Yesterday an anonymous white
envelope arrived in the post along with an one from for Zenith double
glazing. It said “important
information” but so does everything else from stair lifts to life insurance
advertising. For some unknown
reason, I opened the thing to find a booklet entitled “Have your say on new Sizewell emergency arrangements.”
The document puts
forward five proposals including an extension of the Detailed Emergency
Planning Zone (DEPZ) to 4 km and the establishment of a new Precautionary Emergency
Planning Zone of 15 km.
The booklet comes
from Suffolk Resilience Forum
- a multi-agency partnership “which
provides guidance and support in the case of a major incident affecting the
county”. The forum includes emergency services, health, county, district
and borough councils.
We are invited to
say whether we agree/ disagree or are neutral on each proposal. (What
does neutral mean - don't care, don't know?) But we are not asked whether
we disagree because we think the proposals go too far - or do not go far
enough. So the answers are going to be fairly meaningless. There is
a small "sweep up" box for additional comments, but this is hardly
going to prompt informative answers from the majority of consultees.
Amongst other
things we are asked whether more use should be made of self-evacuation. More use than what? The extant plan is almost secret. Last year, I stumbled upon it on the
website under “Draft Residents Calendar - 24 May 2012"
The last question
is a nonsense. It asks if there should be a plan for the evacuation of
schools etc within the precautionary zone "if down wind of any
release." Surely the plans should be in place come what may?
The booklet has
only been sent to people within the Precautionary Zone - so anyone outside it
will not have the opportunity to say that they should be included in an
extended zone.
The document itself
is not easy to read - white print on pale lilac paper - a triumph of style over
substance for the marketing people.
If the forum is sincere about
securing people’s opinions it should have addressed the booklet in person to
residents - and not just delivered lumped in with a load of junk mail.
All of my complaints are about
elementary mistakes. Although the
presentation of the booklet is pretty professional, the contents, the format
and the manner of distribution are amateurish in the extreme.
We are told, “Your thoughts and views are critically important and we hope that you
will take this opportunity to get involved and shape the way we manage the risk
of radiation emergencies at Sizewell.”
I cannot
help thinking that the exact opposite is true. “We want to be allowed
to get on with our jobs with as few responses as possible from interfering
members of the public. We know
best. No emergency will ever
happen. Thank you and goodnight.”
