Vine tattoos are great for creativity of both the wearer and the artist. These beautiful little plants are also a symbol of growth, re-growth and harmony. However, the meaning does tend to vary depending on which type of vine you use.
One of the most frequently seen vine tattoos is of the ivy plant. To the Druids the ivy was seen as a symbol of determination; to Christians it is a symbol of man's frailty, and his need to cling for support. Most ivy vine tattoos are done in a spiraling style up a leg or arm, you may even occasionally see this style growing up the back and shoulders. Given that ivy is a notoriously good grower, you could try something a little different, like wrapping it around a statue, cross, or even the legs, hips and arms of a pin up model. You could even use a single leaf, or whole vine of poison ivy to signify both beauty and danger.
Some people prefer a wider variety of color for their vine tattoos. For this you could use large clumps of fiery red Virginia creeper over a broad area of the body; delicate sprouts of purple, red, and pink and white sweet pea; or a creeping kudzu with its royal blue, or dark purple, and tail-like blossoms. Given the vast array available, your vine tattoos can be an explosion of colors, and feature any combination of these plants; they can be done in stripes down the back, they can be mingled together, or placed in their own individual part of the body.
Vine tattoos can be either simple, or elaborate. Many people prefer a monotone approach, sometimes with just a splash of color on the flower. These are often done in small, discreet patterns; a few flowing tendrils from a grapevine (a symbol of abundance), and maybe even a small, purple bunch of the fruit alongside of it. Other people like to create broad scenes with their vine tattoos; perhaps creating an Edenic garden, with angelic creatures walking through the variety of vines. This plant is also regularly used as borders or platforms to other images, and occasionally even texts, such as poems, quotes and book passages.
Although vine tattoos can depict a simple, green plant creeping up and around an appendage, they can also be used as part of an extraordinary picture. What's more is that you will never be short of meaning and symbolism when you use these gorgeous plants in your art.


text:
Explore and Record the Wonders of the Yucatán Peninsula as Few Other Digital Photographers Have
The Yucatán Peninsula of México evokes images for digital photographers of luxurious tropical vacations in Cancun and Cozumel and the spectacular Mayan complexes at Chichén-Itzá and Uxmal, and the less well-known Mayapán.
Not only is Chichén-Itzá a World Heritage Site, but also El Castillo, the dominant pyramid, was named one of the Seven New Wonders of the World during 2007. This has made the complex a very popular tourist attraction, which is why the serious digital photographer will want to visit the site during the early morning hours and sunset. (You also want to avoid the midday heat.) Fewer people and the softness of the light during these time periods will allow you to compose and record photos that reveal the timelessness of Chichén-Itzá. Make sure you and your camera spend time in all three sections of the complex: the Toltec style of the northern section, the earliest buildings in the central area and "Old Chichén" to the south.
Uxmal is also a World Heritage site. It is very easy to understand why it received that designation as soon as you view its magnificent architecture. It shows that the people of Uxmal were great architects and designers, as they created a city of low, broad palaces opening onto grand courtyards. All accented with finely crafted details carved into and from rock. Because the restoration of Uxmal surpasses all other sites, it provides countless images for the digital photographer, who looks to capture not just structures, but also the play of light and air. Again, sunrise and sunset are the best times to photograph Uxmal when its mysterious nature is most likely to be on display.
As a digital photographer eager to bring home the most incredible images of the cities of the Mayan, Mayapán may be a better location. Although it's within an easy trip from Mérida, it is virtually unknown to the standard crowd of tourists. Except for the calls of tropical birds, Mayapán is quiet, and a true picture-taking adventure for serious photographers.
Surrounding any digital photography destination on the Yucatán Peninsula is one of the most diverse ecosystems in the world. Thousands of species of plants, mammals, reptiles, birds and insects populate the tropical jungles, dry forests and lowland moist forests and the mangroves and Gulf waters of the coastlines.
One of the most amazing examples of the biodiversity of the Yucatán is the Ría Celestún Biosphere Reserve and the annual gathering of 30,000 Greater Flamingos during January in the tidal estuary. Shallow-draft skiffs will take you and your camera among the colonies and rookeries of not only Greater Flamingos, but also many other species of birds. Great flocks of birds soar to and from their nesting sites, affording an endless number of images of birds in flight. Study the birds carefully and you'll discover details and nuances of their behavior, which are also excellent compositions for your digital photography.
As beautiful and mysterious as the Yucatán is above ground, another world and digital photography challenge lies beneath your feet.
You may not notice it immediately, but you won't find rivers and lakes dotting the landscape of the Yucatán Peninsula. It sits on an enormous expanse of limestone, and being very porous, virtually all rainwater drains into a grand system of underground rivers, lakes, sinkholes and caverns.
Being accessible, many of these caves became sacred sites for Mayans; some even show archeologically evidence of being occupied by humans for 7,000 years. Thanks to the Mayans, you and your digital camera can explore the magical world that awaits you beneath the Yucatán. Of particular interest are the "cenotes." A local word that describes places where the limestone ground has collapsed, creating entries into the caverns below. Some are unbelievable grottos and others are filled with water, virtually pure and crystal clear.
South of the village of Tecoh is where a seldom-visited cenote and group of caverns beckon any digital photographer who wants to capture the beauty and majesty of an unspoiled natural treasure. Tzahnah Caves feature stalactites, stalagmites, columns, deep crevices and thirteen cenotes, plus the startling underground chamber known as the Cathedral Cupula.
If you want to photograph the Yucatán as few others have, then you should be one of the 6 photographers to join the Visionary Wild Yucatán Expedition, January 21–29, 2013. Your teachers promise to show you sights virtually unseen and assist you in photographing them with a new level of skill in landscape and nature photography.
Jack Dykinga, acclaimed landscape photographer, and Justin Black, Visionary Wild co-founder and assistant instructor, will focus much of the group's time on cenotes and the Yucatán's underworld. Your understanding of the Yucatán ecology will be greatly enhanced with the special guidance of Alfredo Medina, explorer, photographer, diver, printer and president of Amigos de Sian Ka'an, a Yucatan-Peninsula-based conservation organization.
"It was a great trip. Great people, great photographs and a magical part of the universe!" –Sean S., 2012 Yucatan participant
For more information about the Visionary Wild Yucatán Expedition, visit http://visionarywild.com/workshops/yucatan-peninsula-cenotes-flamigos-haciendas-and-the-mayan-world-2013/.
Photo copyright © Jack Dykinga
People who read this PhotographyTalk.com article also liked:
Visionary Wild 2012 Workshops: The Ultimate Digital Photography Adventures and Learning Experiences
Justin Black: Connecting Photos of the Natural World with the Human Spirit
8 Thoughts About How To Capture the Landscape Photos "Hidden" in Low Light
8 Cozy, Comfy and Protective Features of the Stealth Gear Extreme Urban Photographer's Jacket/Vest

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Event Data Recorder Pre-Crash Data Sources for General Motors Vehicles ASME Paper No. IMECE2003-41812 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress 2003; Washington, D.C. Author: John Steiner The Event Data Recorder (EDR) found in some 1994 model year and newer General Motors (GM) passenger vehicles has the ability to record up to five seconds of pre-crash data.


IDW Publishing is teaming up with Cloudco Entertainment to produce a new Care Bears comic book series.
The series will be feature a story from Matthew Erman and Nadia Shammas with illustrations by Agnes Garbowska. IDW indicates the series will expand on the Care Bears: Unlock the Magic streaming series and will feature new content.
The first issue will feature a regular cover by Agnes Gabrowska and a special variant edition by Tony Fleecs. The series is expected to debut sometime this July.


Wen-Hsing Luo, Ph.D., Associate Professor of the Department of English Instruction at National Hsinchu University of Education, Taiwan. Her research interests include English teaching, teacher professional development, and NNEST-related issues.
1. Thank you for agreeing to be our NNEST Blog June guest. Could you please tell us your linguistic, educational and professional background? What attracts you to English and to become an educator?
First of all, I'd like to express my appreciation to NNEST Blog Editorial team for this interview. I was born and grew up in Hsinchu County, which is located in the northern part of Taiwan. My mother tongue is Hakka, which is one of the Chinese languages. I first started learning Mandarin Chinese, which is the official language in Taiwan, when I began formal schooling. Like most of students of my age in Taiwan, I started English education when I entered the junior high school, that is, at the seventh grade. In 2003, I received a Ph.D. degree in Curriculum, Teaching and Learning from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto (OISE/U of T), and moved back to Taiwan and started teaching at the tertiary level. Currently, I am an associate professor in the Department of English Instruction at National Hsinchu University of Education.
I became an English teacher when I started to teach at a private language institute in Taipei. At the time, I was teaching English to Taiwanese students and Mandarin Chinese to foreigners. Along with my teaching, I found that English teaching is fascinating, and that was why I decided to pursue further studies in this field and became an English educator.
2. You have published several journal articles and presented conference papers on the collaborative teaching model for NESTs and NNESTs. Please tell us what sparks your interest in this topic.
In 2004, I began research on collaborative teaching of EFL by NESTs and NNESTs in Taiwan, and for the past years, I have continued studies on this topic. I was intrigued by this topic when I found that Hsinchu City had included NESTs as teaching resources in every elementary school in this city since 2001 when English education in Taiwan started at elementary schools. I was interested in how NESTs worked with local English teachers in Taiwanese elementary schools and what the impact of the NEST program would be on teachers and students alike.
3. We noticed, your study is supported by the Hsin-Chu City government in Taiwan. Would you please describe the prevailing situations of the collaborative teaching model for NESTs and NNESTs in Taiwan? For example, are there any differences in the use of this teaching model in public schools and private language institutions, which are not supported by governments?
Traditional team teaching: this type of collaborative teaching was uncommon and could be observed only in classes co-taught by a NEST and an experienced TTE. In a traditional team teaching class, both NEST and TTE were jointly responsible for instruction.
Monitoring teacher: this type of collaborative teaching usually occurred in classes taught by a NEST and a homeroom teacher whose English proficiency was limited. In a class of this kind, the NEST alone was in charge of the instruction, and the local teacher mainly monitored students' behavior.
Combination of traditional team teaching and monitoring teacher: this type of collaborative teaching was most commonly seen and could be found in classes taught by a team of a NEST and a TTE or a NEST and a homeroom teacher. In a class as such, the NEST led the instruction for the students, while the local teacher worked as an assistant.
In Taiwan, the term "collaborative teaching" connected primary to English teaching by NESTs and TTEs at elementary schools where NESTs are to work with TTEs as an English team and to support the research and development of English teaching methods and materials. The practice of collaborative teaching by NESTs and local teachers in the school system in Taiwan is different from that at private language institutions in the way that at the private language schools most of NESTs and their Taiwanese co-teachers are not licensed teachers.
4. Based on your research, what are the major advantages and disadvantages of adopting this teaching model in an EFL setting like Taiwan?
Based on my studies, the major advantages of collaborative teaching by NESTs and local English teachers in Taiwan include: (1) students will receive English input from NESTs while TTEs provide linguistic assistance for low-achievers in the class, and (2) being taught by NESTs, students become less afraid of speaking English with foreigners, while TTEs help monitor students' learning. Yet, the practice of collaborative teaching is not without its disadvantages. The major disadvantage is that if TTEs work with inexperienced NESTs, who do not have TEFL-related experience and background and are new in the NEST program, collaborative teaching will become tiring for TTEs and does not motivate student learning as it should.
5. What are the challenges that most local English teachers and NESTs in Taiwan face in a collaborative teaching environment? In what way have you prepared those teachers for their challenges?
The previous studies show that the challenges facing TTEs and NESTs in Taiwan are: (1) teachers have different perceptions of the formats of collaborative teaching, and (2) teachers are uncertain about the role played by each of the team teachers in the classroom. Additionally, a challenge specific for TTEs is: working with inexperienced or opinionated NESTs. As the turnover of NESTs is very high, many NESTs are not experienced in collaborative teaching of EFL. Working with inexperienced NESTs presents a big challenge for TTEs.
To help teachers tackle these challenges, the English Education Advisory Committee of cities or counties where the NEST program is implemented has provided TTEs and NESTs with pre- and in-service training sessions related to collaborative teaching of EFL.
6. As a scholar returned from overseas back in Taiwan, what advice would you give to local NNES teachers to better prepare themselves for being confident and professional teachers?
I think it is important for local English teachers to realize the advantages of being NNESTs and to continue putting efforts in professional development. Only when local English teachers think they are on an equal footing with NESTs in English teaching profession, do they find confidence in what they teach and consider themselves professional.
Luo, W-H. (2010). Collaborative Teaching of EFL by Native and Non-native English-speaking Teachers in Taiwan. In A. Mahboob (Ed.), The NNEST Lens: Non Native English Speakers in TESOL (pp. 263-284). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Luo, W-H (2010). An Inquiry into Teacher Knowledge for Collaborative EFL Teaching in Elementary Schools in Taiwan. Journal of National University of Tainan, v44(1), 2010, 89-109.
Luo, W-H. (2007). A Study of Native English-speaking Teacher Programs in Elementary Schools in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Education Review, v8 (2), 2007, 311-320.
Luo, W-H. (2007). A Collaborative Model for Teaching EFL by Native and Non-native English-speaking Teachers. Curriculum and Instruction Quarterly, v10(3), 2007, 187-202.
Luo, W-H. (2006). Collaboration between Native and Non-native English-Speaking Teachers: How does it work? The Journal of Asia TEFL, v3 (3), 2006, 41-58.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized on May 30, 2012 by Ana Solano-Campos.


In this project we present the second phase of the project in which we support the development of a Chocolate growing and small business Demonstration Site using the methodology of Analog Forestry (AF) with Educational Forums to bring back forest cover with sustainable production, towards an AF Chocolate branding – La Union, North Coast Honduras.
In 2016 the Tree Project received funding of the Koningsschool and was able to successfully develop some of its anticipated activities, specifically related to establishing and maintain a demonstration field site. This work connects with the IAFN-RIFA efforts towards Rich Forests as we are working towards private public partnerships with the aim to increase biodiversity and eventually increase income from the farms.
In the community of La Union poverty levels are high and there are few possibilities for employment. In addition it is a town near the coast with all the related drug problems, and local young men who get involved with this trade as there are almost no other opportunities. The Tree Project (TTP), through its local work with markets and mangrove restoration was approached by farmers in the area, often the husbands of the market vendors about how to manage various cacao problems (black rot, lack of pollination, how to prune and graft). With this project we aim to support local farmers by managing their various cacao problems, raise with them the issue of analog forestry to be able to use nature sustainably, and contribute to opportunities for the people of La Union to find jobs that are sustainable for them and for their environment.
To provide a demonstration site for cacao production best practices, experimenting with companion planting and using Analog Forestry methodology. To assist local farmers with disease prevention, best pruning techniques, grafting and taking care of a cacao agro-forestry site.
Work to establish a small scale chocolate processing, training and processing site and by providing equipment to Honduran cacao farmers and cacao cooperatives in the Atlántida region of Honduras.
The international market for cacao is expected to double by 2050. The high price of finished chocolate does not correlate to the low farm gate prices that farmers receive. New developments in chocolate processing equipment can enable small producers to either fully or partially process cacao beans. The resulting processed product has a significantly higher value than exporting the raw, primary product of dried cacao beans. By providing equipment and training to stakeholders, Honduran cacao farmers in the La Union area will be able to sell a more valuable processed product that is less susceptible to the market fluctuations that dictate the price of raw cacao beans. This project is part of a longer process, it will be continued by the Tree Project in collaboration of the partnerships involved. The results of this phase will stay with the participants in terms of learns and capacity building achieved.


This submission is presented on behalf of the Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG), a citizens' based organisation (CBO) formed to oppose any proposal to develop a new nuclear power station on land neighbouring the former Bradwell Magnox NPS. The Aims and Purpose of BANNG are set out in Appendix A to this response. The supporters of BANNG take a variety of perspectives on the nuclear issue. BANNG was formed in April 2008 and is mainly based in West Mersea although its membership is being extended to other communities surrounding the Blackwater estuary. This consultation response has been circulated to the membership of BANNG and has been discussed and approved by its Core Group. It may be said, therefore, to represent the views of the organisation.
We are particularly concerned about the inadequacy and partial nature of the SSA consultation. We have six concerns.
Our first and most important concern is that the siting process is inadequate, flawed and unfair. In many respects it is a reversion to the discredited 'Decide Announce Defend'(DAD) approach where sites are identified and nuclear facilities imposed on communities. The justification for existing sites rests on three criteria (none of which is firmly included in the SSA proposed list). These are: sites available in friendly ownership; available facilities and infrastructure; public acceptability among the local communities. A condition imposed on a 'Credible Nuclear Power Operator' (CNPO) is that they must demonstrate they 'have taken steps to engage local communities living in the vicinity of the nominated site..' (p.9). It is not sufficient merely to provide publicity, hold meetings and invite views. Engagement involves open deliberation and participation in the decision making process.
Second, although this consultation focuses on strategic siting criteria, it is a matter of local concern. These are general criteria to be applied in specific contexts. However, the identification and specification of criteria needs to be informed by local as well as generic factors. There is little evidence that effort was made to draw on local perspectives in drafting the criteria. We believe the government should engage with a wide range of local communities and stakeholders.in its further development of the draft criteria.
However, and this is our third point, it seems that very little effort has been made to promote this consultation and no effort at all to involve local citizens and communities in the process. It appears that the significance of this consultation has not been drawn to the attention of local authorities and parish and town councils in potentially affected areas. For example, we were disappointed to learn that Colchester Borough Council had been unaware of the consultation and West Mersea Town Council, representing the population of a town within two miles of the Bradwell site, had not considered responding to the consultation. On an issue as important as this, it would seem neglectful at best on the part of government not actively to encourage communities in potentially affected areas to respond.
Our fourth concern is that the criteria appear to have been drawn up with specific sites in mind. Indeed, this should be no surprise when the nuclear White Paper states as follows: 'We expect that applications for building new power stations will focus on areas in the vicinity of existing nuclear facilities. Industry has indicated that these are the most viable sites' (BERR, January 2008, para. 78). The draft criteria suggest that none of these existing sites will be automatically ruled out. This implication was confirmed by a spokesperson for British Energy who stated there are no criteria which, applied to Bradwell, would eliminate it as a potential site. There are only four exclusionary criteria and they are set at levels that are highly unlikely to exclude any existing site. On the other hand, criteria that might exclude such sites, notably flooding or tsunamis, storm damage and coastal processes are in the discretionary category and, in any case, framed in such a way that, even if they were exclusionary, it is unlikely that any existing site would be ruled out.
A fifth point is the absence of criteria that, perhaps, should have been included. One criterion that might have been included is location in relation to demand. It may be argued that sites in remote locations require long-distance transmission and consequent loss of electricity in transmission and of heat that might be utilised in Combined Heat and Power (CHP) systems. A criterion on health effects would also seem a candidate for inclusion. Another additional criterion should be on socio-economic impacts which should evaluate overall disbenefits as well as benefits and impacts on well-being in the sub-region surrounding a proposed site.
It might also be expected that public acceptability should be a criterion. The idea that those living near nuclear facilities are familiar with them and appreciate the economic benefits flowing from the investment is contentious to say the least. It may equally be argued that greater knowledge increases anxiety and resistance to nuclear facilities. Although there is considerable research on issues of public awareness and perspectives, questions of methodology, representativeness and interpretation make it difficult to draw any conclusions.
Our sixth and final concern is the need for independent consultation and research. We wish to stress that many aspects of siting strategy related to criteria are under-researched. This is true both for generic as well as site-specific aspects. A further problem is that some aspects of consultation, for example, engagement with local communities, are the responsibility of site operators. We do not consider it appropriate for research or public consultation to be commissioned or undertaken by CNPOs. In order to achieve public trust and the credibility of process it is important that research and consultation is seen to be distanced from any vested interest and that it is independent, peer reviewed, credible and robust.
We conclude that this consultation is deeply flawed and represents a means of seeking to legitimate siting decisions already taken in principle and being applied in practice through the selling of British Energy and Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) sites and the Government's efforts to facilitate the development of new power stations on existing nuclear sites. This is an inequitable approach, in effect imposing risk, now and in the future, on communities who already bear the risk from the previous generations of nuclear activities.
We propose that, if the government proceeds with the development of new nuclear power, it adopts an equitable siting strategy based on the principles recommended by the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) and endorsed by government (CoRWM, 2006, 2007; Defra, 2008)).
New power stations will also be, in effect, long term spent fuel and radioactive waste management stores. They are likely to be present on sites for at least a hundred years and could remain there longer depending on whether and when a national repository becomes operational. In its proposals for implementation CoRWM suggested that in order to inspire public confidence its recommendations for legacy wastes could be applied to central or regional waste stores (CoRWM?, 2007, p.10). Given that new nuclear stations will also be waste management facilities, it seems logical that the voluntary approach to siting should be applied to finding sites.
Our response to the consultation is to urge a fair and voluntary siting strategy which is based on open, deliberative engagement enabling local communities to be involved and to participate in the decision making process.
The six concerns in Section B above underlie our response to the specific questions in the consultation paper which we address below.
Do you agree that, at this time, the SSA should focus only on sites that are nominated as being suitable candidates for deploying new nuclear power stations by the end of 2025? If not, why not?
The siting process should be fair and apply the principles of intra-generational equity. This principle requires that actions should not impose an unfair or undue burden on individuals or groups within the current generation. Communities living near existing sites already bear or have experienced a burden of risk and it would be unfair to impose further risk upon them. An equitable approach should consider a wide range of possibilities and engage with the public in a voluntary siting process. Efforts must be made to understand attitudes to the prospect of new nuclear power in local communities. A new power station should not be imposed on an unwilling community.
The sites most likely to be nominated are located on the coast or estuaries in southern England. These are all in areas liable to erosion or inundation especially as climate change affects sea levels and storm surges are liable to become more frequent. Any proposals to site new power stations in such vulnerable locations should be rejected.
An equitable siting process involving local communities is likely to take longer. Even the accelerated and centralised process proposed by the government is unlikely to yield any operational power stations before 2020. The problems with the energy gap are likely to emerge well before then. Nuclear's contribution to future energy needs and carbon reduction is likely to be small and, therefore, it makes sense to deploy resources into those areas likely to make the greatest contribution, namely energy efficiency and renewables.
This point is reinforced by concerns about intergenerational equity, the principle of fairness over time, that the present generation should not impose unfair or undue burdens on future generations. The new power stations are likely to operate for up to sixty years and decommissioning may well take several decades longer. It is unlikely that sites will be cleared before 100 years from the start of operations. This time-scale stretches into future generations imposing burdens of risk, effort and cost that should be avoided if at all possible.
Do you agree that the overall SSA process provides an appropriate mechanism for identifying and assessing those sites which are strategically suitable for the deployment of new nuclear power stations by the end of 2025? If not, how should the process be changed?
We do not agree that the process is appropriate. We consider it to be centralised, accelerated and unfair for the reasons outlined in our Preliminary Observations.
The SSA process does not take fully into account the need to consider the interests of affected communities nor to involve them in an adequate process of decision making.
It is not clear how it is intended to take social and ethical concerns into account. There appears to be no provision for discussions of public perceptions and attitudes at the local level. There has been little or no engagement of local communities or even of local authorities in the process. There appears to have been little or no input into the development of criteria from local communities, environmental NGOs or other interested groups at local level. This is made clear in the list of those whose views were taken account of as listed on pp. 37 – 40 of the consultation document.
By contrast, nuclear interests enjoy privileged access to government and it is likely they have, directly or indirectly, assisted in the development of criteria. It would be interesting to have government's confirmation of this. Certainly, the criteria have drawn heavily on the work of professional technical consultants, notably the report by Jackson Consulting (UK) on Siting New Nuclear Power Stations: availability and options for government (2006). We would urge the Government to reveal the provenance of the criteria that are put forward in this consultation and to indicate why the process of criteria selection and development was not open for a wider debate. Consultation once the criteria have been identified places those excluded from the process at a disadvantage and greatly assists the adoption of the criteria.
We consider the absence of any ethical criteria a serious defect in the SSA process. In particular consideration of the potential impacts on future generations from the operation of power stations and the storage of wastes should be considered as strategic issues and applied to specific sites.
Do you have any other comments on the practicalities of the proposed SSA process, such as the timetable for nominations and the duration of the nomination period?
We have offered our views on the inadequacy and unfairness of the process in our comments above and have emphasised its lack of engagement with local communities and interests. As to timing, we consider the process far too accelerated from the point of effective local engagement. During Stage 1 the public are being consulted on draft criteria; they have not been invited to contribute to the drafting process itself. According to Table 1 on p.11, Stage 2 is confined to interaction between the CNPO and the government. While the CNPO must demonstrate they have taken steps to engage local communities, the form this engagement takes need be little more than informing and publicising their intentions. During Stage 3 there will be public consultation on a draft list of sites as part of a consultation on the draft Nuclear Policy Statement (NPS). Again, there is unlikely to be any public or local community input into the drafting process; rather comment will be sought on the drafts themselves. Local communities will be confronted with nominated sites on which they have not previously commented. Once again, this reduces the level of local and community involvement. It may be seen as a means of pre-empting opposition.
The consultation document states that 'The Government is committed to ensuring transparency and openness throughout this process' (p.15). We make two comments here. One is that openness and transparency implies that the public are fully informed of proposals and decisions being made in respect of the development of nuclear sites. There is little evidence that this is being achieved, at least in the case of the Bradwell site. The other comment is that openness, while welcome, needs to be combined with a commitment to ensuring proper engagement and participation. It is not enough simply to inform the public; the public need to be able to act on information they are given.
Finally, effort should be made to reach the widest possible audience. Local authorities and subordinate elected councils, relevant NGOs and CBOs in affected areas should be urged to respond. It should not be assumed that site stakeholder groups constitute the only appropriate local vehicle for response. It may be argued that such groups are too close to the nuclear industry. In any case their remit may not extend to new nuclear power. For instance, the Bradwell LCLC's remit is confined to the decommissioning of the site. By making CNPOs responsible for local community engagement during Stage 2 the government runs the risk of the process being perceived as partisan and thereby discredited. In order to generate an effective and representative response from local communities there must be an effort on the part of government to ensure a disinterested engagement based on deliberation within local communities. This engagement should utilise independent researchers and facilitators.
Do you agree that the proposed exclusionary and discretionary criteria are appropriate for the assessment of a site's suitability at a strategic level? If not, how should the criteria be changed to achieve this objective and, specifically, are there any additional criteria that should also be used? Should the classifications of any of the exclusionary criteria, discretionary criteria, or issues for local consideration be changed?
Classification. We do not think the classification of the criteria is appropriate in all cases.
Definition. The definitions of some criteria are too broad while others are too narrow.
Application. We consider there are other criteria, notably social and ethical criteria, that should be applied in a strategic siting assessment.
These reservations will be illustrated in the comments on individual criteria which follow.
It will be noted that the Bradwell site is close to the epicentre of the biggest earthquake experienced in recent history on mainland UK. This was the so-called Colchester earthquake in 1884 which registered an estimated 4.7 on the Richter scale and caused considerable damage over a wide area. However, this appears to be well within the limits proposed by the criterion. Para. 2.27 states that 'we do not expect that any areas of the UK will be excluded from consideration at a strategic level on the basis of this exclusionary criterion'. That being so the introduction of the criterion would seem gratuitous. As it stands the criterion of a 1 in 10,000 year risk of incurring greater than 0.25g ground acceleration will prove difficult to comprehend and is unlikely to prove reassuring to communities living near Bradwell. The perception of seismic risk is important and must be taken into account at the local level.
We are most concerned about this criterion. First, we consider this criterion should be exclusionary and redefined. Where a site is liable to be inundated within the period that the power station is operating or being decommissioned then, in our view, it must be excluded. The time-scale should extend well over a hundred years. We estimate the possibilities as follows. A new power station may operate for up to sixty years. Following operation large volumes and radioactivity of stored spent fuel will be moved to a national repository; this process could take at least ten years. The full decommissioning process is likely to last well beyond operation, perhaps up to a hundred years, if experience of existing power stations like Bradwell is anything to go by. So, a most optimistic time-scale suggests a period from operation in say, 2020 to final clearance in the latter half of the 22nd century, around year 2180.
It is conceivable that this time-scale will not be met. Operation may begin later than 2020, there may be long delays or bottlenecks at the repository and it may not even materialise. There may be further (daughter) power stations developed at some sites thereby lengthening the time-scales still further. It is, perhaps, realistic to conclude that these sites will remain as nuclear waste stores and decommissioning facilities for the indefinite future. That being so it would be folly to commit to building new power stations at locations where the probability of flooding and inundation increases over time and, in many cases, becomes a serious risk beyond a hundred years.
The criterion requires that developers 'confirm that they can protect the site against flood-risk throughout the lifetime of the site' as well as 'take into account the wider impacts of their flood protection countermeasures on areas surrounding potential power station sites'. Predictions of sea level rise resulting from climate change and consequential storm surges will make low-lying coastal sites increasingly vulnerable. In the case of Bradwell, Nirex (2005) reported that over 100 years plus, inundation will become progressively more common, especially from storm surge. Another report indicated that Bradwell was vulnerable to subsidence, rising sea level and rollover of the Blackwater estuary (Thorne and Associates, 2005). The Environment Agency's Flood Map indicates the area subject to inundation . The evidence strongly suggests that Bradwell is highly vulnerable to flooding especially beyond 100 years but within the period when the site will still be operational for the purposes of waste management. Other sites in coastal areas may well be similarly vulnerable to flooding.
We conclude that the flooding criterion is inadequate as it stands. There can be no case for developing sites which are subject to flooding. We suggest there should be an exclusionary criterion that excludes sites which are vulnerable to inundation. It should also be made clear that it is unacceptable that flood countermeasures should have deleterious impacts on surrounding areas.
Our concerns here are similar to those for criterion 1.4. A Meteorological Office survey quoted in Appendix C, p.153 of the consultation documents concludes that 'the main risk to the coastal sites would be from storm surges that are caused by low atmospheric pressure and strong winds and can be further exacerbated by the funnelling effect created at estuaries and river mouths'. It will be noted that the East Coast experienced a very severe storm surge combined with high tides on the night of 31 Jan/1 Feb. 1953 (Grieve, 1959). This caused great damage, extensive flooding and considerable loss of life. The possibility of such damaging storm surges increases with climate change and sea level rise and coastal nuclear power stations and surrounding areas are clearly vulnerable. A survey of potential storm surge and sea level rise under different climate change scenarios undertaken for Greenpeace (Flood Hazard Research Centre, 2007) and also cited in Appendix C indicated that, under certain scenarios, Dungeness would be at risk of flooding by 2080 and Bradwell and Hinkley Point would be at risk in the short- and long-term. Research has also indicated that Sizewell is on a coast subject to rapid erosion which would increase with higher sea levels and more frequent and powerful storm surges. The east coast of England, and notably East Anglia, is an area threatened by potentially severe inundation as a result of coastal processes arising from storm surges and sea level rise. Several stretches of the East Coast demonstrate the vulnerability and impermanence of what might once have seemed impregnable, hard sea defences. Necessary mitigation to protect nuclear power stations on coastal sites may well have serious, if not devastating, consequences for surrounding areas. More detailed, independent research on individual sites will be necessary to determine the possible outcomes under worst case scenarios of climate change. Meanwhile, we urge that the most recent forecasts and future scenarios of sea level rise and coastal change are used in any publicity materials issued by or on behalf of the proponents of new power stations on existing coastal sites.
We conclude that criterion 1.5 is inadequate and that the threat to coastlines in and around potential NPS sites requires an exclusionary criterion. The criterion needs to recognise the increasing probability of inundation at vulnerable sites and the length of time decommissioning and clean up is likely to take. While it is likely (see above) that nuclear activity will remain on sites beyond 100 years, the chances of inundation increase considerably beyond that period. Therefore, the exclusionary criterion should seek to rule out development of a nuclear power plant in circumstances where maximum predicted sea level rise within, say, the next 300 years, combined with storm surges would cause inundation to the plant and surrounding areas.
We note that the planning advice on development near hazardous installations (PADHI) does not apply to nuclear installations. Nuclear activities are, of course, subject to their own regulatory procedures. The consultation document is silent on whether existing nuclear activities – operating plants or plants being decommissioned – are regarded as hazardous facilities and operations. Intuitively they would appear to be so. The fact that daughter stations have been built on sites with operating stations (e.g. Sizewell) should not be regarded as a precedent. If existing facilities are regarded as hazardous then new power stations at existing sites might be automatically ruled out.
We consider further guidance is needed on this criterion and, in particular, a determination as to whether nuclear activities are, in principle, hazardous industrial facilities.
This criterion is vaguely defined. The potential dangers from aircraft attacking nuclear facilities have been well publicised and are matters of public anxiety. While we regard the danger as low probability, the consequences could be very high. We consider this criterion should be discretionary but we would advocate a clearer expression of the circumstances in which it might be applied. By way of illustration, Bradwell is under flight paths to London airports and within the proposed stacking area for London City Airport. Aircraft are frequently routed via the Clacton Beacon on a flight path which goes straight up the Blackwater estuary. In such circumstances it might be imprudent to develop a dangerous facility such as a nuclear power station in such proximity to extremely busy flight paths.
We find the demographics criterion confusing. On the one hand, there is the intention to locate nuclear power stations in places where the radiological consequences of a serious nuclear accident would be limited (Remote Siting criterion). On the other, it is claimed that modern designs are proven to be sufficiently safe to enable relaxation of the criterion 'such that a precautionary policy does not need to be applied for future siting of international modern designs' (p.58). Consequently, it is considered prudent to apply 'semi-urban' demographic criteria. It should be noted, in passing, that the high burn-up used in the prospective designs creates potential safety issues according to some observers (Richards, 2008). However, that is a matter for the regulators undertaking the Generic Design Assessment (GDA).
The confusion arises because it appears that, with the adoption of a semi-urban criterion, remoteness is no longer necessary (i.e. distance from large population concentrations) but it is unclear why urban criteria would be unacceptable. It seems to us that either nuclear power stations are regarded as a potential threat to local populations and, therefore, should be in remote places, or they are no longer deemed to be so threatening and, therefore, may be sited close to populations where the demand for electricity is strong. The semi-urban criterion may be a compromise but does not seem to make any sense.
The table of weighted population provided on p.57 simply adds to the confusion. This appears to be a case of drafting a criterion to fit the circumstances of existing locations, a point we made in our Preliminary Observations. It is evident that the populations are sufficiently large so that no existing sites would be ruled out. Conversely, some areas, notably those close to large populations would not be ruled in. It would be interesting to see these criteria applied cartographically.
It is unclear how the distances, weighting factors and cumulative weighted population criteria in Table 1 have been derived. Why, in particular, have distances of 0-2 km., 2-3 km etc. been applied? How are they related to the putative impacts of a major accident? It is not clear that the risk reduces evenly in relation to distance from the plant or that it disappears beyond a distance of 8 km. It is noted that the weighted population criteria relate only to Magnox and AGR. We should not assume that they can apply to the new designs which may, as indicated above, carry higher safety risks. The regulators will need to provide data that relate to the designs being appraised in the GDA process.
Let us put the demographics into the empirical context of Bradwell. Although the population immediately surrounding the plant is small, within 4km. and downwind of Bradwell there is the substantial town of West Mersea (8000 and doubling in summer) and within the 8km. zone are other substantial settlements at Brightlingsea and Tollesbury and a number of villages. Not far beyond this zone is the large town of Colchester (over 100,000) and other towns such as Clacton-on-Sea and Maldon. Moreover, this is an area of rapid population growth.
We consider the demographic criteria are unclear. If remoteness is considered desirable, then a semi-urban demographic criterion is unacceptable. If remoteness is not required then the demographic criterion should be permissive and not exclude locations close to urban populations. In the case of Bradwell 'remote' siting would rule out a new station on grounds of its proximity to substantial populations.
We suggest the demographic criterion be revised to apply to new reactor designs. There should be clarity as to whether remoteness is a necessary condition and, if so, what level of population would be tolerable within 8km of the site. Further population growth should be avoided within this zone. If remoteness is not regarded as necessary then the demographic criterion should permit development close to urban populations. We consider the compromise expressed in the draft exclusionary criterion to be confusing, unclear and unacceptable.
We fully support the Government's view that nominators should give 'a high-level description of the practicality of developing appropriate emergency planning arrangements at any site that they nominate for the SSA'. We are surprised and very concerned at the lack of information or knowledge of emergency planning procedures in the areas surrounding existing nuclear stations.
We recognise that emergency planning procedures must be applied in detail to each site but we also feel some general points should be made as part of the SSA. In particular we are concerned that the public living in proximity to nuclear power stations be given appropriate information about emergency planning procedures that are in place. They should understand what warnings will be given, what precautions should be taken and what actions they should take in the event of an emergency. In particular it should be made clear how evacuation should proceed. For example, what procedures will be in place to provide warning and directions for evacuation of Mersea Island in the event the only access road is flooded at high tide?
We consider there should be a general criterion that makes explicit a requirement that appropriate and practicable procedures can be put in place and that the affected public will be fully informed and understand what actions they should take in the event of an emergency. It should be emphasised that operators must be open, timely and precise in providing warnings and taking necessary actions.
We support a criterion on proximity to military activities. We consider that the term 'proximity' may require tighter definition in some cases. We note the point concerning military ranges and training areas listed in Table 8 and would observe that Fingringhoe Ranges near Colchester and the Foulness bombing range in south Essex are within 10 – 15km. of the Bradwell site. It would be helpful to have an indication what distances from a nuclear power station would be considered acceptable as exclusionary and as discretionary.
We take these two criteria together as our comments are relevant to both. It may be argued that a precedent has already been set through the location of existing nuclear power stations in or close to designated areas. We support criteria designed to minimise impacts and to provide countermeasures. However, we would go further and suggest there should be a presumption against siting new nuclear power stations within or close to designated areas. Many of the designations have been introduced since the earlier stations were built. Over the past few decades environmental conservation has achieved much higher priority and the protection of natural resources, habitats and coastal areas has become especially significant.
Nuclear power stations may pose risks to species and to marine habitats. Much of the Blackwater estuary is under national or international designation and there are concerns about potential impacts on the fishing and oyster industries and the risks should be clearly identified and quantified through independent research. The presence of a new station would increase the risks especially with spent fuel remaining on site.
We conclude that new nuclear power stations should not be built in or close to designated sites of ecological importance.
Nuclear power stations impose a considerable presence in an area and may adversely impact on landscape, tranquillity and cultural heritage. On existing sites, no matter how much mitigation of impact is achieved, new reactor buildings and waste stores will be added to existing operations. It is highly unlikely they will improve the scene; rather they will increase the visible scale and operational activity (transport, noise, emissions, light pollution). In the case of Bradwell a new power station would stand beside the hulk of the previous one creating a substantial industrial complex in a rural area on an estuary used for fishing, sailing and passive recreation. The complex would be close to the 7th century St. Peter's Chapel, one of the oldest and most important Christian buildings in the country. A survey by Ipsos-Mori found that the population in the area overwhelmingly favoured returning the site to its natural state.
We consider there should be a presumption against development which would adversely affect the existing land and water uses and cultural heritage of the surrounding area.
The new nuclear plant will be accompanied by spent fuel and other waste stores. A recent report has suggested that the new designs with their higher fuel burn-up produce lower waste volumes but these are hotter requiring longer cooling times and more storage space and shielding (Richards, 2008). Consequently, waste will spend longer on site and present a large footprint. The size of site required for a 1.6MW reactor should be determined and be included in the criterion as a site constraint on the development of new build.
A major reason for coastal locations is the need for cooling water. Capacity may, however, be limited. For instance at the Bradwell site Jackson Consulting reported, 'Limited cooling water availability for twin reactor because of environmental sensitivity and limits on abstraction capacity'. The impact of increased temperatures caused by cooling water discharges on marine life may also be an issue especially in shallow estuarial locations such as the Blackwater. There is a potential conflict between a new nuclear power station and the fishing and oyster industries. Alternative methods of cooling such as cooling towers would be excessively obtrusive in coastal locations and could be ruled out by criteria 3.1 and 4.1.
In our view developers must demonstrate that there is sufficient cooling water for the scale of operation proposed and that abstraction will not have deleterious impacts on marine ecosystems. This should be an exclusionary criterion.
Transmission infrastructure and wayleaves are key considerations and their availability is a major reason for identifying existing sites. In many cases, for example Bradwell, upgrading will be necessary. We have no comment beyond noting that high level transmission lines will impose considerable amenity damage over large areas.
Additional criteria are suggested related to operational requirements and to societal issues. In the case of operational requirements we suggest a criterion on proximity to demand. We consider that the strategic siting assessment relating to societal issues should cover three further criteria. These concern: human health; socio-economic impacts and public acceptability. We have not suggested classification for these additional criteria and are content to leave this as a matter for further discussion. We set out our suggestions for additional criteria below.
It will be evident from our earlier comments on demographics that we observe the criterion of remoteness has been relaxed to the point where proximity to substantial population is acceptable. That being so, proximity to centres of demand will be an important consideration. It will save the costs of long-distance transmission, it will reduce the loss of energy incurred and it will also offer opportunities for using surplus heat in CHP systems.
We suggest there should be a criterion on proximity to demand which can be evaluated in relation to other criteria in an overall siting assessment.
We recognise that impacts on human health are implicit in a number of the SSA criteria especially those related to nuclear safety. The safety of the operations will, of course, be a matter for the regulators. However, we note that the SEA objectives 6 and 7 seek to avoid adverse impacts on physical and mental health. We consider there should also be an SSA criterion directly relating to health. It should be phrased in terms of operators demonstrating through independent research that any new power station development will not be significantly detrimental to the mental or physical health of people living in the vicinity during the whole period of operations and subsequent clean-up. Such a criterion may have differential implications depending on the place and time to which it is applied. For instance, changing coastlines may increase the risks from operations or waste storage over time.
11. To avoid the loss of access and recreational opportunities, their quality and use convenience.
However, these important societal issues do not seem to be covered by the SSA criteria. In our view there should be a criterion or criteria covering impacts on the local economy, land values and aspects of quality of life.
On the local economy, it will be important to demonstrate the long-term employment opportunities arising from new nuclear. But it is also necessary to assess the possibly detrimental economic impacts of such a development in terms of incompatibility with existing activities or deterrence of inward investment. It must be recognised that nuclear power carries negative perceptions and connotations which may impact on other parts of the local economy. For example, in the Bradwell case, a new station with its operations, radioactive waste stores and emissions and discharges may have negative effects on the local fishing and oyster industries and diminish the area's attractiveness for sailing, water sports and as a holiday centre. Collectively these activities are significant for the economic health of the Blackwater estuary. We suggest a criterion is established requiring an independent assessment of the overall economic implications, positive and negative, for the areas within, say, 20km of the development.
On the issue of blight, it may be that proposals for new build will have an adverse effect on property values. This effect is likely to be enhanced once construction commences and later when operations begin. Blight will remain so long as there is a presence of nuclear activity on a site, including decommissioning and cleanup. Blight is difficult to measure but its potential impact must be recognised and mitigating measures considered.
In terms of quality of life a criterion on sustainability would be appropriate. At a broader level it might be argued that new nuclear power transgresses the principle of sustainable development in that it creates a burden on future generations. However, we commend the SEAcobjective to encourage sustainable communities. It is important to be clear what this means. Sustainability is not simply an economic issue, it may also be related to notions of well-being. By this we mean those aspects of living which contribute to the community's sense of identity, development and positive self-image. It may be argued that nuclear power plants tend to present a negative image and sense of identity (associations with threat, danger and fear). This is clearly one reason why existing sites have been identified as likely places for new stations. It is recognised by government and the nuclear industry that nuclear power plants are unlikely to be welcomed at greenfield locations. A sustainability criterion which covers both economic and social aspects should be included.
We believe developers must be able to demonstrate public acceptability for a new nuclear power station. It is often claimed that familiarity with nuclear activities reduces anxiety and the economic investment is welcomed. There has been considerable research on this issue and, it must be said, the evidence is conflicting. Some studies have indicated a more positive response in existing locations while others suggest that increase in knowledge results in elevated anxiety. The most recent in-depth study on Living with Nuclear Power portrays the multi-faceted, complex and sometimes ambiguous perspectives experienced by local people. Feelings of Threat, Distrust, Beneficial and Safe were all present to varying degrees in the small samples in the communities surveyed. It would be imprudent to draw conclusions on the basis of research confined to nuclear communities which which was not designed to consider attitudes towards new nuclear power and waste storage sites. There is a need for independent survey research to determine public responses to proposals for new nuclear build and the level of public acceptability likely to be achieved in both existing and alternative locations.
There should be a criterion requiring independent evidence on public acceptability. We believe this should be one element of the fairer siting strategy we have advocated at various points in this response.
Do you agree that the proposed SSA is appropriate to produce a list of strategically suitable sites for the purpose of setting the framework for the Infrastructure Planning Commission's decisions? If not, how should the process be changed to achieve this objective?
We have already indicated our reasons in previous answers. The government has clearly indicated that it considers existing nuclear sites to be the most favourable for early development. It follows that these will be the list of strategically suitable sites arising from the proposed SSA. This would provide a very restricted framework for the Infrastructure Planning Commission.
The whole exercise would appear to be a predetermined effort to identify and legitimate through the IPC a strategy for new nuclear build based on existing locations only. As we have said this looks very like a reinvention of the discredited Decide Announce Defend (DAD) approach. The draft criteria appear to have been drawn up so as not to exclude existing sites. Given current ownerships it seems unlikely that any non-nuclear sites will be put forward by a CNPO.
We have indicated that the classification of the criteria should be reviewed, that the definitions of some criteria should be clarified and that some new criteria should be added to the list. If this is done it might well be that the list of sites would be very different from that likely to emerge from the criteria as currently drafted. In other words the list of sites is critically dependent on the way the criteria are framed, drafted and applied.
In response to the second part of the question, we consider the process should be changed to achieve an equitable siting process. Such a process would need engagement and debate with a much wider range of interests in the setting of criteria. At present the process of drafting, consultation and producing SSA criteria is confined and closed with privileged access to the process offered to very few participants. Strategic siting criteria ultimately have local implications and local communities need to be engaged in establishing the generic criteria that will be used to determine local sites. We consider that Stage 2 of the SSA process should be opened up for a wide ranging debate before any firm conclusions are reached. Participants should include local communities and elected bodies. Effort should be made to ensure the consultation reaches the widest possible audience. The debate should consider the range of issues presented in this and other responses.
Public acceptability should, as suggested above, be an SSA criterion. Consequently, Stage 2 should incorporate a process of seeking to understand the issues of importance and concern to stakeholders and the wider public. It is not sufficient for site owners or CNPOs to undertake public information campaigns around local sites. The information is inevitably controlled by nuclear interests in an effort to promote the case for new build at existing sites. Consultation must be seen to be an open and disinterested process, undertaken independently of nuclear or other interests.
Similarly, Stage 3 should seek to ensure that the consultation on a draft list of sites is widened and deepened to ensure that all interests are engaged and involved in deciding on the final list of sites. It is important that the government clarifies what it intends by the statement, 'It will also consult with local communities in the vicinity of those sites' (para. 1.11). Will the consultation be merely informative or will it provide involvement in decision making on the final list?
The existing siting process is, in our view, hurried and undemocratic. There is insufficient time for adequate deliberation and representative and participative democratic processes are being sidelined under the new planning legislation and in the SSA process.
As indicated earlier we believe the process of DAD which underlies the consultation process will lead to unfair and unacceptable outcomes. We do not think that the choice of sites should be left to CNPOs. Rather, we believe that the Government should take responsibility for developing a fair, acceptable and optimal siting strategy. We believe a voluntary process based on participation and partnership to be the acceptable approach to siting what will be, in effect, long-term waste management facilities. Given that the proposals include the interim management of high level wastes for an indefinite period the CoRWM approach to siting would appear to be the appropriate way forward.
The site selection process currently being undertaken will do nothing to hinder the imposition of large new nuclear power stations and associated waste management facilities on existing sites. Communities in the areas around these sites are given little effective say in a decision making process which is largely centralised and closed providing access only to certain privileged interests. We strongly urge government to review and redevelop the siting process along the lines we have suggested.
Question: Do you agree with the findings of the potential environmental and sustainability effects of applying the proposed SSA criteria? If not, what additional environmental and sustainability effects, if any, should be considered and how should these issues be reflected in the SSA criteria?
We find that the sections of the consultation document relating to the SEA are extremely difficult to comprehend. The sections in question include: p. 17, paras. 56 -7; pp. 33 – 6 paras. 1.41 to 1.50; and pp.72 – 3, paras.2.142 – 2.151. From these sections it is difficult to understand the precise relationship between SSA criteria and SEA objectives. We suggest that this aspect of consultation is more clearly set out and comprehensible in subsequent consultation documents. The supporting document, Applying the proposed Strategic Siting Assessment Criteria: a study of the potential environmental and sustainability effects, is also inaccessible to the general reader consisting of a set of appendices set out in columns with no supporting commentaries. This is an important document covering a wide range of issues and it would be helpful if it were made more user friendly. In particular it would be helpful if the expanded and additional SSA criteria were clearly identified in the main consultation document. This would stimulate a response on alternatives to be considered.
In our response to question 4 we have already indicated the environmental objectives and sustainability principles which we think should be incorporated in the SSA criteria. We do, however, have some closing observations to make on the environmental aspects of the consultation.
SEA objectives and research. A number of the objectives, if they are to be fulfilled, require evidence based research. For example, as we have observed, objective 4 'To create employment opportunities' needs to be evaluated in terms of net job creation, long term job prospects and overall economic benefit or detriment to the sub-region surrounding a site. Similarly, objective 14, 'To avoid increased flood risk (including coastal flood risk) and seek to reduce risks where possible' requires research demonstrating potential flooding under different scenarios and time-scales. Research undertaken to support objectives must be independent, peer reviewed and both generic and capable of specific application to sites.
Inappropriate classification of certain criteria. The consultation document concedes (para. 2.148) that 'certain features of the criteria, including the discretionary nature of some of the criteria, mean that adverse environmental and sustainability impacts cannot be ruled out'. This statement applies to criteria 1.4 and 1.5 as indicated on pp.75 – 6. We have already argued that these criteria covering flooding, storm surge and coastal processes must be re-designated as exclusionary.
Achieving sustainability. Para. 2.149 claims that the application of the proposed SSA criteria 'is likely to lead to outcomes which are, on balance, broadly in line with the principles of sustainability and environmental protection'. We regard this as an untestable assertion. The principle of sustainability is hard to define and depends on time-scale. It could equally be argued that, over the longer term, sites may become completely inundated and, consequently, quite unsustainable. We suggest the statement on sustainability is either carefully qualified or withdrawn.
Balance between environmental protection and new nuclear power. It is suggested that 'the proposed SSA criteria strike the right balance between the need for environmental protection and the pressing challenges of delivering the UK's energy policy objectives' (para. 2.150). We are most concerned that this balance has not been struck. We are not convinced of the need for nuclear energy. But, even if it is considered desirable to build new nuclear power stations, the SSA criteria could lead to outcomes that are wholly inconsistent with the need for environmental protection. It is quite conceivable that these stations will be developed at existing sites in southern England, all of which are subject to problems of flooding and coastal erosion arising from climate change. In the effort to protect the environment around the power stations, areas in close proximity may have to be abandoned. There is the danger that the SSA criteria may facilitate an outcome which promotes building of new power stations on vulnerable coasts at the expense of environmental protection. We urge that the criteria are redrafted to achieve a balance that offers greater prominence and priority to environmental protection over the longer term.
We consider this consultation to be very important and consequently we have offered a detailed and critical response. We trust that our comments along with others will be carefully and openly considered and that a commentary will be published indicating how our views have been taken into account. More than that we would welcome the opportunity to engage in discussion in developing the final criteria. We look forward to the debate.
The purpose of the Group is to seek to protect the people and environment of the River Blackwater estuary and its surrounding area, now and in the future, from the risks and dangers of radioactivity by preventing the further development of nuclear activity in the estuary.
to call for an open, transparent and deliberative decision making process in which local communities are afforded full access to all information and involvement in key decisions affecting them.
Gathering all available relevant research and evidence on key issues and disseminating it throughout the local communities. This may involve developing a data bank and associated web site.
Liaison and communication with national expert groups (e. g. Nuclear Consultation Working Group, Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates) to ensure relevant expertise is readily available.
Identifying uncertainties and gaps in knowledge and initiating or urging further research.
Encouraging accessible and intelligible information on monitoring of air, water and soil quality in the Blackwater estuary.
Deepening awareness by reaching out to the whole community through leaflets, posters, local media and key local organisations.
Broadening awareness by reaching neighbouring communities around the Blackwater estuary and the surrounding areas including major centres such as Colchester, Maldon and Clacton.
Involving local people through public meetings, petitions, lobbying and other activities.
Communicating community concerns to decision makers at local and national levels, including, government ministers, local MPs, County, Borough and Town/Parish Councils.
Ensuring community concerns are fully considered at every stage in decision making, including, environmental appraisal, impact assessment, reactor design, waste management proposals, planning considerations and application.
Ensuring regulatory authorities fully consider those issues specifically relating to health and environmental impacts of a power station at the Bradwell site.
Urging the full implementation of all plans, policies, directives and other programmes that are aimed at the protection and enhancement of the Blackwater estuary.
Working in an open and transparent manner and encouraging other decision makers to act in the same way.
The Group will be participative and democratic in principle and practice.
Key decisions on strategy will be taken by supporters at open meetings.
A small core group (executive) will be responsible for day-to-day organisation and decision making, referring key decisions to the open meeting.
Sub-groups will undertake specific tasks and functions.
There is a Chair, Secretary, Treasurer, Media Relations Officer, Community Awareness Co-ordinator and Strategy Co-ordinator.


Turnkey Stanley Martin Saville model situated on 3 serene manicured acres that backs to trees. Extended and double-wide driveway. Spacious floor plan offers over 6000 sq. ft. of living space, 6 large bedrooms, and 4.5 baths on 3 fully finished levels. Your journey begins in the 2-story foyer with curved staircase flanked by the formal living and dining rooms. Two-story family room with beautiful pastoral views and features gas fireplace with stone facade. Gourmet kitchen with stainless appliances, granite and 42 in. cherry cabinets. New GE Cafe gas cook-top with downdraft and new GE Advantium Multi-function microwave. First floor library/home office. Grand owners suite with tray ceiling, luxury bath and huge, walk-in closet. Walk-out lower level with 2 additional legal bedrooms, full bath, rec room, game room and exercise room / yoga studio with sound insulated ceiling drywall and full insulation throughout. New top of the line Greenspeed High Efficiency Carrier HVAC units2016 upper level, 2017-lower level with internet / phone connectivity+ sound insulated outside units. Brand new roof with architectural shingles and transferable lifetime warranty. New hot water heater 2017. Next Day Blinds Top-Down/Bottom Up throughout with lifetime warranty on parts. Finished garage with garage mats, pegboard, shelving, tons of storage available, special lighting with over 20 additional track spotlights. Both Verizon / Fios 1 GB/sec and Direct TV compatible for TV, Internet, and Phone. Expansive composite deck with spiral staircase to paver patio. Extensive hardscape including a dry creek and paver patio. Gorgeous colorful low-maintenance landscape including Cherry and Japanese maple trees, Camellia bushes, peonies, bearded irises and more, with beautiful landscape lighting surrounding home. Large fenced fruit and vegetable garden.
Fabulous SFH in the heart of Reston situated on .61 acres. 5BDs, 2 renovated BAs and laundry on the upper level. New carpet. Updated kitchen-granite stainless appliances. New roof and gutters. Fresh paint throughout. Fully finished basement. Enjoy the sounds of the babbling pond from the screened porch, Trex deck or brick patio. Gas FP in Liv Rm. Wood burning FP in Fam Rm and gas stove in Sunroom. Excellent commuter location and community amenities.
Fabulous SFH backs to wooded common area w/ many updates!! Renovated kitchen 2013 w/ new cabinets, stainless apps, granite counters, backsplash, lighting and more. New roof, windows, HVAC 2013. Enclosed porch was added to living space for an additional 120 sq ft of living space. Renovated MBA 2004. Hall bath remodeled 2017. Bamboo hardwood floors throughout the main level. New Aztec siding 2013. Family room with wood burning FP. Excellent community amenities-pools, tennis courts, tot lots, etc. Excellent commuter location w/ easy access to Ffx Cnty Pkwy, Rt 28 and Dulles Airport.
**No open house-property under contract. Warm, inviting and well maintained SFH in the heart of Countryside. Close to all schools located on the same side of street and community amenities including pool and tot lot. Numerous updates including siding, HVAC, water heater, garage doors and more. Hardwood floors on main level. Updated open kitchen, breakfast room and family room. Family room offers a gas fireplace with brick hearth. Owners suite with w-i closet and separate updated full bath. Spacious secondary bedrooms share updated hall bath. Finished, walk-up lower level with Owens Corning Basement Finishing System which can be reconfigured. For more information see: http://franchising.owenscorning.com/bfs/everything. Full bath on LL. Radon remediation system in place. Private deck reinforced and wired for hot tub w/ exterior TV connection. Open house this Sunday from 1-4 PM but dont wait-this one is too cute to miss!


text:
On Free Will and the Golden Rule
The following excerpt on free will is from Chapter 44 of the 5th century author Yeznik of Kolb's Against the Sects:
But since man has free will, he serves whom he wishes. Not violated by force of nature, nor diminished by a power which was granted to him for the sake of benefactions, rather he wins reward only from obedience, and incurs injury from disobedience. And we say this of man, not that he came into existence for wickedness, but for benefactions. Because if he had come into existence among the other beings who serve God by necessity, then he would have been unworthy to receive any reward for freedom; but if like an instrument of the Creator, whom sometimes He wields for evil and sometimes for good, then neither blame nor praise would be due him. Rather, that One who had so wielded him would be the cause. Thereafter, man would know no good, because he would have been unskilled at anything other than that for which he had been made suitable.
But God so willed to honor man, that he would become adept at good deeds. He gave him free will, by which he would be able to do whatever he willed, and admonished him to turn his free will toward the good.
He is like a father who, when he would admonish his son—a son capable of learning some skill—urges him not to be lazy in study but to progress toward the good [cf. Hebrews 5:8]. Because he knows that he is able to progress, he requires of him the study to which he has been assigned. Likewise, we must think of God in this way: that He disposes man to submit to His commandments, but He does not take free will away from him, by which means [man] can acquiesce or not to the commands. Rather, He admonishes and disposes man to desire good qualities, through which he will merit greater rewards, if he obeys God. But he will also have the sovereignty not to obey.
The Armenian scholar Mkhitar Gosh draws partly on the same idea in the opening chapter of his 12th century Law Code, and links it to the Golden Rule:
For although the Law and the Gospel remind us of the forgotten natural laws, they do not suppress autonomy by saying, as in the old times: "love your neighbor as yourself," because it is natural to recognize love of self.
As I see it, Mkhitar is making a distinction between two forms of the Golden Rule: i) an "old" form, where the application of the Golden Rule justifies suppressing the autonomy of the recipient, and ii) a "new" form where it doesn't. The old form is traced to Leviticus 19:18 ("Love your neighbor as yourself"), whereas the new form can be traced to Matthew 7:12 ("Do to others what you would have them do to you"). Therefore, the Golden Rule does not originate in the New Testament, contrary to popular belief, but Mkhitar suggests that this version of the Golden Rule takes on a new spirit.