertake to investigate what happened about it and the clear up.

      Delete
    21. Epps bullshatting again.

      Delete
    22. William you opened by arguing that there is no evidence re Thor. You were provided a synopsis of the facts. Then you responded with ad hominem fallacy. I take it then this fact will surprise you ? The Chilcott Inquiry found the Margate Thor Factory history admissible within their terms of reference.

      The good question is about how Thor was still operating years after the HSE action and what they were up to.

      Peter. The fact is that, upon discovery of the massive Sericol contamination in 1993, Rumfields water abstraction was immediately turn off. You have a tendency to use Strawman arguments. I have never said the tap water is poisonous. I have said there is a compelling case for Health Protection Agency epidemiological research. No one knows the duration of the Sericol leak. If it was 30 years from 1963 then is that reflected in patterns of disease such as the area's high rates of ectopic pregnancy.

      The tories have an interest in the questions not being answered. The questions are about a tory cllr who gained work at Sericol in 1988 as a site maintenance engineer. Was there inquiry in 1998 into forged engineering qualifications used to obtain employment by deception. Imagine the embarrassment if research shew the massive contaminations occurred between 1988 and 1993.

      In 1997 the tory Chair of Kent Police Authority called on his Chief constable for a wide ranging inquiry and report. This included two false instrument and obtaining employ by deception matters. Deal Royal Marines Barracks and Sericol. The Chief constable refused to conduct the inquiry. But what has emerged is that Kent Police were carrying out Sericol related inquiry (thefts of solvents and criminal damage) in 1993. In 2003 Gen De Chasterlain, Chief Arms Decommissioner Good Friday Agreement, queried his terms of reference with a view to conducting inquiry in Kent. Gun Ranges, Firearms Certificate issues, sabotage at a backup generator manufacturer and thefts of chemicals that can be used in terrorist devices.

      De Chasterlain had to rest on just a report of concern to the NI Secretary as far as I know.

      In 1999, less than a year after Thanet tory cllrs allegedly told the High Court there were no inquiries, the Chief constable of RUC Ronnie Flanagan contacted the Home Office wanting to know if Jack Straw would compel the inquiry called for by Kent Police Authority in 1997.

      Jack Straw decided not to do so. As I said the questions for Jack Straw for Chilcott Inquiry were screened as admissible within the terms of reference.

      In 1999 after the Chief constable RUC contacted Home Office that is when Kent Chief constable David Phillips suddenly left the Rosemary Nelson murder inquiry of which he was initially appointed as invigilator.

      I can tell you that the position taken by the RUC Chief constable caused a bit of a flap amongst certain tory cllrs.

      The Rosemary Nelson Tribunal also screened the questions and found them admissible within their terms of reference.

      I cannot make Tribunals put the questions in the public domain. I regret that they did not do so.

      William you have but to google Thor Fire or refer to the excellent Private Eye man's blog Eastcliff Richard.

      The Private Eye expose' of James Shortt as bogus ex SAS 2009 was excellent investigative journalism but I am assured that ECR takes no credit for it. One of his apprentices shining then.

      On Peter's subject of laundry. This is the Northwood question that neither Mark Nottingham nor Ian Driver would involve in asking.

      Anecdotally there is a cluster of premature deaths by stroke or aneurism in the area of the laundry and of illnesses such as cancers amongst the workforce. This needs proper epidemiological study. They appear not to launder in tapwater but to have a direct abstraction licence.

      Delete
    23. The fact remains that a disaster of such proportions as you describe could hardly have taken place without some reference to it on line and yet numerous searches I have undertaken from different angles produce nothing. The exposure of bogus SAS persons is irrelevant in the context of mercury contamination. You talk of Tory councillors seeking to hide something, but then accuse Mark Nottingham, Labour, and Ian Driver, Green, of avoiding the issue and failing to ask questions. Perhaps because there is nothing to ask.

      As for Anon 5:50, I made you an offer which you seem to have declined That would suggest that any bullshat is coming from you, not me.

      Delete
    24. Click here for the report on the Thor explosion however as you see mercury wasn't involved.

      The problem with these comments is that it is one thing looking at a problem and seeking solutions but another thing completely to decide what the issue is and then selectively use information to prove is the case.

      Like, for instance one would obviously start by checking if the contamination plume extends to the abstraction point, rather than commission an epidemiological study.

      Delete
    25. My understanding is that the mercury plume is indeed being monitored and that it is spreading towards the aquifer. So, if that is already being done, the next logical step would be to take a look at the medical data for Thanet to see which conditions are above the national average.

      Delete
    26. There isn't a mercury plume because mercury wasn't one of the chemicals involved.

      Delete
    27. William, I did not mean to suggest you were jumping to conclusions.

      Anon 5.11 - you are aware that remediation means cleaning and removal of pollutants? Even if there was mercury at the site, presumably the remediation work was to clean it up. You should be pleased that this was happening.

      Even if you are correct that there was some process affecting workers, that is a very long way from saying that the watercourse is polluted and poisoning people today. In fact to make such a wild claim you'd need some very strong evidence.

      Anon 5.35 chalk is not a membrane. Even if there was a fire and there was a gaseous emission of mercury (which seems highly unlikely given the obvious effects on locals that would have), how does that make any difference to the water course?

      Anon 7.06 - no idea what you are talking about or what relevance this has to possible mercury contamination of watercourses.

      Anon 7.45, please show me this report, because I'm fascinated to hear about it.


      Delete
    28. Joe, mercury was at the Thor site. It was what was poisoning the workers before 1988. Two dead? Dozens disabled?

      Nobody knows about the cleanup - you do though?

      Chalk is a membrane ie porous until water reaches a non-porous layer of rock.

      Go find the Environment Agency reports that detail all these points yourself.

      Delete
    29. You need to look in a dictionary, pal, because membrane does not mean what you think it means. Chalk is porous but it is not a membrane.

      I've asked you for the evidence of allegations you make about - not news reports, actual science reports produced by qualified experts. Nothing I've heard here suggests that there is anything to be worried about. Even if there was mercury at the site, there is nothing you've said that persuades me that it is a threat to groundwater today.

      Given that you don't even know what a membrane is, and other anons (possibly you) think carbon dioxide is a calcinogen, I'm not sure that you have a whole lot of credibility without the actual science reports that you claim exist. Prove it.

      Delete
    30. I see Jolly Joe's manners haven't improved...

      Anon, I'm not convinced, but let's suppose for a moment that you're RIGHT about the pollution. What are your aims? You've already said that the water that comes out of our taps is fine, so it's not as if you're trying to stop us being poisoned. Perhaps you just want certain people brought to justice? Fine, but is this enough reason to spend pretty much all your waking day - every day - persuing this? Don't you think you could be doing something more constructive with your time, both for your own sake and the world at large?

      Delete
    31. You provide proof for your opinions Joe. You've cited no facts at all except your own opinion. The posts above from different people contain detailed and accurate reports on the Thor mercury pollution. You have provided nothing. Now you want to quibble over porous or membrane dictionary definitions. Pointless.

      Delete
    32. I've asked you for the science reports. I don't have to provide anything because I'm not asserting anything other than doubting your unsupported claims.

      Delete
    33. I was hoping for a reply there "anon", but I suspect by pointing out how pointless it all is I've touched a nerve...

      Delete
    34. So you have no proof for or against Thor mercury pollution Joe merely stating the opposite of what is said to you. Utterly pointless and circular views then.

      If you have any proof one way or the other let us all know. Until then you can read the Thor documents that detail the pollution or contact the Environment agency yourself.

      Delete
    35. I am very happy to look and make a proper judgement based on scientific reports, if you have them. As it stands, you haven't provided anything like enough evidence to support your claim. It isn't down to me to provide any - that's how it works, you make a claim and you support it with evidence.

      Mercury was used at Thor, there was a pollution incident at Thor. This we know. Whether there was enough pollutant to cause a problem with the groundwater through to 2013 is something you or I could not possibly know without reading a scientific report produced by qualified experts. That there was a remediation team at the site tells us nothing as to whether it is still causing a problem beyond the site or whether there is a conspiracy as you claim.

      Delete
    36. "Joe TurnerDecember 05, 2013 8:30 pm

      I am very happy to look and make a proper judgement"

      HAHAHAHAHAHA Now that really would be a first. Perhaps if you as your science teacher to write a comment, the thread could be taken forward turner my boy.

      Delete
    37. If you would like to visit my office, John Hamilton, I am very happy to show you my degree certificates.

      Delete
    38. Worse chat up line I've ever heard!

      Delete
  14. Oi nutter, get back to your dime bar!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Carter censors food banks report at KCC

    http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/news/homeless-9761/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well done Paul Francis!

      Nothing like the censorship of a document to ensure everyone reads it.

      Delete
  16. Hold on a cotton pickin ....... that was two Thor fires in 2007 in UK then ?

    ReplyDelete
  17. No, no, no don't be silly. There's no evidence whatsoever, that Thor has ever done anything wrong.. not even a little bit. These court cases never happened; some appalling hacker has planted these stories; it's all a left-wing conspiracy; you're all communist troublemakers......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The evidence at 7;46 is rather like doing a puzzle by forcing the pieces together even though they do not fit. The Thor site in Thanet had a fire, but did not produce mercury there. The place was cordoned during the fire, but declared safe by the police afterwards.

      The incident in South Africa at another Thor works did involved mercury so the puzzle solver adds that to the Thanet incident to conclude erroneously that mercury must have been involved in both cases.

      You then throw in some night visiting military landrovers, a bogus SAS pretender, Dr. Kelly and a South African NBC warfare expert, make it all fit together and emerge with a sinister plot. As for Rumsfield water tower, there the well serving it was sunk by Thomas Crampton back in Victorian times to replace the source under Crampton Tower, that having become contaminated by human disposals and salt water seepage. The site at Rumfields was chosen then because it was out in the countryside free from contamination. Times move on, the area around that well became urbanised and Thanet's water ceased to be extracted from under its towns, but pumped in from outside Thanet by Southern Water. However, let's not spoil a good story for the sake of a few facts.

      If you are new to all this, suggest you stick with Michael's version of events. He is the accredited local historian.

      Delete
    2. (1) The remediation project at Thor, revealed to the public by Rick's FOI, is by mercury and mixed solvents.

      (2) There is clearly a reluctance by Govt to conduct inquiry into Thor and, hence, there is a shortage of evidence and information.

      (3) You opened with a position of disbelief about Thor (as you did about Sericol IIRC) but have changed position during just this one thread.

      (3) The South Africa Police were sufficiently confident to name Mossad as the suspect for the Alan Kidger murder and to link it to mercury products of Thor Margate

      (4) You have no evidence at all to base any opinion about what chemical processes were occurring at Thor Margate 2007. You have chosen to infer, from nothing at all, that it did not involve mercury or other dangerous chemicals.

      (5) The plume at Sericol is Cyclohexanone. The figure of 470 tonnes is that amount of solvent remediated in the first 12 years of the then secret remediation project. No one knows the duration or full tonnage of the amount of cyclohexanone that leaked to water table.

      (6) No one knows the effect of two sources of geographically close pollution. There appears to be direct abstraction licences at Pysons Road and Northwood. These have not been checked by either EA or HSE as far as I know.

      (7) I think you are getting a grasp of what is being said. The Sericol history reveals that police inquiries were occurring just 4 years after the bombing of Deal Royal Marines Barracks and 4 years before Kent Police Authority called on Chief constable for further inquiry and a detailed report. The police inquiry of 1993 was also about four years after HSE took action against Thor Margate and, hence, when Thor's need for site remediation must have been identified.



      Delete

    3. (8) The bogus ex SAS man you seek to dismiss ? Isn't he an associate of former adult leaders of Kent Adventure Training Corps. The tory cllr subject of an alleged internal inquiry into forged qualifications at Sericol 1998 ? wasn't he an adult leader of KATC ?

      We know now that Margate Charter Trustees circa 98/99 were told that Kent Special Branch were making inquiries. And the trustees voted to end public funding of KATC. Though tory cllrs Daley and watt Ruffell voted to try to sustain public funding.

      You know that Harvey the TDC legal bod refuses to search or disclose records. Unlawful Drilling act 1819 (in force at the time) and Army Act 1955 was TDC/Charter Trustees financing an unlawful cadet group albeit backed by none other than Roger Gale ?

      Your perfectly decent mate was a member of Kent Police Authority in 1997 when they called on Chief constable for report. What did he tell the High Court on oath in 1998 William ?

      And Harvey's position ? That he does not have to search records because of he found evidence of crime he is under no obligation to report it ? Does that sit well with you William ?

      In an area with 27.1% male unemployment, many of them genuinely skilled, how did a tory cllr get an engineering job ? Did he fail his Army REME Trade tests ? Were his qualifications genuine ?

      What ever the concealed facts of that (Hele conceal and never reveal ?) it is true that he became the site safety engineer whose hand was on the cyclohexanone tap. His activity as a leader of KATC protected from proper scrutiny. The basis for obtaining employ protected from proper scrutiny. The calls for inquiry concealed from a High Court Judge. The basis of his fellow KATC leader gaining work as a security guard at Deal Barracks protected from proper scrutiny. And now we know that the bogus ex SAS man whose operation started at Deal barracks of which he was a weekend keyholder, associated with a gun range and with the KATC which was supported by Roger Gale.


      I repeat that you have absolutely no evidence that the fire incident did not involve mercury. But since on site there was a mercury and mixed solvent remediation project I would suggest that the fact is not helpful to your cause. Can we look forward to another adjustment of your position in just one thread ? To accept that mercury was subject of a process (remediation) but somehow not on site at the time of the fire ?

      The important thing now William is to promote epidemiological study by Kent Health Protection Agency. To carefully examine for aberrant Thanet disease patterns and to gain extra funding for the additional care needs that pollution may have created in Thanet.

      Delete
    4. Cllr Epps seems desperate to avoid any responsibility or action for what is going on at Thor mercury, Broadstairs. As too are the other TDC and KCC and RTC councillors. What are they all doing on these serious pollution incidents?

      If they and the Environment Agency and HSE have been deliberately lax then they need jailing. None of this fines from our tax or pensions and payoffs and lessons-learned-let's-forget-about-it nonsense.

      Thor was banned in 1988 for poisoning workers and the soil - why was it still in operation in 2007 if not even today? What is the Sericol 470 tonnes of contaminants removed and at other sites? Where are the details of the MOD Fire pollution and Manston? What clean up if any is happening?

      Delete
    5. Anon 12:03, if I was writing the rubbish you do I might then regard myself as desperate. As it is, I am unlikely to reach such a state about an incident that took place four years before I even became a councillor and on which there is no evidence whatsoever of mercury or any other pollution. I have made my own enquiries on the council's historic records and there is nothing to support your allegations.

      Delete
    6. Anon 12:03 pm,

      Why do you always want all and sundry jailed? Is it because you have been to prison?

      Delete
    7. There was an interesting debate going on until Holyer popped up with his childish one-liners.

      Delete
    8. The Broadstairs council wouldn't have records necessarily Cllr Epps. It's the Environment Agency that holds those. Have you requested those? The documents on the posts above details the pollution. You're simply talking nonsense again and allowing Thor to continue contaminating Broadstairs because you're too lazy or stupid to do anything.

      And what about Sericol which is ongoing? That's nonsense too?

      Delete
    9. Thanet District Council are responsible for the monitoring of contaminated land in the district under the Environmental Protection Act 2000 and the Environment Agency are only involved in very specific 'special sites', such as the monitoring of nuclear sites. If you are asking the Environment Agency for records, you are likely asking the wrong authority.

      Delete
    10. 1:04, jumping to conclusions again. I checked first with TDC, whose responsibility contaminated land in Thanet is, as Joe so rightly points out, and then with KCC. Do you not think that responsible councils get EA reports or are they exclusive to you and your chums. See the insults flow thick and fast, but for you of all people to call others lazy and stupid takes the biscuit.

      Delete
    11. TDC do have a role on contaminated land. As we all know they're not a very effective council so we should expect failure to clean up such contamination. The Environment Agency has responsibility too for Thor. They aren't restricted to to special sites(although Thor would probably qualify for that) but handle flood defences etc etc.

      And Michael's own blog detailed a presentation from the Environment Agency c.3 years ago to TDC on Thor and pollution. Maybe that slipped down the back of the TDC filing cabinet?

      You're talking nonsense again. Who did Cllr Epps speak to at TDC and KCC? And when will he contact the Environment Agency?

      And the Sericol pollution?

      Delete
    12. You've made specific claims about mercury pollution by Thor of Thanet groundwater. According to the Environment Agency, the site is being monitored - either by them or Thanet District Council. If you want to know the extent to which mercury is seeping into the environment, ask for details. If you don't believe the details, get an independent expert to take samples and write a report.

      Delete
    13. Have you asked for details of the pollution at Thor and what is being monitored Joe seeing as you're so interested in it?

      Delete
  18. The problem with your theories, Anon, is you attempt to connect to many different incidents together as though there is somehow a relationship between incidents at two different chemical plants continents apart and, for example, the Deal bombing. We are then expected to draw conclusions from that.

    One might as well argue that as average life expectancy is higher in Broadstairs than in Ramsgate or Margate, pollution from the Thor site, if in fact there is any, has enhanced rather than damaged longevity in the town. I would, however, not make such a ridiculous claim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thor Cato Ridge used the same processes and people as at Thor Broadstairs ie the site was banned in Kent so they set up the same polluting activity in South Africa. Dozens were again poisoned and more deaths. Cato Ridge is still contaminated, with the government so incompetent and corrupt the case was tried in UK. The causal link on Thor couldn't be any more clearer or direct.

      Delete
    2. Well, as long as you believe I suppose that is all that matters. I, for one, beg to differ and until you produce actual proof it will stay that way.

      Delete
    3. Stand by your beds flood warning has been issued by the EA if the area marked succeeds in being flooded then we will be an island again

      Delete
    4. What do you mean proof Cllr Epps? You said there was no Thor pollution and no link to Cato Ridge and now that's proved and numerous documents including the High Court case you simply up sticks and say yah boo I still don;t believe it.

      What proof do you need on the Broadstairs pollution from Thor? As ratepayers and voters we need to know what you are doing.

      Delete
    5. Nothing is proved, Anon, for articles and speculation are not proof. You, by the way, are not a ratepayer and voter in Broadstairs.

      Delete
    6. Thor were implicated in a pollution event abroad, where materials were stored in bad conditions in a situation where the site was not properly monitored. To prove that the same thing happened in Broadstairs, you'd need scientific evidence. Just because they did bad things abroad does not necessarily imply that they did the same things in the UK where the regulations are much stricter. Because, quite honestly, you are trying to imply a massive conspiracy involving the Environment Agency (who are hardly hesitant to enforce and prosecute industrial polluters), Thanet District Council, the NHS and who knows who else if you claim they know that the site is leaking pollutants that are known to be harming residents. Why would they do that?

      Delete
    7. You haven't said what proof you need Joe on the Thor pollution? The Broadstairs factory and Cato Ridge were both polluted by the same company - and the Broadstairs site first. You're claiming a vast conspiracy when it looks like public sector incompetence and now cover up to keep their jobs and pensions. Far easier to deny or hide the pollution?

      The regulations are obviously not stricter in UK because Thor was banned and closed in 1988 - yet remained open(!).

      But you need to explain why on the basis of no evidence of your own you think there is no pollution at Thor and no problem at all?

      Delete
    8. Anon 12:01, you really have it arse about face. It is you making the allegations of pollution so you have to prove that if you want to be taken seriously. Joe does not have to prove there is no pollution anymore than Cllr Epps is obliged to investigate something that does not exist. You are a sad joke whoever you are..

      Delete
    9. Now you're just talking nonsense. The practices that led to pollution in South Africa are not necessarily used in Thanet.

      And no, I'm saying what you're alleging is more than incompetance, given it is the role of the Environment Agency and the local authority (never mind the NHS etc) to report and prosecute pollution. If you are claiming that they're not doing it, that goes well beyond public sector incompetance and into a conspiracy - because it is their role to do this stuff.

      Operations ended at some point, but monitoring of the effects continued for some years. There is no contradiction there.

      I don't have to explain anything. If you have reason to believe that the Environment Agency and other public bodies are not sufficiently monitoring the site leading to a continued leakage of highly toxic metal and effects on the public, then you have to prove it. Having worked with the Environment Agency on a lot of issues, I'd be very surprised if they're not working with the local authority to monitor and evaluate the effects of the pollution events. If they're not saying it is a major health hazard, I'm prepared to believe them - unless you have some very specific and very compelling scientific reports to the contrary. In which case this would be the greatest cover-up of a pollution event that has ever happened in this country.

      Delete
    10. Thanks, Joe, very well put, but I am afraid you will never convince our anonymous friend anymore than you will about aircraft at Manston not causing cancer. These are the bees in his bonnet I am afraid and he has been twittering on about them for years round the blogs that have not yet brought in comment moderation.

      Delete
    11. 12:25 is being foolish. Of course Joe needs to explain why he thinks there is no pollution at Thor. Clearly there is, as the Environment Agency is involved and the site was banned and closed as toxic.Why is Joe making allegations of safety given those facts?

      He's provided no explanation as to why the site continued from 1988 after being banned - upto at least 2007. Nor can he confirm what the pollution levels are. Maybe he's tell us at some point why the site is perfectly fine.

      He can explain away the 470 tonnes of contamination at Sericol too no doubt.

      Delete
    12. I'm sorry, where did I say there was no pollution? The Environment Agency and TDC are monitoring the effects of the pollution events in 2003 and 2007, and Thor has a responsibility under the polluter pays principle to clean up the site. It can hardly clean it if it isn't there, can it.

      I have no idea what the pollution levels are, because until I saw this thread I hadn't thought of asking. If you had anything about you, you'd have put in a request to TDC and the Environment Agency to find out under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 rather than continuing to perpectuate irrelevant conspiracy details on the issue.

      Delete
    13. In the absence of any other firm scientific details, the chances of there being a large scale ongoing Mercury incident are low, because the effects on humans and the environment are so immediate and so obvious.

      Delete
    14. Almost all your comments Joe have been denying Thor pollution eg you said above: "I've asked you for the evidence of allegations you make about - not news reports, actual science reports produced by qualified experts. Nothing I've heard here suggests that there is anything to be worried about. Even if there was mercury at the site, there is nothing you've said that persuades me that it is a threat to groundwater today."

      If you don't know what the pollution levels are then why claim there is no pollution. Or that it was limited to 2003 and 2007 as you're now saying. The site was polluted as far back as 1988. You tell us what the pollution is seeing you have experience of pollution spills. What/where were those spills? How bad is the Sericol spill from your experience?

      Delete
  19. Councillor Epps is typical of Thanet politicians. They decide what they want to believe and ignore any and all evidence. In their tiny minds this makes them strong leaders. In the real world it just makes them look stubborn and out of touch. It's the kind of arrogant "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude that is causing voter turnout to plunge.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Absolutely spot-on 8:05. We have some abysmal councillors and Mr Epps is right down there with them. Why he seems to think there is no pollution at Thor Broadstairs beggars belief. With low turnout we need some sort of recall for our councillors as they simply are not representative of the public any more.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Clive meeting with Ann Gloag at TDC it seems - and citing an Air Quality Plan and the new Airport Committee as a success which seems odd: http://thanetlab.blogspot.com/2013/12/leaders-report-to-council-tdc-051213.html

    Has Clive raised the pollution with Gloag?

    ReplyDelete

Please note comments that may be libellous, comments that may be construed as offensive, anonymous derogatory comments about real people, comments baiting internet trolls, comments saying that an anonymous comment was made by a named real person, boring comments and spam comments, comments in CAPs will be deleted. Playground stuff like calling real people by their time stamp or surname alone, referring to groups as gangs, old duffers and so on will result in deletion. Comment that may be construed as offensive to minority groups is not allowed here either, so think before you write it, remember that the internet is a public place, that it is very difficult to be truly anonymous and that everyone who uses it leaves a trail of some sort. Also note the facility to leave anonymous comment will be turned of during periods when I am unable to monitor comment, this will not affect people commenting who are signed on to their blogger accounts. When things are particularly difficult on the commercial spam front I may turn comment moderation on for periods.

If you feel that someone has left a comment that is offensive and directed at you personally please email me (link on the sidebar) asking to have it removed, you will need to tell which post and the date and timestamp of the offending comment. Please do not reply to the offending comment as I will assume you continuing the dialogue as meaning that you want the comments left there.