Peel Marina

[Non-Believer]

Er, because it's the Government.

And all these issues have compounded from decades, if not centuries, of kicking the can down the road and now being faced with modern pollution and contamination regulations.

And simply now not having the knowledge or finance or wherewithall (linked to finance) to deal with these issues in accordance with those latest regulations.

And many of those issues having been brought to light through the construction and operation of the actual marina itself, because pre-marina, they were simply washed out to sea and nobody knew or cared. For better or worse.

So now it's simply cheaper and more politically expedient to stay schtum, bury stuff on Poortown Rd and hope the problem doesn't become too immediately obvious. And hope bathers on Peel beach don't become too ill and develop too many genetic disorders.

Hope this is ok?

[The Bastard]

1 hour ago, Speak The Truth said:

http://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/high-lead-levels-in-peel-harbour/

 

OK - so the question is - where are all these contaminated materials coming from?

 

Answer - from the previous mining operations in the Foxdale area, and, almost certainly, from the contaminated run off from the former tip at the Raggat.

 

Next question:

As the government is aware that contaminants, that they state, are a danger to public health, are being washed down to the marina in Peel from miles upstream and as the government has a duty to protect the public from exposure to toxic materials and waste why?

1) Has there not been any effort to prevent said toxic material travelling miles to settle in Peel marina?

2) Has the government failed to protect the public by banning the catching and consumption of any fish in the rivers below Foxdale?

3) Does the government continue to transfer, by vehicle, tip run off water from the Raggat that they then deposit into a drain that feeds directly into the marina, (water that if it contained no toxins it would be more efficient to allow to run directly into the Neb which is situated less than 100 meters from the collection point)?

4) Has the government failed to prevent livestock that is bound for the human food chain from watering from said contaminated sources?

5) Has the government not protected the public by banning access to the marina, the shore in Peel and especially from allowing, especially children, to bathe in that water?

 

The government has a legal and constitutional duty to protect the public and to prevent pollution.

With the creation of a silt trap contaminants would be prevented from reaching Peel marina.

Why is it that government is permitted to ignore its responsibilities when any private company or person doing the same would feel the full weight of the law?

1. No, why would there be ? This is river sediment from historic mine workings. It's not the fault of the Government, and it's not deliberate pollution.

2/4/5 - There's no need for hysterical knee-jerk "won't someone think of the children" responses. The water isn't poisonous, it's the sediment that is polluted,and it's only when it's concentrated and introduced into the food chain that there's a problem. Drinking river water or an occasional dip in the bay would present no significant risk. Eating a diet rich in polluted seafood might.

I note that again you're asserting that the Raggatt is to blame, when the academic studies attribute the increased levels of heavy metals to runoff from mine workings, something that's backed up by equivalent pollution in the Laxey river which has no connection to the Raggatt. Again, do you have any solid evidence to back up your statements about the Raggatt, or is it just conjecture ?

[NoTail]

Over 100 years ago there were mines in those hills to extract lead, copper etc. Surely there is therefore less lead there now than before. The rivers running off the hills have always been there and always been washing down with lead in them.

The only issue I can see is that the marina was built in a river rich in lead, which must have been obvious all along.

[John Wright]

The contaminated run off water that gets into streams and rivers doesn't come from the deep ore loads but from the spoil brought to the surface. You've heard of the "deeds"?

yes it was known there would be a silt build up, it's common to all riparian/estuarine marinas where water is retained by lock gates. For some reason it wasn't dealt with.

[notwell]

They should just get it dumped in the sea as it has always been.  Dredge a bit more often and get it dumped a decent distance and spread out a bit.  The way Speak the Truth is talking you'd think the harbour was full of weapons grade plutonium or the like.

[JOE450]

It has been going into the sea for years at a very low concentration, now it is held back they find it is building up a concentration- no surprize there then. Makes you wonder who was involved in the Marina planning as it is now a big deal. If they dumped it out to sea, it is still the same as if it had been allowed to flow out on its own.

They have made their own problems and now it is coming back to haunt them

[Donald Trumps]

How soon before yachts in the marina are bending their keels?

[MediaStar]

4 hours ago, JOE450 said:

It has been going into the sea for years at a very low concentration, now it is held back they find it is building up a concentration- no surprize there then. Makes you wonder who was involved in the Marina planning as it is now a big deal. If they dumped it out to sea, it is still the same as if it had been allowed to flow out on its own.

They have made their own problems and now it is coming back to haunt them

Yes surely it was obvious that this would be an issue from day one? It's surprising that it's only being dealt with now. 

[doc.fixit]

.........the govt. was told, many times, what would happen with all of these so called 'marinas'.............what the cost of maintenance for Douglas is always open to conjecture too...........

[MediaStar]

1 minute ago, doc.fixit said:

.........the govt. was told, many times, what would happen with all of these so called 'marinas'.............what the cost of maintenance for Douglas is always open to conjecture too...........

I fear it will be exactly the same on this cruise liner berth. Lots of people saying the tidal flow and speeds aren't suited. They'll spend millions and do it anyway. Then find out that everyone who was saying it wouldn't work will be proved right.  

[Speak The Truth]

The Bastard

1. No, why would there be ? This is river sediment from historic mine workings. It's not the fault of the Government, and it's not deliberate pollution.

2/4/5 - There's no need for hysterical knee-jerk "won't someone think of the children" responses. The water isn't poisonous, it's the sediment that is polluted,and it's only when it's concentrated and introduced into the food chain that there's a problem. Drinking river water or an occasional dip in the bay would present no significant risk. Eating a diet rich in polluted seafood might.

I note that again you're asserting that the Raggatt is to blame, when the academic studies attribute the increased levels of heavy metals to runoff from mine workings, something that's backed up by equivalent pollution in the Laxey river which has no connection to the Raggatt. Again, do you have any solid evidence to back up your statements about the Raggatt, or is it just conjecture ?

1. So what the Bastard is saying is that if arsenic was leeching into the public drinking water source from a 'historic' man made source then we would all have to drink it anyway. 

I am also glad to see that the Bastard can definitively prove that the leeching is solely the result of mine workings and not something that has always happened, (lets face it there were none of these contaminants in the ground prior to mining nor did rain ever fall on the mine areas to be washed down non existent rivers).

2/4/5 - 'The water isn't poisonous, it's the sediment that is polluted.

Thanks for that professor Bastard, thanks to your scientific observations we can now rest assured that small children , doing what small children do, tasting the sand and swallowing the water in Peel bay are at no risk, that is apart from the faeces, used condoms, tampons and all the other flushable things that swim round the bay and appear on the promenade every time storms throw the shit back from the end of the breakwater.  So we can rest assured, according to you, that unless we eat the silt at the bottom of the marina we are all safe.

Just a thought on that one - if what is there wont kill us or harm us in any way - why is it that dumping it at sea where it will be diluted to levels that even a single celled organism like yourself wont be harmed is a problem?

When did I assert that the Raggatt is to blame?

What I asked was why, if the run off contains no toxins, it is shipped, at a not insignificant expense, by tanker to Peel to be dumped into the river just above the marina instead of being allowed to flow into the Neb from where the tanker collects it from?

I will also add to that question why, prior to discharging into a populated area, each tanker full is not tested for contaminants as the discharge is undoubtedly dynamic in its chemical make-up thanks to the lack of monitoring of or recording of what was dumped at the Raggatt?

 

I look forward to your, obviously, educated and informed answers to the questions asked rather than the bullshit you came out with in order to try and discredit the questioner.

 

[Speak The Truth]

On 2017-7-8 at 7:23 AM, John Wright said:

The contaminated run off water that gets into streams and rivers doesn't come from the deep ore loads but from the spoil brought to the surface. You've heard of the "deeds"?

yes it was known there would be a silt build up, it's common to all riparian/estuarine marinas where water is retained by lock gates. For some reason it wasn't dealt with.

Sorry John but there is no proof that the contamination comes from the Deads and not from the land itself. James Cubbon has built on the Deads, cant be an insurmountable problem.

 

As for dealing with it - in Douglas they created a silt trap in order to avoid this problem.

Great in theory apart from the fact that they deliberately removed the boards for the silt trap so that they would not have to empty it.

Douglas is suffering from the  same silting problems as Peel now, I can guarantee they would find a solution to the problem there if the silt was shown to be contaminated.

[Speak The Truth]

On 2017-7-8 at 10:52 AM, Donald Trumps said:

How soon before yachts in the marina are bending their keels?

Many are already receiving 70% discounts on fees thanks to berths being unusable.

[doc.fixit]

........just makes me sick, all of this was known about before the 'marina was built, many of us explained the consequences of damming the river both in Laxey and Douglas, debris retention, silting up, maintenance of flap gates to name but a few things..............I suppose ignorance and greed trump sense..........Ramsey will be next with all the ensuing problems............that's all!

[The Bastard]

16 hours ago, Speak The Truth said:

 

I am also glad to see that the Bastard can definitively prove that the leeching is solely the result of mine workings and not something that has always happened, (lets face it there were none of these contaminants in the ground prior to mining nor did rain ever fall on the mine areas to be washed down non existent rivers).

2/4/5 - 'The water isn't poisonous, it's the sediment that is polluted.

Thanks for that professor Bastard, thanks to your scientific observations we can now rest assured that small children , doing what small children do, tasting the sand and swallowing the water in Peel bay are at no risk, that is apart from the faeces, used condoms, tampons and all the other flushable things that swim round the bay and appear on the promenade every time storms throw the shit back from the end of the breakwater.  So we can rest assured, according to you, that unless we eat the silt at the bottom of the marina we are all safe.

Just a thought on that one - if what is there wont kill us or harm us in any way - why is it that dumping it at sea where it will be diluted to levels that even a single celled organism like yourself wont be harmed is a problem?

When did I assert that the Raggatt is to blame?

What I asked was why, if the run off contains no toxins, it is shipped, at a not insignificant expense, by tanker to Peel to be dumped into the river just above the marina instead of being allowed to flow into the Neb from where the tanker collects it from?

I will also add to that question why, prior to discharging into a populated area, each tanker full is not tested for contaminants as the discharge is undoubtedly dynamic in its chemical make-up thanks to the lack of monitoring of or recording of what was dumped at the Raggatt?

 

I look forward to your, obviously, educated and informed answers to the questions asked rather than the bullshit you came out with in order to try and discredit the questioner.

 

I've removed the bold fonts in your ranting response as they make the thread difficult to read - sadly the childish insults remain. Have you been drinking ?

"1. So what the Bastard is saying is that if arsenic was leeching into the public drinking water source from a 'historic' man made source then we would all have to drink it anyway. "

"Thanks for that professor Bastard, thanks to your scientific observations we can now rest assured that small children , doing what small children do, tasting the sand and swallowing the water in Peel bay are at no risk, that is apart from the faeces, used condoms, tampons and all the other flushable things that swim round the bay and appear on the promenade every time storms throw the shit back from the end of the breakwater.  So we can rest assured, according to you, that unless we eat the silt at the bottom of the marina we are all safe."

Nope, I never said any of that. You asserted that animals drinking the river water or children bathing in it was dangerous because of the level of heavy metal pollution. That simply isn't true. As I already said, the danger with the concentrated contaminated silt is associated with the contamination of the food chain, not burning the skin off cows and casual bathers. Your attempt to confuse the issue with sewage runoff from a separate outfall in the bay is a very poor attempt to try to salvage some credibility, but sewage contamination is not the main issue with disposal of the silt in the marina, while heavy metal contamination is. 

 "When did I assert that the Raggatt is to blame?"

You did when you posted "Answer - from the previous mining operations in the Foxdale area, and, almost certainly, from the contaminated run off from the former tip at the Raggat." in your post at the top of the page. That doesn't tie in with the academic studies on the source of the pollution. You have made the assertion that contamination from the Raggatt is at least partially to blame, so the burden of proof lies on you to back up your assertion - I am curious to see the evidence that you have assembled that shows the Raggatt as the source of the pollution, which would be interesting for all parties concerned. Why not post it to add something productive (for once) to the debate if you have anything factual ?

"Just a thought on that one - if what is there wont kill us or harm us in any way - why is it that dumping it at sea where it will be diluted to levels that even a single celled organism ...wont be harmed is a problem?"

Poor thinking there. It's more than capable of harming us (and our seafood customers) if it enters the food chain through large-scale dumping - look at the mussels at White Strand which the study I quoted previously shows have the highest level of lead in all of the sites sampled in their study around the Irish sea basin, not a great selling point for Manx seafood . Oh, and the metals are already under water, which is a fair indication that dilution is not going to work, or it would not have ended up in the marina in the first place. Insoluble heavy metals are not simply going to vanish when dumped in large quantities, they get picked up by organisms in the food chain. It's bad enough when they're percolating gradually out of a river mouth, but massively contaminating when dumped in large "batches". 

"I am also glad to see that the Bastard can definitively prove that the leeching is solely the result of mine workings and not something that has always happened, (lets face it there were none of these contaminants in the ground prior to mining nor did rain ever fall on the mine areas to be washed down non existent rivers)."

I have offered no definitive proof of anything, but I've already posted links to academic studies explaining the role of historic mining in the river pollution, which are reasonably good sources of information on which to base conclusions. At the time of posting I said you wouldn't understand the studies, and unfortunately you've proved me right.

Your last sentence in that quote is possibly phrased with the assistance of White Lightning cider, but of course the mining process focuses on underground extraction of veins of minerals that are rich in heavy metals, with consequent dumping of associated spoil which of course is also rich in heavy metals.

I know this is another link to a research paper, and you seem to have had difficulty understanding / remembering the other ones, but there's a useful link to an analytical study of heavy metal contamination in Foxdale and Peel Marina: https://www.gov.im/media/1347286/appendix-heavy-metals-content.pdf  

As John Wright's already mentioned, for example the levels of Arsenic, Cadmium and Lead in the Foxdale "deads", which are spoil heaps from underground mining, are huge. They lie within the catchment of the river systems that terminate in Peel marina, so it's a pretty obvious connection to make. The levels of heavy metals in mine spoil is vastly more than around the areas of the mines themselves.

"What I asked was why, if the run off contains no toxins, it is shipped, at a not insignificant expense, by tanker to Peel to be dumped into the river just above the marina instead of being allowed to flow into the Neb from where the tanker collects it from?"

It would be infinitely easier and more accurate to actually ask the people involved in its disposal than random uninvolved people on the Internet. Why not call them and ask ?

"I look forward to your, obviously, educated and informed answers to the questions asked rather than the bullshit you came out with in order to try and discredit the questioner."

Done. Unfortunately you've done a grand job of discrediting yourself.