tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575321478441277410.post1169881943184948104..comments2024-03-13T10:32:22.656+00:00Comments on thanetonline: Manston Airport changes hands, first indicators of any new directions.Michael Childhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09499435016469020417noreply@blogger.comBlogger212125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575321478441277410.post-43484628295486677262013-12-07T13:27:17.915+00:002013-12-07T13:27:17.915+00:00
REPORT ON INVESTIGATION OF AN INCIDENT
The site ...<br />REPORT ON INVESTIGATION OF AN INCIDENT<br /><br />The site at Margate (Kent) Investigation 20/2/2008<br /><br />Incident Summary<br /><br />Incident occurred on 19th December 2007. Synthetic route (from Germany) was being scaled-up (by the persons interviewed) and ***********from the Wincham site). Uncontrolled events lead to reactor overpressure, separating the reactor lid and breaking a glass vessel containing toluene (about 50 Kg). Explosion and fire destroyed the plant. Nobody was hurt.<br /><br />Date(s) of Investigation<br /><br />20/2/2008<br /><br />Persons Interviewed<br /><br />Description of the Incident<br />Explosion of pilot scale chemical reactor. No injuries or fatalities.<br /><br />Agents Involved<br /><br />Stage 1.<br />Pentaerythritol<br />Phosphorus trichloride<br />Toluene (solvent)<br />HCL gas (evolved)<br />Intermediate Bicyclic phosphate (CAS: 873-93-8)<br /><br />Stage 2<br />Intermediate Bicyclic phosphate (CAS: 873-93-8)<br />Dimethylmethyl phosphonate (DMMP)<br />Iodine (catalyst)<br />TL1171 CAS: 3001-98-7 (product)<br /><br />Underlying Causes<br /><br />Failure to adequately assess and characterize the chemical reaction hazards and engineer the pilot plant.<br /><br />Action required by Client by HSE<br /><br />To cease pilot scale operations before the site is decommissioned.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575321478441277410.post-67537505954439060822013-12-07T10:41:22.411+00:002013-12-07T10:41:22.411+00:00Anon 11.55 William Epps has responded to my emails...Anon 11.55 William Epps has responded to my emails. He is not "Rght down". <br /><br />Where William and myself may appear to disagree is in the area of a priori reasoning. For example he might argue, with no sense of logic or irony, that pieces of a jigsaw do not fit together ?<br /><br />But that would only be a valid and rational response if I had first declared that I was presenting a complete jigsaw ?<br /><br />The logical test is are the pieces more likely than not to be from one jigsaw ? Is inquiry meritted to find the remaining pieces ?<br /><br /> There are two equally irrational sides of the pollution argument. Both sides make claims they are unable to support with evidence. Tim assumes too much and his critics infer too much.<br /><br />The rational route is to accept that there has been insufficient inquiry. And to promote inquiry. This would be by Police, IPCC, Environment Agency, HSE and Health Protection Agency.<br /><br />What can be established is the historical points at which Kent Police were purportedly making inquiry. 1988 1989 1990 1993 1996 1997 2000 2003 and 2007. What can be established is that Kent Police failed to check to validate qualifications and Army Records of Service. <br /><br />There has been a pattern of tory response. For example when I first used the phrase "Westwood Triangle". Response complete denial and personal attack. Then I put forward the anthrax burials Westwood Cross, the FACTS provided by EA re Thor and Sericol. The initial tory position was thus shot down in flames. But completely unabashed they move to calling for evidence from whilst avoiding calling for inquiry by appropriate authority. When asked to question members of TDC Planning 1993 and the same cllrs giving High Court evidence 1998 the tory response is prodigious outrage. How dare an oik ask questions about the conduct of elected tory cllrs.<br /><br />This blog has even published lies claiming that I accused a perfectly decent cllr of perjury the week his wife died. The fact is the litigant Mrs Mortlock made complaints to Police and United Grand Lodge of English Freemasonry 1998 12 years before the cllr's wife died.<br /><br />So if William is asking, for example, "What possible reason could the Labour govt have had to refuse to compel inquiry re Thor ?"<br /><br />Refer to the jigsaw pieces that say Jack Straw Bogus case made for WMD. Refer to the jigsaw piece that says question accepted as admissible within terms of Chilcott Inquiry.<br /><br />If William's question is "Why would Jack Straw refuse to compel related inquiry re Sericol and the Deal Barracks bombing ?"<br /><br />Refer to the jigsaw pieces that say public spending cuts to barracks security involved high flying MOD civil servant Mrs Jack Straw. Refer to the Thor jigsaw pieces re WMD.<br /><br />Is there a compelling case to raise inquiries by the above agencies ?<br /><br />Well for example Michael and William are satisfied that the 2007 explosion and fire at Thor did not involve mercury. Oh that's OK then nothing to question ? Nothing to see here folks ? By the way what did the fire and explosion involve ? Did the incident compromise remediation measures for mercury and mixed solvents?<br /><br />What duration did Sericol leak cyclohexanone to aquifer for ? 30 years ? Or between 1988 and 1993 ? can the question of duration be informed or correlated with epidemiological research ? Should epidemiological research take place ? For those who say no then answer why Rumfields water abstraction was immediately stopped in 1993 upon discovery of the Sericol water pollution problem.<br /><br />If you believe that all is well and thus that no further inquiry is meritted then make your case. <br /><br />The fact is you don't have a case. <br /><br />Any more than Tim could make a case that the drinking water is still contaminated. <br /><br />The health questions are epidemiological and about direct abstraction licences.<br /><br />Rick<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575321478441277410.post-64252885782257201072013-12-06T19:12:22.065+00:002013-12-06T19:12:22.065+00:00You obviously haven't heard from Eppsy and Hol...You obviously haven't heard from Eppsy and Holyer 7:01.There's wind and piss for you. Mind you Clive and Buchanan have come out with some toxic discharge over the last few years on Manston pollution?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575321478441277410.post-68062250305198299382013-12-06T19:09:16.002+00:002013-12-06T19:09:16.002+00:00Tell us when you have something more than your opi...Tell us when you have something more than your opinion Joe. The points here are a start. And if you can't be bothered to investigate the state of your water supply and Thor mercury that's fine someone else will no doubt do it for you. Maybe you could develop a series of technical reports and assertions over a decade or two or three and conduct some evaluations and responses and so on. Possibly definite findings before 2050?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575321478441277410.post-41175078167114566622013-12-06T19:06:04.606+00:002013-12-06T19:06:04.606+00:007:01 The most serious risk of pollution in Thanet ...7:01 The most serious risk of pollution in Thanet is from the wind and piss that comes out from you. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575321478441277410.post-1803207377687443142013-12-06T19:04:47.250+00:002013-12-06T19:04:47.250+00:00I think Joe in a long-winded way is coming round t...I think Joe in a long-winded way is coming round to the view that he doesn't have the foggiest idea about Thor pollution with a series of caveatss and backtracking and erm not quite sure thingies... <br /><br />Empty opinion dissolves into hot air although that's not a proven chemical reaction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575321478441277410.post-79563257546135048182013-12-06T19:01:17.990+00:002013-12-06T19:01:17.990+00:00Your fizzy pop analogy for pollution was priceless...Your fizzy pop analogy for pollution was priceless though Michael. And equally as disingenuous as your silly assertions above. You seem to flipflop between the water polluted and not being polluted depending on sales in your bookshop. Back to your rather obsessive stocktaking rather than a serious debate it seems. 16kg of mercury (10 years ago!) is a problem though. How will it be cleaned up? One for Joe?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575321478441277410.post-30765735966568408412013-12-06T18:54:25.910+00:002013-12-06T18:54:25.910+00:00Cobblers again Joe. You suddenly find Thanet is a ...Cobblers again Joe. You suddenly find Thanet is a Nitrate Zone but couldn't decide whether the EnvironemntAgency was involved in cleaning up Thor?<br /><br />And fertiliser draining into the aquifer would be a problem but not aviation fuel which would be classed as a one-off event no matter how many times it happened. Utter horseshat.<br /><br />Yes they can tell whether the airport is polluting the aquifer - which is why Infratil were served several notices to clean it up.<br /><br />Try harder Joe. I wouldn't trust you to clean up spilt milk never mind a toxic spill.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575321478441277410.post-73972031739304272092013-12-06T15:23:58.323+00:002013-12-06T15:23:58.323+00:00how many gold stars do you have?how many gold stars do you have?John Hamilton - talking sense and cutting through bullshithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04286883736579945122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575321478441277410.post-67859802057445720262013-12-06T14:10:49.070+00:002013-12-06T14:10:49.070+00:00I have to admit to letting the comments stay on th...I have to admit to letting the comments stay on this one, partly out of curiosity and partly to prove the point that my mixture of spamming and deleting is the correct one.<br /><br />Not sure if the anon who thinks CO2 is a poison is the same one who thinks mercury spilt in southern Africa will pollute the ground in Thanet and I guess as both notions are equally bonkers it doesn’t really matter. <br /><br />I guess my main feelings about individuals who have this type of obsession and then become incapable of accepting and counter argument or engaging in any dialogue beyond the one evidently going on inside their heads is one of sympathy. <br /><br />The main problem for me with this sort of comment is that it detracts from some of the very real pollution issues that we actually do have in Thanet anyway I will now return to spamming and deleting comment along the lines of:<br /><br />“Air is fatal” although of course it is if it is injected into your bloodstream, I don’t recommend trying to stop breathing for this reason.<br /><br />“Water is fatal” although of course it is if you drown in it, best not to stop drinking anything. <br /><br />On a final note, there was significant mercury pollution in Thanet although not by Thor but by Southern Water, the EA website says 16kg released in 2002.<br />Michael Childhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09499435016469020417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575321478441277410.post-1992839964713249802013-12-06T14:04:02.420+00:002013-12-06T14:04:02.420+00:00Well because a) a large release of mercury would b...Well because a) a large release of mercury would be obvious and b) the EA say that the site is being monitored and c) Thor invested in remediation at the site. <br /><br />You might not be aware that the regulations regarding polluted and contaminated land do not necessarily mean that there is any actual impact beyond the factory site. It is entirely possible that there is polluted land at the site which has been stabilised, that the whole pollution spill has been totally remediated, that the amounts referred to were actually relatively low in the first place. How would I know which of those options are likely without reading the scientific reports? There is no reason to jump to the conclusion that the factory is contaminating the whole of Thanet's groundwater.<br /><br />Sheesh.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12697826755404106727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575321478441277410.post-48091379806178497762013-12-06T13:58:46.671+00:002013-12-06T13:58:46.671+00:00Really, this is beyond everything. If you have be...Really, this is beyond everything. If you have been campaigning and interested in this topic for years, you'd have done the basic research. Given I know nothing about this two days ago, I'm hardly likely to have asked anyone for anything, am I.<br /><br />I can tell you that there were incidents at the site in 2003 and 2007 and that the Environment Agency says that monitoring is ongoing. <br /><br />I am not particularly interested in it. I can't see anything to be concerned about. But I am interested that someone who claims to be concerned about this issue seems so keen to spread uninformed unscientific conspiracy theories without having the basic information to refer to.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12697826755404106727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575321478441277410.post-50709364530900945462013-12-06T13:58:00.607+00:002013-12-06T13:58:00.607+00:00Almost all your comments Joe have been denying Tho...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."<br /><br />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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575321478441277410.post-20233409421354964232013-12-06T13:51:26.864+00:002013-12-06T13:51:26.864+00:00In the absence of any other firm scientific detail...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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12697826755404106727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575321478441277410.post-70341918197364585072013-12-06T13:49:12.718+00:002013-12-06T13:49:12.718+00:00I'm sorry, where did I say there was no pollut...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 <i>polluter pays</i> principle to clean up the site. It can hardly clean it if it isn't there, can it.<br /><br />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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12697826755404106727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575321478441277410.post-53941261845273643242013-12-06T13:44:07.400+00:002013-12-06T13:44:07.400+00:00Well at least you ask a good question. Regarding a...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 <a href="https://www.gov.uk/nitrate-vulnerable-zones#how-to-comply-with-nvz-rules" rel="nofollow">Nitrate Vulnerable Zones</a>, where farmers in particularly problematic water catchments have to be careful how they managed the land.<br /><br />And, what do you know, the whole of Thanet is designated as a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone because everything drains into the aquifer.<br /><br />In contrast, pollution from any event at Manston would be a single event.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />And, y'know, scientists are not stupid. They can tell chemically if the pollutants in the groundwater come from the airfield or from agrochemicals.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12697826755404106727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575321478441277410.post-87365425749612856832013-12-06T13:36:41.656+00:002013-12-06T13:36:41.656+00:00Have you asked for details of the pollution at Tho...Have you asked for details of the pollution at Thor and what is being monitored Joe seeing as you're so interested in it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575321478441277410.post-86642445053930496902013-12-06T13:33:16.974+00:002013-12-06T13:33:16.974+00:0012:25 is being foolish. Of course Joe needs to exp...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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />He can explain away the 470 tonnes of contamination at Sericol too no doubt. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575321478441277410.post-90350378765706768092013-12-06T12:43:11.525+00:002013-12-06T12:43:11.525+00:00Thanks, Joe, very well put, but I am afraid you wi...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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17927801279761727020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575321478441277410.post-74610483785521912562013-12-06T12:27:32.546+00:002013-12-06T12:27:32.546+00:00Now you're just talking nonsense. The practic...Now you're just talking nonsense. The practices that led to pollution in South Africa are not necessarily used in Thanet. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Operations ended at some point, but monitoring of the effects continued for some years. There is no contradiction there. <br /><br />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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12697826755404106727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575321478441277410.post-5991920157145454872013-12-06T12:25:16.952+00:002013-12-06T12:25:16.952+00:00Anon 12:01, you really have it arse about face. I...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.. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575321478441277410.post-38260928724649114902013-12-06T12:16:09.870+00:002013-12-06T12:16:09.870+00:00Clive meeting with Ann Gloag at TDC it seems - and...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<br /><br />Has Clive raised the pollution with Gloag?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575321478441277410.post-72425652385756448062013-12-06T12:05:35.077+00:002013-12-06T12:05:35.077+00:00How would fertiliser pollute the Manston aquifer b...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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575321478441277410.post-81169045561449254912013-12-06T12:01:41.758+00:002013-12-06T12:01:41.758+00:00You haven't said what proof you need Joe on th...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?<br /><br />The regulations are obviously not stricter in UK because Thor was banned and closed in 1988 - yet remained open(!).<br /><br />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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575321478441277410.post-70680458873385858212013-12-06T11:55:10.450+00:002013-12-06T11:55:10.450+00:00Absolutely spot-on 8:05. We have some abysmal coun...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com