Legacy of Corby. Good or Bad for the Future?

Mr Justice Akenhead, ruled in the High Court London today, 29th July 2009 that Corby Council was liable “for their birth defects after their mothers were exposed to an ‘atmospheric soup of toxic materials’. In respect of an action regarding birth defects suffered by a group of children.

Read the Daily Telegraph reporting here for more background.

Is this good or bad news for the future of these children and the rest of the planet?

One of the issues of the the last 100 years has been the dumping of toxic waste of all kinds in many different places. This has occurred both on land and in the oceans. Without full regulation the extent is unknown.

One of the back stories to the pirate take over of ships off East African for ransom, is the claims that Somalia has been used so extensively for the dumping of toxic waste that due to the poisoning of the land and coastal waters, traditional incomes have been lost. Hence the need for ‘alternative pirate income’.

Other countries and corporations have been able to dump there to get round their own rules or costs involved in the disposal of waste.

Whatever the reasons or who has done the dumping or what has been disposed, both now and in the past, where ever it is on the planet. It has got to be cleaned up and all of it made safe.

The risk of contamination to the planets bio-sphere is immense. Heavy metals, radioactive and toxic chemical waste has to be cleaned up. If we are going to experience a change in climate, ecosystems must be able to respond. Additional stress due to toxins will most likely contribute to planetary ecosystem collapse. The extinction of most of the 60 million species of animal and plant and the deaths of 6 billion people.

With an obsession in the media and politics on just the nice simple soundbite of climate change, the real dangers to the planet have been missed. Synergistic, multi factor causation of the collapse of the earth’s ecological life support systems.

Linking over population, over consumption, pollution, species extinction, natural exploitation, social chaos, climate, war and conflict etc. This will occur far quicker than the ‘climate only’ scenario popularised in the media. Those involved in the climate change only problem, discuss the need for the reduction of CO2 emissions by whatever they decide by 2050.

The need for long term goal setting is vital in determining the strategy required to offset future predicted disasters. (Though in the case of climate change. Here I would prefer to avoid a discussion of will it won’t it, is it caused by man etc. A significant proportion of present political and economic work on this subject is based on my original work. Unfortunately against scientific methodology and even etiquette. Those who use my work do not cite me or refer back. Unfortunately a game of Chinese whispers have been played, the original meaning has been lost and the game will probably end in tears. Well death.)

Please contact me for a talk, effective strategy or other services.

In terms of climate change. It is appreciated that someone shouts a warning of a Tiger infront on a distant hill, but inadequate if the Rattlesnake behind is just about to bite you on the bum.

The most immediate and total threat is the collapse of planetary ecological life support systems (of which a changing climate is but an integrated part). Removing all toxic waste from the planet’s biosphere is a vital part of ensuring all our survival.

Looking at the Corby ruling, let us extrapolate. Let us not go into detail. Not having read all the evidence and submissions. I have to assume you haven’t either.

Would you agree that a council has been involved in cleaning up a steel works? Would you agree the court has ruled that in this project, the council has contributed to birth defects?

What would have happened if the council had not cleaned up the steel works? The contamination would still be on the site? (This is within the terms of reference of the court evidence).

Who would be responsible if the contamination was left on the site? Who would be responsible if the contamination then caused birth defects? It is a steel works. Does anyone drive a car made with steel? Does anyone have items at home made with steel? Does anyone work in a building made with steel? Has anyone been on a train, with steel wheels on a steel track?

What the intention is, is not to apportion blame but to look at the wider issues. Did the council know at the time the contamination could be linked with birth defects? if this information was available and known, were the council negligent in procedure in removing and transporting waste from the steel works?

What if the contamination was just left at the steel works and remained there until today?

These questions are relevant?

Prince Charles is quite rightly banging the drum, to get attention that we have 96 months to ‘save the planet’. Not quite correct as the planet will got rid of the parasite or virus called humans polluting and destroying it. In a 100 million years time once we have have gone and our mess processed and resolved by natural ecological systems. The planet may evolutionary give rise to another wiser race than ourselves, that will live with the rest of the life processes of the planet and take the course of evolution to the next stage.

A stage that we were too stupid and ignorant to attain to. Any memories in the cosmic mind will justifiably only remember us as ‘good riddance to bad rubbish’. A potential destroyer of worlds that had to be disposed of. We will be the toxin of life.

Where Prince Charles is incorrect is the time span. His 96 months is based on the climate only models. When we add the other factors mentioned such as over population, over consumption, pollution etc. The provisional whole Earth system model brings this down to around 42 months before the extinction of the human race and the deaths of 6 billion people begins together with the loss of all higher life forms on the planet.

Part of the essential strategy to prevent this is to clean up the entire planet of toxic waste.

Now to stop the deaths of billions of people and the extinction of most life on the planet, the courts have initiated a precedent. If one person dies, is injured or suffers birth defects. The project with a mission of saving 6 billion plus lives will be held libel by the courts.

Who will take the challenge and what are the moral issues involved?


, , , , , ,

  1. #1 by Gordon Pye on August 3, 2009 - 11:30 pm

    Thinking with a long head perhaps it would have been better to bury the toxic cantamination where it was, it was probably only moved in the interest of potential developers anyway. A few years ago our Local Quarry plant was closed down and quickly demolished due to the fact that it was clad entirely in asbestos. It was a complete waste of an asset to our country, probably the best tarmac production plant in the country. The asbestos wasn’t hurting anyone as it was covered in an inch of built up caked limestone dust, I suspect the enite area was contaminated when it was done ASAP to beat new regulations.. Perhaps the same principle applied to Corby.

    It would appear that like some other potentially toxic installations the eco-fascist were so paranoid about caused no health problems before they were allegedly cleaned up ?

    • #2 by celticlion on August 4, 2009 - 8:26 am

      Having looked at some legal assessments of the ruling they give the impression that though the council knew the risks at the time, the measures they took in cleaning up the site were inadequate. Hence they were liable

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: