Coastal erosion disgrace - Sky news
Discussion
FiF said:
The problem is that many people seem to agree that coastal protection should be put in place where it's cost effective, or whatever is to be protected is "worth protecting." WEll that's a fairly vague sort of strategy / target. At what point does one say, right here, we do here.
Economically, the capital cost of the defence plus maintenance cost of the defence needs to be less than or equal to any costs related to managed retreat (demolition, relocation etc.) plus the loss of revenue due to diminished economic activity (tax take etc.). I don't believe there have been a great deal of cases where sites that have been culturally rather than economically important have been protected.
FiF said:
Whilst acknowledging the right in the arguments that why support a business that has been unable / unwilling to invest in it's own future, I'm equally uneasy about casting a few businesses aside, tough titty approach, whilst at the same time, we are finacially supporting industry that isn't in the slightest bit viable without that support, eg windmill generation subsidy. It just seems wrong somehow.
There are other non-economic reasons for support for those industries - the wind turbines, for example, use a lot of the same skills needed to weld a ship together, so it's good to keep that talent pool in work, as well as providing trickle-down for all of the related businesses. Despite all of the erosion on that coast, it's likely to have only cost a couple of hundred people their livelihoods, which sadly just isn't worth dealing with.FiF said:
Let's not forget, we, as a nation, are spending a fortune on flood defences mainly on rivers, the same approach that is being done on the coast would be to say, no more defences, you bought the houses, farms, factories, tough titty, suck it up.
Flood defences for rivers are a bit of a different matter; they're usually built to protect urban areas where a flood will cause an awful lot more of an economic impact. It makes financial sense to build those.Edited by FiF on Tuesday 1st January 16:36
Cobnapint said:
I'm not denying that longshore drift is fact, I'm just saying it has nothing to do with the sea crashing into and eroding a cliff at a particular point, which is the main point of the Sky news report and this thread.
What happens to the sediment after the erosion event is not the issue here.
Its absolutely the issue - the sediment gets deposited elsewhere, this of ten prevents erosion in the location where the sediment is deposited.What happens to the sediment after the erosion event is not the issue here.
This has been explained by various people on this thread. I just can't see why you don't get it.
blueg33 said:
Cobnapint said:
I'm not denying that longshore drift is fact, I'm just saying it has nothing to do with the sea crashing into and eroding a cliff at a particular point, which is the main point of the Sky news report and this thread.
What happens to the sediment after the erosion event is not the issue here.
Its absolutely the issue - the sediment gets deposited elsewhere, this of ten prevents erosion in the location where the sediment is deposited.What happens to the sediment after the erosion event is not the issue here.
This has been explained by various people on this thread. I just can't see why you don't get it.
The cliffs at Skipsea are unprotected, unsupported relatively high cliffs that are crumbling through a combination of gravity induced land slippage and impact from sea water.
Yes, of course there is some sediment in the sea water - there always is. But even if you filtered the sediment out of every wave there, the cliff erosion would continue unabated.
That is why the sediment is NOT the issue here. I can't see why you don't get it.
vonuber said:
This thread is a good example of how policy seems to work.
Problem identified > whipped up by media > proposals put forward > experts in the field point out stupidity of proposal > person disbelieves evidence from experts and does what they think anyway.
Add in Hire expert > Expert disagrees with baying mob > Fire expert > Do what baying mob wants Problem identified > whipped up by media > proposals put forward > experts in the field point out stupidity of proposal > person disbelieves evidence from experts and does what they think anyway.
Cobnapint said:
Sediment is not the 'cause' of the issue in the Sky News piece.
The cliffs at Skipsea are unprotected, unsupported relatively high cliffs that are crumbling through a combination of gravity induced land slippage and impact from sea water.
Yes, of course there is some sediment in the sea water - there always is. But even if you filtered the sediment out of every wave there, the cliff erosion would continue unabated.
That is why the sediment is NOT the issue here. I can't see why you don't get it.
The point about sediment is that it comes FROM erosion, the sediment is then deposited further along the coast often preventing erosion in that location.The cliffs at Skipsea are unprotected, unsupported relatively high cliffs that are crumbling through a combination of gravity induced land slippage and impact from sea water.
Yes, of course there is some sediment in the sea water - there always is. But even if you filtered the sediment out of every wave there, the cliff erosion would continue unabated.
That is why the sediment is NOT the issue here. I can't see why you don't get it.
Therefore if you stop erosion in one place you cause it in another! Then Sky News will be saying why don't we stop erosion in that other place. Well you can and you will just move the problem somewhere else.
I WILL SPELL IT OUT - YOU CANNOT PREVENT COASTAL EROSION IN ONE LOCATION WITHOUT HAVING AN IMPACT ON ANOTHER LOCATION
Those cliffs at Skipsea are not relatively high cliffs, when I was about 8 yrs old I fell from the cliff top onto the beach below, no harm apart to my undercrackers.
I know I've taken the position on this of raising the issue of the farmers, to put the other perspective apart from numpty bungalow owners. I've now watched that video. The woman bought that bungalow 27 years ago, so 1985 ish.
At one time her bungalow would have had a road going up the clifftop running in front of it, and the drive she refers to would have come off that road. There would have been a line of bungalows etc to the seaward of that road, but IIRC by 1985 that row of bungalows would have pretty much gone in already.
Certainly while it was still possible to drive along Southfield Lane towards Ulrome, and one of the incarnations of cliff top Green Lane was still there, those bungalows had gone by 1987 when returning from a regatta at Brid, for old time's sake I intended to have a bacon sarnie and mug of builder's at the cafe, the car park where I intended to park car and trailer had all gone. It should have been obvious to even a person of low IQ where things were going.
Again this part of the coast is only protected from the NE by Flamborough Head, and that effect disappears south of Bridlington, the main coastal defences are at Bridlington, Hornsea and Withernsea. Some years ago a rock abutment was put in by the EA at Barmston, and there has been some private defences at Ulrome caravan park and Cliff House (formerly known as Beachholme caravan park) also defences at the Atwick gas plant.
If the erosion at the lady's house near Mill Lane Skipsea has increased, then it may be as a result of these more recent protection works at Barmston, but it hasn't increased the erosion rate ten fold.
Tt's clear that only the defences at Barmston drain will be maintained for reasons of flooding, and the Gas plant at Atwick. All the other defences, excepting Brid, Hornsea etc, will probably be removed as they are in dire states. I'd be quite happy if the sea was allowed to take Withernsea though.
I know I've taken the position on this of raising the issue of the farmers, to put the other perspective apart from numpty bungalow owners. I've now watched that video. The woman bought that bungalow 27 years ago, so 1985 ish.
At one time her bungalow would have had a road going up the clifftop running in front of it, and the drive she refers to would have come off that road. There would have been a line of bungalows etc to the seaward of that road, but IIRC by 1985 that row of bungalows would have pretty much gone in already.
Certainly while it was still possible to drive along Southfield Lane towards Ulrome, and one of the incarnations of cliff top Green Lane was still there, those bungalows had gone by 1987 when returning from a regatta at Brid, for old time's sake I intended to have a bacon sarnie and mug of builder's at the cafe, the car park where I intended to park car and trailer had all gone. It should have been obvious to even a person of low IQ where things were going.
Again this part of the coast is only protected from the NE by Flamborough Head, and that effect disappears south of Bridlington, the main coastal defences are at Bridlington, Hornsea and Withernsea. Some years ago a rock abutment was put in by the EA at Barmston, and there has been some private defences at Ulrome caravan park and Cliff House (formerly known as Beachholme caravan park) also defences at the Atwick gas plant.
If the erosion at the lady's house near Mill Lane Skipsea has increased, then it may be as a result of these more recent protection works at Barmston, but it hasn't increased the erosion rate ten fold.
Tt's clear that only the defences at Barmston drain will be maintained for reasons of flooding, and the Gas plant at Atwick. All the other defences, excepting Brid, Hornsea etc, will probably be removed as they are in dire states. I'd be quite happy if the sea was allowed to take Withernsea though.
Erosion is also enhanced as the Country is gradually sinking causing samll but measurable changes in sea level and hence enhanched erosion rates.
I cannot see why the Government isn't using our money to attach lots of floats to stop the country sinking
The Government should erect giant umbrellas to stop it raining on houses with poor quality roofs
I cannot see why the Government isn't using our money to attach lots of floats to stop the country sinking
The Government should erect giant umbrellas to stop it raining on houses with poor quality roofs
Cobnapint said:
blueg33 said:
Cobnapint said:
I'm not denying that longshore drift is fact, I'm just saying it has nothing to do with the sea crashing into and eroding a cliff at a particular point, which is the main point of the Sky news report and this thread.
What happens to the sediment after the erosion event is not the issue here.
Its absolutely the issue - the sediment gets deposited elsewhere, this of ten prevents erosion in the location where the sediment is deposited.What happens to the sediment after the erosion event is not the issue here.
This has been explained by various people on this thread. I just can't see why you don't get it.
The cliffs at Skipsea are unprotected, unsupported relatively high cliffs that are crumbling through a combination of gravity induced land slippage and impact from sea water.
Yes, of course there is some sediment in the sea water - there always is. But even if you filtered the sediment out of every wave there, the cliff erosion would continue unabated.
That is why the sediment is NOT the issue here. I can't see why you don't get it.
Now, back to your two points here. The cliff will be sheering away due to two points; firstly the undercut at the base by wave action and secondly the low cohesive ability of uncompacted glacial till. The cliffs here are made of debris and sendiments deposited by a glacier. They are very, very young and barely classified as rock. They are basic, unworked, sedimentary deposits from the last ice age. They have no strength, no relevant chemical cohesion are intensely porous.
Now, step back to the undercutting action by the waves. The power of wave action is magnified almost exponentially by the inclusion of sediment and stones. It is a pure function of the amount of debris within the model.
What I want you to do today when you get back from work is to get your car washing bucket and fill it with water. Then, throw this water as hard as you can against the passenger side of your car and repeat ten times. Once you have done this, simply measure by use of your eyes alone the amount of paint the water has removed. This is your 'test' analysis for reference back to after the core experiment.
The next thing you need to do is fill your bucket half with water and half with gravel and stones from your driveway. Throw the contents of this bucket as hard as you can against the driver's side of your car. Repeat ten times and then measure the amount of paintwork removed.
What this very simple domestic experiment will show you is that the power of hydraulic action as a function of erosion is dwarfed by the power of abrasive erosion.
A less costly experiment would be to wonder why sand blasting equipment utilises granular particles at relatively low pressure to cut through their target and that when water alone is used the pressure needs to be increased to massive industrial levels to achieve the same effect.
So, let's now look at the defence strategies for protecting this very weak glacial till from wave action erosion; The first point to recognise is that by protecting one spot you are 100%, catagorically shifting the issue to another point. You need to accept very basic GCSE level physics and not the dribblings of a tabloid media punter. Long Shore Drift is a mechanism that is in operation at all points where moving water meets land, not just sandy beaches.
However, the core issue is to establish how deep the till strata is as you will need to be fixing your defensive system to the bed rock. You can't stick it to the weak strata for extremely obvious reasons. But even if you do this the sediment from one side of the defense will be carried across and start amplyfying erosion on the other side and without any of the wave energy being absorbed by the action of erosion. And at this point you need to take into account that you then reach a rather large estuary of the Humber with very high commercial relevance and residential density.
I really do advise you to stop looking at tabloid sources and as this is clearly a subject that you are very interested in, seek to actually open your mind and educate yourself on it. Your library will contain some excellent and proper books onthe subject. The one I suggested is very good to start with to get your basics covered and it will contain the references of the more in depth reading you can go onto if you wish. Also, a geological map of the area will allow you to see the extent (range and depth) of the glacial deposits and so see how far the erosion will progress before halting.
blueg33 said:
Erosion is also enhanced as the Country is gradually sinking causing samll but measurable changes in sea level and hence enhanched erosion rates.
I cannot see why the Government isn't using our money to attach lots of floats to stop the country sinking
The Government should erect giant umbrellas to stop it raining on houses with poor quality roofs
That last bit is an excellent idea. I live in Cumbria, and it been pissing down for the last 18 months, just about non stop. A giant umbrella is a genius idea. How much do you think it would cost?I cannot see why the Government isn't using our money to attach lots of floats to stop the country sinking
The Government should erect giant umbrellas to stop it raining on houses with poor quality roofs
eldar said:
That last bit is an excellent idea. I live in Cumbria, and it been pissing down for the last 18 months, just about non stop. A giant umbrella is a genius idea. How much do you think it would cost?
We could do it with PFI, a quick estimate based on rate per sqm of fabric and rates per meter of steel for a frame and it will cost £ lots If you want a push button opening system then it was cost an extra £ lots more.Allow for the Government varying the contract and spec at the last minute, 1 million public enquiries and I think you are looking at a total price of
£lots and lots and lots
plus it will turn inside out on the first windy day
eldar said:
That last bit is an excellent idea. I live in Cumbria, and it been pissing down for the last 18 months, just about non stop. A giant umbrella is a genius idea. How much do you think it would cost?
Probably less than the cost of erecting defences along the entire stretch of coastline in question ! 
I reckon we should dig up France and use it to fill in the erosion!
DonkeyApple said:
Cobnapint said:
blueg33 said:
Cobnapint said:
I'm not denying that longshore drift is fact, I'm just saying it has nothing to do with the sea crashing into and eroding a cliff at a particular point, which is the main point of the Sky news report and this thread.
What happens to the sediment after the erosion event is not the issue here.
Its absolutely the issue - the sediment gets deposited elsewhere, this of ten prevents erosion in the location where the sediment is deposited.What happens to the sediment after the erosion event is not the issue here.
This has been explained by various people on this thread. I just can't see why you don't get it.
The cliffs at Skipsea are unprotected, unsupported relatively high cliffs that are crumbling through a combination of gravity induced land slippage and impact from sea water.
Yes, of course there is some sediment in the sea water - there always is. But even if you filtered the sediment out of every wave there, the cliff erosion would continue unabated.
That is why the sediment is NOT the issue here. I can't see why you don't get it.
Now, back to your two points here. The cliff will be sheering away due to two points; firstly the undercut at the base by wave action and secondly the low cohesive ability of uncompacted glacial till. The cliffs here are made of debris and sendiments deposited by a glacier. They are very, very young and barely classified as rock. They are basic, unworked, sedimentary deposits from the last ice age. They have no strength, no relevant chemical cohesion are intensely porous.
Now, step back to the undercutting action by the waves. The power of wave action is magnified almost exponentially by the inclusion of sediment and stones. It is a pure function of the amount of debris within the model.
What I want you to do today when you get back from work is to get your car washing bucket and fill it with water. Then, throw this water as hard as you can against the passenger side of your car and repeat ten times. Once you have done this, simply measure by use of your eyes alone the amount of paint the water has removed. This is your 'test' analysis for reference back to after the core experiment.
The next thing you need to do is fill your bucket half with water and half with gravel and stones from your driveway. Throw the contents of this bucket as hard as you can against the driver's side of your car. Repeat ten times and then measure the amount of paintwork removed.
What this very simple domestic experiment will show you is that the power of hydraulic action as a function of erosion is dwarfed by the power of abrasive erosion.
A less costly experiment would be to wonder why sand blasting equipment utilises granular particles at relatively low pressure to cut through their target and that when water alone is used the pressure needs to be increased to massive industrial levels to achieve the same effect.
So, let's now look at the defence strategies for protecting this very weak glacial till from wave action erosion; The first point to recognise is that by protecting one spot you are 100%, catagorically shifting the issue to another point. You need to accept very basic GCSE level physics and not the dribblings of a tabloid media punter. Long Shore Drift is a mechanism that is in operation at all points where moving water meets land, not just sandy beaches.
However, the core issue is to establish how deep the till strata is as you will need to be fixing your defensive system to the bed rock. You can't stick it to the weak strata for extremely obvious reasons. But even if you do this the sediment from one side of the defense will be carried across and start amplyfying erosion on the other side and without any of the wave energy being absorbed by the action of erosion. And at this point you need to take into account that you then reach a rather large estuary of the Humber with very high commercial relevance and residential density.
I really do advise you to stop looking at tabloid sources and as this is clearly a subject that you are very interested in, seek to actually open your mind and educate yourself on it. Your library will contain some excellent and proper books onthe subject. The one I suggested is very good to start with to get your basics covered and it will contain the references of the more in depth reading you can go onto if you wish. Also, a geological map of the area will allow you to see the extent (range and depth) of the glacial deposits and so see how far the erosion will progress before halting.
As quite an intelligent guy (please nobody put 'really?' in the next post), I don't need an abc book on how sand blasting equipment is so effective, nor an infant school-esque car door comparison to understand that gravel in a bucket of water would remove paint more readily than one without. But seeing as you prefer to use this as your benchmark, consider the fact that the composition of the cliffs at Skipsea (of which you seem to have in-depth knowledge of) is as you say just very weak, basic, unworked, sedimentary deposits that have no strength, no relevant chemical cohesion and are intensely porous. Anybody can understand that just crashing tap water would cause these cliffs to collapse, never mind sea water and all it contains.
And the assertion that by protecting one spot you are '100% catagorically shifting the issue to another point' does not follow any logic. You, and a few 'geologists' as you call them, are suggesting that the sea MUST erode something at all costs. Yes, it does erode, constantly, we all know that, but to suggest that if it doesn't get its way at one particular point on the coast it will suddenly turn it's attention somewhere else and INCREASE it's erosion there is just ludicrous.
Back to your car door theory, if I were to protect the paintwork on my drivers door with a bit of hard board, the damage caused to the rear door and front wing wouldn't suddenly increase would it?
And I'm not looking at Tabloid sources. I'm just reacting to and quoting one source, and although it's not a subject I'm 'very' interested in, it makes me angry to think that presumably hard working citizens of this country will be allowed to lose their family wealth and homes, when something could clearly be done about it. And instead of adopting the cost/benefit - tough tittys approach, we should look after our own and put some more money in to solve the problem, rather than throwing it at countless other dubious projects overseas.
I (and I presume you too) would hate to think that MY family home was being foresaken for some of the things contained in this link I've just found.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9560326/B...
To put no finer point on it - it's a downright f**king disgrace. Enjoy, and Happy New Year.
Cobnapint said:
Firstly, thanks for taking the time to write such a long response. Though next time, could you make it just a little bit less condesending. Thanks.
As quite an intelligent guy (please nobody put 'really?' in the next post), I don't need an abc book on how sand blasting equipment is so effective, nor an infant school-esque car door comparison to understand that gravel in a bucket of water would remove paint more readily than one without. But seeing as you prefer to use this as your benchmark, consider the fact that the composition of the cliffs at Skipsea (of which you seem to have in-depth knowledge of) is as you say just very weak, basic, unworked, sedimentary deposits that have no strength, no relevant chemical cohesion and are intensely porous. Anybody can understand that just crashing tap water would cause these cliffs to collapse, never mind sea water and all it contains.
And the assertion that by protecting one spot you are '100% catagorically shifting the issue to another point' does not follow any logic. You, and a few 'geologists' as you call them, are suggesting that the sea MUST erode something at all costs. Yes, it does erode, constantly, we all know that, but to suggest that if it doesn't get its way at one particular point on the coast it will suddenly turn it's attention somewhere else and INCREASE it's erosion there is just ludicrous.
Back to your car door theory, if I were to protect the paintwork on my drivers door with a bit of hard board, the damage caused to the rear door and front wing wouldn't suddenly increase would it?
And I'm not looking at Tabloid sources. I'm just reacting to and quoting one source, and although it's not a subject I'm 'very' interested in, it makes me angry to think that presumably hard working citizens of this country will be allowed to lose their family wealth and homes, when something could clearly be done about it. And instead of adopting the cost/benefit - tough tittys approach, we should look after our own and put some more money in to solve the problem, rather than throwing it at countless other dubious projects overseas.
I (and I presume you too) would hate to think that MY family home was being foresaken for some of the things contained in this link I've just found.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9560326/B...
To put no finer point on it - it's a downright f**king disgrace. Enjoy, and Happy New Year.
And what exactly are you going to fix your board to? As quite an intelligent guy (please nobody put 'really?' in the next post), I don't need an abc book on how sand blasting equipment is so effective, nor an infant school-esque car door comparison to understand that gravel in a bucket of water would remove paint more readily than one without. But seeing as you prefer to use this as your benchmark, consider the fact that the composition of the cliffs at Skipsea (of which you seem to have in-depth knowledge of) is as you say just very weak, basic, unworked, sedimentary deposits that have no strength, no relevant chemical cohesion and are intensely porous. Anybody can understand that just crashing tap water would cause these cliffs to collapse, never mind sea water and all it contains.
And the assertion that by protecting one spot you are '100% catagorically shifting the issue to another point' does not follow any logic. You, and a few 'geologists' as you call them, are suggesting that the sea MUST erode something at all costs. Yes, it does erode, constantly, we all know that, but to suggest that if it doesn't get its way at one particular point on the coast it will suddenly turn it's attention somewhere else and INCREASE it's erosion there is just ludicrous.
Back to your car door theory, if I were to protect the paintwork on my drivers door with a bit of hard board, the damage caused to the rear door and front wing wouldn't suddenly increase would it?
And I'm not looking at Tabloid sources. I'm just reacting to and quoting one source, and although it's not a subject I'm 'very' interested in, it makes me angry to think that presumably hard working citizens of this country will be allowed to lose their family wealth and homes, when something could clearly be done about it. And instead of adopting the cost/benefit - tough tittys approach, we should look after our own and put some more money in to solve the problem, rather than throwing it at countless other dubious projects overseas.
I (and I presume you too) would hate to think that MY family home was being foresaken for some of the things contained in this link I've just found.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9560326/B...
To put no finer point on it - it's a downright f**king disgrace. Enjoy, and Happy New Year.
And why the almost religious denial of proven fact and physics?
And just why the obsession with linking to overseas aid?
And why the refusal to nip down to the library?
Cobnapint said:
Firstly, thanks for taking the time to write such a long response. Though next time, could you make it just a little bit less condesending. Thanks.
As quite an intelligent guy (please nobody put 'really?' in the next post), I don't need an abc book on how sand blasting equipment is so effective, nor an infant school-esque car door comparison to understand that gravel in a bucket of water would remove paint more readily than one without. But seeing as you prefer to use this as your benchmark, consider the fact that the composition of the cliffs at Skipsea (of which you seem to have in-depth knowledge of) is as you say just very weak, basic, unworked, sedimentary deposits that have no strength, no relevant chemical cohesion and are intensely porous. Anybody can understand that just crashing tap water would cause these cliffs to collapse, never mind sea water and all it contains.
And the assertion that by protecting one spot you are '100% catagorically shifting the issue to another point' does not follow any logic. You, and a few 'geologists' as you call them, are suggesting that the sea MUST erode something at all costs. Yes, it does erode, constantly, we all know that, but to suggest that if it doesn't get its way at one particular point on the coast it will suddenly turn it's attention somewhere else and INCREASE it's erosion there is just ludicrous.
Back to your car door theory, if I were to protect the paintwork on my drivers door with a bit of hard board, the damage caused to the rear door and front wing wouldn't suddenly increase would it?
And I'm not looking at Tabloid sources. I'm just reacting to and quoting one source, and although it's not a subject I'm 'very' interested in, it makes me angry to think that presumably hard working citizens of this country will be allowed to lose their family wealth and homes, when something could clearly be done about it. And instead of adopting the cost/benefit - tough tittys approach, we should look after our own and put some more money in to solve the problem, rather than throwing it at countless other dubious projects overseas.
I (and I presume you too) would hate to think that MY family home was being foresaken for some of the things contained in this link I've just found.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9560326/B...
To put no finer point on it - it's a downright f**king disgrace. Enjoy, and Happy New Year.
You are quite right that there is not a 100% certainty that building defences in one locatiopn will increase erosion in another, but it is very probable and there are numerous example along out coastlines where this happens. It is even more probable in locations where the geology is soft and easily eroded. Basically, eroded cliffs are pretty much what our beaches are made from. Stop the erosion and beaches disappear.As quite an intelligent guy (please nobody put 'really?' in the next post), I don't need an abc book on how sand blasting equipment is so effective, nor an infant school-esque car door comparison to understand that gravel in a bucket of water would remove paint more readily than one without. But seeing as you prefer to use this as your benchmark, consider the fact that the composition of the cliffs at Skipsea (of which you seem to have in-depth knowledge of) is as you say just very weak, basic, unworked, sedimentary deposits that have no strength, no relevant chemical cohesion and are intensely porous. Anybody can understand that just crashing tap water would cause these cliffs to collapse, never mind sea water and all it contains.
And the assertion that by protecting one spot you are '100% catagorically shifting the issue to another point' does not follow any logic. You, and a few 'geologists' as you call them, are suggesting that the sea MUST erode something at all costs. Yes, it does erode, constantly, we all know that, but to suggest that if it doesn't get its way at one particular point on the coast it will suddenly turn it's attention somewhere else and INCREASE it's erosion there is just ludicrous.
Back to your car door theory, if I were to protect the paintwork on my drivers door with a bit of hard board, the damage caused to the rear door and front wing wouldn't suddenly increase would it?
And I'm not looking at Tabloid sources. I'm just reacting to and quoting one source, and although it's not a subject I'm 'very' interested in, it makes me angry to think that presumably hard working citizens of this country will be allowed to lose their family wealth and homes, when something could clearly be done about it. And instead of adopting the cost/benefit - tough tittys approach, we should look after our own and put some more money in to solve the problem, rather than throwing it at countless other dubious projects overseas.
I (and I presume you too) would hate to think that MY family home was being foresaken for some of the things contained in this link I've just found.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9560326/B...
To put no finer point on it - it's a downright f**king disgrace. Enjoy, and Happy New Year.
[quote = GCSE Revision]
Example of the impacts of Coastal Management: Mappleton
The village of Mappleton is greatly underthreat by coastal erosion along the coastline and by 1998, the main road running through the village was only 500m from the cliff top and in places it is now only 50m. The village is under threat due to the easily eroded boulder clay (glacial till) which makes up the cliff line. The area suffers from erosion rates of up to 2m per year.
Protecting Mappleton
To reduce the amount of erosion threatening Mappleton, 2 rock groynes were constructed in 1991 to encourage the build up of beach in front of Mappleton by trapping longshore drift. This meant that that waves would break on the beach rather than attacking the cliffs.
Problems for further down coast
Those living south of Mappleton village have experienced the 'knock-on' effects of the coastal management.
The groynes at Mappleton have disturbed the natural longshore drift movement, trapping the coastal material.
Therefore whilst material is still being moved south of Mappleton, there is no fresh sediment to replace it.
Beaches have become even narrower and the cliffs are unprotected.
Estimates suggest that it has accelerated cliff erosion south of Mappleton to 10m / yr.
As for other places that the Government spends out money, IMO there is probably more worth to us a country in foreign aid than there is in a large scale attempt to prevent some of the most powerful forces of nature doing what they do.
blueg33 said:
We could do it with PFI, a quick estimate based on rate per sqm of fabric and rates per meter of steel for a frame and it will cost £ lots If you want a push button opening system then it was cost an extra £ lots more.
Allow for the Government varying the contract and spec at the last minute, 1 million public enquiries and I think you are looking at a total price of
£lots and lots and lots
plus it will turn inside out on the first windy day
Thank you - best chuckle today. If you want a push button opening system then it was cost an extra £ lots more.Allow for the Government varying the contract and spec at the last minute, 1 million public enquiries and I think you are looking at a total price of
£lots and lots and lots
plus it will turn inside out on the first windy day
From this long thread I'm reminded of a visit to a property in Maine, when my parents were prospecting for a retirement home. At the beachfront realty there was a 6' cliff of soft clay-cum-soil with lots of pebbles in it, approx. 60ft from the back door of the house. I asked the realtor how long did he think the property would last before inundation (armed with my A level geography knowledge)? His reply - that cliff is advancing so erosion will not be a problem...
They didn't buy that house. Wonder if it's still there today (31 years later)?
The Don of Croy said:
Thank you - best chuckle today.
From this long thread I'm reminded of a visit to a property in Maine, when my parents were prospecting for a retirement home. At the beachfront realty there was a 6' cliff of soft clay-cum-soil with lots of pebbles in it, approx. 60ft from the back door of the house. I asked the realtor how long did he think the property would last before inundation (armed with my A level geography knowledge)? His reply - that cliff is advancing so erosion will not be a problem...
They didn't buy that house. Wonder if it's still there today (31 years later)?
find it on Google Maps?From this long thread I'm reminded of a visit to a property in Maine, when my parents were prospecting for a retirement home. At the beachfront realty there was a 6' cliff of soft clay-cum-soil with lots of pebbles in it, approx. 60ft from the back door of the house. I asked the realtor how long did he think the property would last before inundation (armed with my A level geography knowledge)? His reply - that cliff is advancing so erosion will not be a problem...
They didn't buy that house. Wonder if it's still there today (31 years later)?
blueg33 said:
We could do it with PFI, a quick estimate based on rate per sqm of fabric and rates per meter of steel for a frame and it will cost £ lots If you want a push button opening system then it was cost an extra £ lots more.
Allow for the Government varying the contract and spec at the last minute, 1 million public enquiries and I think you are looking at a total price of
£lots and lots and lots
plus it will turn inside out on the first windy day
But apart from that, and excellent idea. We should do it. If you want a push button opening system then it was cost an extra £ lots more.Allow for the Government varying the contract and spec at the last minute, 1 million public enquiries and I think you are looking at a total price of
£lots and lots and lots
plus it will turn inside out on the first windy day
DonkeyApple said:
And what exactly are you going to fix your board to?
As a conscientious school teacher, you would hold it in the correct position whilst one of your favourite pupils (yours truly) conducted the experiment.DonkeyApple said:
And why the almost religious denial of proven fact and physics?
I'm not denying the facts. I'm denying your statement that 'by protecting one spot you are '100% catagorically shifting the issue to another point'.As blueg33 points out - it is very probable, not a 100% certainty - there is a difference.
He also posts a very interesting case of the longshore drift dynamics being disrupted by the installation of groynes at Mappleton. This I can understand. But I still maintain my view that a sea wall at one point would not automatically cause the erosion hungry sea to increase its damaging energy elsewhere.
DonkeyApple said:
And just why the obsession with linking to overseas aid?
I tried earlier linking it to HS2, but nobody liked that, so I thought I'd try something that really makes my (and others, quite rightly) blood boil.There are many other examples of disjointed prioritys on the governmental spending front I could have chosen.
DonkeyApple said:
And why the refusal to nip down to the library?
What is a library?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff