Letters: Is moving into the Faslane the right thing to do?

3 June, 2009

The main point

Nuclear ambition: Is moving into the Faslane the wisest way forward?

I have been a member of the ICE for more than 50 years. During that time I have always admired and celebrated the often magnificent work carried out by members on behalf of the community.

I was therefore dismayed to read (NCE last week) that you give front cover prominence to a story which is very much contrary to community wellbeing and community wishes.

I refer to the work being carried out at Faslane. The Scottish Parliament voted against Trident renewal and an ICM Research opinion poll in January 2007 found that 73% of Scots were opposed to the government’s plan to spend around £50bn on a new nuclear arsenal.

The Church of Scotland, Roman Catholic Church in Scotland and the Scottish Episcopal Church have all condemned the presence of nuclear weapons in Scotland. The Scottish Trade Union Congress has also spoken out against Trident.

Your story reports, in apparently approving terms, the construction of a new jetty to “provide a sophisticated new home for the Royal Navy’s next generation of nuclear powered submarines” at Faslane.

But the British government has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty whereby it undertakes to proceed “in good faith” to dismantle its nuclear arsenal. Trident is also illegal because its design for indiscriminate slaughter of civilians is contrary to the laws of war. It is immoral for this same reason.

At a time when professions are, more and more, giving very careful consideration to the implications and outcomes of their activities, I would like to suggest that “Moving into the Faslane”, as your headline puts it, is not, perhaps, the wisest way forward.

Jim McCluskey (M), 3 St Margarets Road, Twickenham, Middlesex. TW1 2LN

Looking to long-term benefits not short-term savings

Adding up: The cost of converting the railway to a busway was £116M

The cost of converting the railway to a busway was £116M

Your article on the Cambridgeshire busway (NCE 21 May) suggests that the cost of converting the railway to a busway was £116M. This is around twice the cost of reopening the railway from Stirling to Alloa, a similar distance yet with serious geotechnical problems, as reported in your pages.

We used to pride ourselves on being those who did well for one pound what any fool could do for five. We now seem to be doing badly for two pounds what any normal person would do for one.

This normal person would simply have re-opened the railway, built a new station to the north of Cambridge and run a shuttle bus between that and the existing station. The proposed bus route within the city will mean that the service will be of no value to people from the St Ives direction wishing to travel beyond the City and I seriously doubt that if the busway will achieve usage approaching four times the predictions, as at Alloa.

The planning, design and construction of this project may have been good for short-term profits, but it will do nothing for our long-term reputation as providers of cost-effective infrastructure.

Roger Button (M), 4 Beaufort Place, Larkhall, Bath BA1 6RP

Seen it all before

Your editorial on the £300M spending deficit (NCE last week) smacks of naiveté.

Most of us in the construction industry are already acutely aware of the “smoke and mirrors − double accounting” modus operandi that perpetuates in government circles, particularly when they lay claim to investment boosting in public infrastructure.

Prime minister Gordon Brown is a past master at putting on the innocence in public whilst squeezing until the pips squeak in private.

Vincent Hill, 16 Carnarvon Close, Bingham, Nottingham NG13 8RR ICE

Science and engineering

I was interested to read of the discussions between the ICE Council and government chief scientist John Beddington, (NCE 21 May).

If he believes that there is a “genuine continuum between science and engineering” can we expect the next chief scientist to be a chartered engineer?

John Broomfield, Broomfield Consultants, 30B Vine Road, East Molesey, Surrey KT8 9L

Climbing the property ladder

I was interested to learn that the ICE had recently purchased a new building at 8 Storeys Gate having sold the Herons Quay building (ICE News 23 April).

Could the ICE elaborate on the actual sums for these property transactions and how they relate to the ICE accounts in general and members’ fees in particular? I assume the sale and purchase were agreed in Council and did not require a vote by members.

Could the ICE also advise why members are to be asked to vote on new levels for membership fees in the absence of this knowledge?

Robin Whalley, rwhalley@aol.com

Whose right is it to vote?

Chris West (Letters last week) seems to want to make a connection between the moral right to vote on a proposed ICE subs increase and whether or not one will be “financially disadvantaged”. This is a bizarre way of thinking indeed.

I am one of those who West ordains do not have a “moral entitlement” to vote. I would say to West that having my subs paid by my employer does not remove my right to express the opinion that the ICE should not be raising subscription costs in an environment which is deflationary and in which my salary has been frozen.

I would be disturbed if I were to be denied by West the opportunity to express the opinion that I would not want the same “financial disadvantages” imposed on the company I work for which can only have the effect of keeping my salary frozen for longer. No-one need approach ICE director general Tom Foulkes about this matter.

Ian Froggatt (M) , 6 Sheldrake Road, Altrincham, Cheshire WA14 5LJ

Controllable economies

I have just read the intriguing article by Professor Tether (NCE 26 March) about learning lessons from history. He highlighted engineering consultancy; but it made me think of reasons for fluctuating fortunes in general, and the economy in particular.

Science teaches us that everything on this planet is in constant motion, even atoms. Nothing is static, everything is variable. I suggest that this applies generally − the population of puffins, the timing of earthquakes and even the health of national economies. Where energy can be stored and retrieved oscillation will occur.

If we know sufficiently about the forces and the properties of the materials involved, we can predict the period of the oscillation for a pendulum or a coil spring. But we are not able to understand, and therefore cannot predict, the forces and the properties of the components which make up national and international economies.

Given that economic stability is as improbable as perpetual motion, the best we should expect is that the amplitude of the fluctuations should be minimised.

I am not an historian and I cannot deduce whether or not the enormous efforts of very gifted economists, over many years, have borne fruit by progressively reducing economic fluctuation. But the near hysterical outbursts of the politicians blaming each other for the current recession is tantamount to baying at the moon. Fluctuations are quite inevitable.

Instead of blaming each other, politicians need to be able to understand better and thereby control better the natural economic cycle, or at least to be sufficiently aware, and then apply, the advice from those who do so.

We need more MPs with a fundamental knowledge of control theory. Then they might apply themselves to minimising economic swings. They could start with bank lending.

D Smith, Braehead, Scrabster, Caithness KW14 7UF

Securing our energy future

Recent correspondence regarding the pros and cons of the internal combustion engine (ICE) versus electric vehicles (EVs) misses the point. Comparing CO2 will not, in the foreseeable future, resolve the issue, as developing technology still has years of potential to drive down ICE CO2, just as renewables/nuclear do for EVs.

The open and shut case for EVs is security of energy supply and cost. Almost all our oil comes from states which are either unstable or potentially unstable, and nuclear weapons proliferation could leave the west with no answer to a complete shut-down of the Middle East’s oilfields in an international crisis.

EVs, whether fueled by nuclear, renewables or clean coal (if it ever gets going), would guarantee our transport future against volatile politics and potentially give us a safer world.

We must not allow irresolvable environmental arithmetic to distract us from this vital point.