Coastal erosion disgrace - Sky news

[King Herald]

Pints said:

I might be wrong but I seem to remember those being a South African invention. Plenty of coastal areas in SA have those where there's a city or harbour to protect.

I've seen them around several sea ports in various countries around the world. They let water in and allow natural sea life to grow, but break up the weight/impact of the water/waves. Far better than a solid sea wall.

[cloggy]

Just ask the Dutch to do it for you (for a small payment like).

[DonkeyApple]

We need the government to be tough on waves. Tough on the causes of waves.

No more erosion and deposition.

And let's end this insane open door policy on foreign sediments. Coming over here and just sitting around and contributing nothing.

[smegmore]

jbi said:

The Japanese have managed to eliminate coastal erosion using these things





The problem is... the reason they have worked in japan is because they have completely surrounded their entire country with them, and as a result have very little natural coastline left.

Hey at least their houses wont be falling into the sea though.

Tetrapods.

Had these on Das Island to prevent tidal erosion although the Gulf isn't particularly famous for rough seas.

[TheHeretic]

smegmore said:

Tetrapods.

Had these on Das Island to prevent tidal erosion although the Gulf isn't particularly famous for rough seas.

I threw something in the air once, and tried to pick up as many as I could before it landed... I only managed 3.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

TheHeretic said:

I threw something in the air once, and tried to pick up as many as I could before it landed... I only managed 3.

I've already made that joke. No one got it then either!

[Slobberchops]

st, one day we might end up joined to France and not just by a piece of pipe under the sea.

[TheHeretic]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I've already made that joke. No one got it then either!

Oh



It was a st game anyway.

[Pooh]

Johnnytheboy said:

IIRC the whole country is very slowly rotating about its north-south axis, so the East Coast is going to get lower forever and the West Coast higher.

So as above, you can't stop erosion forever. Best to concentrate limited resources where they'll do most good.

Close but not quite, it is rotating about its East West axis so Scotland is rising and England is sinking, this is mainly caused by isostatic rebound due to the melting of the ice sheets at the end of the last ice age.
Because of this and rising sea levels, coastal erosion and flooding are going to be serious issues in large parts of England in the future.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

TheHeretic said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I've already made that joke. No one got it then either!

Oh



It was a st game anyway.

It used to be called Jacks in London.

[davepoth]

vonuber said:

Derek Chevalier said:

The Thames Barrier is winning. So far.

That'll fail though, it's just a matter of time.
The uk has some of the highest erosion / deposition rates in the world; if you want to read something interesting have a look at the work that goes into protecting dungeness power station and peninsula as a whole.

And of course most of that problem is likely due to coastal protection in other areas. Longshore drift occurs in "cells", which don't really interact with each other due to tidal flow. Here's the map:



If you stop erosion at Flamborough Head, you destroy the Marshes of Lincolnshire.

[greygoose]

The erosion of Ireland is pretty dramatic on that map.

[jbi]

Well it's pretty much a case of just how much concrete your willing to throw at the problem

[aw51 121565]

DonkeyApple said:

We need the government to be tough on waves. Tough on the causes of waves.

No more erosion and deposition.

And let's end this insane open door policy on foreign sediments. Coming over here and just sitting around and contributing nothing.

Well yes, but they leave unnanounced as well - after all, records are patchy at best...

Got to look at the bigger picture .

(Like some sediments today/yesterday/tomorrow etc, and not by choice .)





PS Classic Post, Sir !

[LostBMW]

fuzzyyo said:

I think you have to be pretty stupid to buy a house near a cliff which has been slowly falling into the sea for thousands of years and expect it to not fall into the sea. Why should the government pay for peoples shortsightedness?

Maldives?






And that's our sodding government too.

[vonuber]

jbi said:

Well it's pretty much a case of just how much concrete your willing to throw at the problem

Well no, not anymore.

[blueg33]

I studied coastal erosion and marine sediment transport at Uni. It was a long time ago, but basically, you can slow down erosion in one place but that may increase the erosion in another. It can also have the effect of making beaches disappear, harbours getting silted up etc.

Erosion is a bit like river flooding - if you live in a high risk area, the risk is high. You have the choice.

I am not sure why people expect he Government to pay up. Its blindingly obvious which areas have fast erosion, a house survey when buying shuld flag it as should a lawyer, an insurer and common sense.

[DonkeyApple]

blueg33 said:

I studied coastal erosion and marine sediment transport at Uni. It was a long time ago, but basically, you can slow down erosion in one place but that may increase the erosion in another. It can also have the effect of making beaches disappear, harbours getting silted up etc.

Erosion is a bit like river flooding - if you live in a high risk area, the risk is high. You have the choice.

I am not sure why people expect he Government to pay up. Its blindingly obvious which areas have fast erosion, a house survey when buying shuld flag it as should a lawyer, an insurer and common sense.

I vaguely recall a sedimentology module in my degree as well.

I agree that the only role Govt should play is in protecting coastal sections that are of great commercial/national importance. Such as commercial ports and maybe some tourism areas.

Another job the Govt needs to invest in is telling citizens to get a bloody grip and stop expecting the State to do all the things we should be doing ourselves. They could then lower tax

[Mojocvh]

DonkeyApple said:

blueg33 said:

I studied coastal erosion and marine sediment transport at Uni. It was a long time ago, but basically, you can slow down erosion in one place but that may increase the erosion in another. It can also have the effect of making beaches disappear, harbours getting silted up etc.

Erosion is a bit like river flooding - if you live in a high risk area, the risk is high. You have the choice.

I am not sure why people expect he Government to pay up. Its blindingly obvious which areas have fast erosion, a house survey when buying shuld flag it as should a lawyer, an insurer and common sense.

I vaguely recall a sedimentology module in my degree as well.

I agree that the only role Govt should play is in protecting coastal sections that are of great commercial/national importance. Such as commercial ports and maybe some tourism areas.

Another job the Govt needs to invest in is telling citizens to get a bloody grip and stop expecting the State to do all the things we should be doing ourselves. They could then lower tax

From the "7yr old radiotherapy "thread...

Jasandjules said:
Personally I believe the state is here to serve us NOT the other way around.

Deva Link said :
Your belief is incorrect - the State MUST protect the interests of those unable to protect themselves.


so what's it gonna be then?

[LostBMW]

Why no "No Nukes" slogan smilie Mo, you lost them or something? Not like you to miss an opportunity.