Copyright © 2012 Save Siccar Point. All rights reserved
STOP THE DEVELOPMENT AT SICCAR POINT
The location of Hutton's Unconformity, probably the most famous site in modern geology, is being threatened by a developer who wants to dig a trench right next to this ancient site and fill it with concrete.Find out More
This includes vegetable matter, silt, pesticides and herbicides, and threatens all the coves and inlets downstream including St Abbs Marine Reserve, Coldingham Sands,and Eyemouth Beach.FInd out More
The deadline for objections is almost gone. The last date for objections is 23 September and time is running out. If you want to object please make sure you do so as soon as possible.
Siccar Point and its locality is one of the most famous and important sites in the history of science. The site is of global significance
to scientists and geologists, and is the location of James Hutton's Unconformity.
This historically important location helped Hutton develop his early theories of geological time that showed that the earth was unimaginably older than anyone had known.
The site is visited by thousands of geologists and scientists every year. Every geologist you speak to will want to visit Siccar Point at least one time in their lives. That's how significant this location is.
Now a company is planning to ruin the location by digging a trench just a few meters east of this iconic location, lay a pipeline, and then fill that trench with concrete. This will cause permanent damage to the rock-bed and leave a visible scar at this important location forever.
Once the pipeline is layed they plan to pump their untreated agricultural waste - up to 360,000 litres per day - that could include vegetable matter, silt, nutrients, and other organics, straight into the sea. The whole landscape could be put in danger from accelerated erosion and the effluent that will be dumped. This could threaten not just Siccar Point and the immediate environment around it, but all the coves and inlets including Pease Bay, Cove, Coldingham Sands and Eyemouth, and the marine reserve at St Abbs, may also be at risk.
Lodge your official objection to the proposed plans and help put a stop to this. But do it on or before 30 August 2012.Read More
The company planning to build the pipeline to get rid of their dirty water and chipped vegetable matter.Read More
Official Agencies tasked with defending the heritage and environment of Scotland who don't seem to care.Read More
Siccar Point has been designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) since 1961. It is part of the larger landscape of the Berwickshire Coast which is one on the most unique coastlines in the UK and an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) (or the newer SNH designation of Special Landscape Area (SLA)). These designations are designed to protect important environments from insensitive or destructive development, but the bodies whose task it is to protect this heritage are not objecting this planning application.
Give the global significance of Siccar Point and it's locality, we believe it deserves better protection. As one objector to this plan said, the proposed development is "the equivalent of digging a sewer through the middle of Stonehenge then covering it with concrete".
When the pipeline provides no obvious economic or environmental benefits to the company proposing it, it is almost impossible to believe that such an application is being put forward in the 21st century to dump waste at sea. It's even worse when you consider the company planning this already have an environmentally friendly waste-water system but seem to want to get rid of all or part of it.
We don't know what's harder to believe. The application that could ruin this globally significant location, the replacement of environmentally friendly methods with dumping at sea, or the fact that SNH (Scottish Natural Heritage) and SEPA (Scottish Environmental Protection Agency) are not objecting this application.
You must help to make sure this applicaton is rejected.
We wouldn't want to be accused of sensationalising the application, so you can view all the submitted application documents, the drawings, and the current objections here - View the Application.
Why is it wrong?
It's one of the most geologically important locations in the world and someone wants to damage it beyond repair for the sake of some dirty water - and making more profit.
Drysdales is a company that prepare and package a number of different varieties of vegetables for delivery to supermarkets. They process the newly harvested vegetables, clean them by washing all the earth from them, trim them, and then pre-package them for supermarket shelves.
Their plan is to dig a trench across a scientifically sensitive and important area, fill it with concrete, and dump their waste straight into the sea when they already have an excellent waste-water treatment process, and there is no economic or environmental reasons to change what systems they have.
All scientists and geologists should be up in arms about this proposal and the lack of interest taken by authorities who should be objecting. Find out what you can do to stop this appalling plan.
Drysdales currently have an excellent and environmentally friendly waste-water processing facility consisting of silt-settlement tanks, augers to remove larger vegetable waste trimmings, active sludge processes to reduce nutrients, and reed beds to give their water a final clean. This high-quality water then flows into a local burn where it is further diluted, absorbed by plants and soil, filtered by soils and strata, and ultimately flows into the sea at Meikle Poo Craig. We think this is an excellent system and should be retained.
If we haven't got the details correct we apologise to Drysdales, but we like their existing system which is why we want them to keep it.
The plan is to build a pumping station, lay a pipeline, and dump all this effluent directly into the Firth of Forth. There are hints that their are plans afoot to remove some of their current waste water treatment facilities and that the pipeline will be used to deposit less clean effluent than is currently being produced. In fact, their own plans appear to show that the proposed pipeline inlet is in their existing settlement lagoon, completely by-passing their reed-beds - and that is not good news considering what a couple of objectors have said about the effluent BEFORE the reed beds were introduced.
Although we're confident the location of the trench and pipe are relatively accurate the line is not to scale in any of these images.
A slightly different perspective:
Photo: Meg Stewart. Copied from site.
SNH think the concrete trench will be finished smooth with the existing rocks, that marine flora and fauna will colonize the trench thereby softening the visual impact, and that rock movement will eventually obscure the trench.
In the photographs above the platform (or wave cut bench) you are seeing are gently dipping old red sandstone layers through which the pipeline will be laid. The bands you see are slightly different coloured sedimentary layers. It's like taking a slice through a multi-layered cake at a very low angle (from the land to sea) and then gently tipping that cake over to produce a platform.
Is it really clean?
Drysdales already have an excellent waste water treatment process. Building a pipeline at enormous cost to divert the water brings
them no economic or environmental benefits. It doesn't make sense.
Is there something more to this application than they are telling us?
According to the Supporting Documents, Drysdales have plans to output around 360,000 litres of waste water into this marine evironment every single day.
According to Drysdales own web site they process over 14,000 tonnes (source: Drysdales web site) every year. Vegetable processing generates 10%-60% of the raw material as solid waste (Source: Report).
That means Drysdales could produce up to 1400 tonnes* per year at 10% wastage (3.8 tonnes per day on average) and up to 8400* tonnes at 60% wastage (23 tonnes per day on average) of raw vegetable matter. That's not taking into account seasonal variations in output.
Their current waste-water processing facilities reduce these figures by a significant amount but it is probably accurate to say that the before the waste is processed this is the quantity of waste matter being dealt with.
Facilities exist in their current water processing that reduce the amount of silt or vegetable trimmings reaching their active sludge and reed bed processes, but no filtering system is ever 100% effective. Things like the holes in the auger used to remove vegetable trimmings will allow solid vegetable matter to pass into these other processes, and the action of the auger may facilitate the production of smaller vegetable matter that will flow through the holes too. As Drysdales own pictures show in their submission, the silt removal process is not 100% effective either. At the moment, if any of this matter passes onto the active sludge system or reed beds it is going to be removed either by the action of the active-sludge process or by the reed beds.
The World Bank (Source: Report) recommends that waste water from raw vegtable production should be treated to remove all solid organic material, and that is what Drysdales currently do, but as we suggest later in this page, this may not always be so.
This Report states "The vegetable processing industry generates significant quantities of wastes in some regions. These wastes usually contain high levels of organic matter, nutrients, moisture, and sometimes salts, and are not suitable for disposal in municipal landfills because of their physical, chemical and biological properties. " so, while SEPA does not class Drysdales waste as "Hazardous", the raw waste is not exactly pleasant or completely harmless either.
Sounds like it could be nasty but Drsydales have an excellent waste water management system. Surely there isn't a problem?
We've hinted that Drydsales might planning to remove some of these processes so they can extend their factory - the active sludge and reed beds do use a lot of land. We've also heard rumours that some people think we are being inaccurate or inflamatory about the potential danger to Siccar Point from this effluent. We'll discuss that below and you can then make up your own mind, however their own plans appear to show that the proposed pipeline inlet is in their existing settlement lagoon completely by-passing their reed-beds, so maybe some changes will be immediate.
Before we go any further, we must answer this essential question. The details are below and on our SNH2 Pages, but to put it simply, whatever comes out of that proposed pipeline, whether it be fresh water, water with some sugars, silt, or actual organic matter, some of it will end up on Siccar Point. How much is a matter for modelling and testing, but the location is not.
Drysdales do have an excellent, effective, and environmentally friendly, waste water treatment process at the moment - and we want them to keep every part of it. Their system uses various processes - including reed beds - and the end result of this processing is high-quality water that is then discharged into a local burn. The local burn dilutes this outflow even more, some of it will be absorbed by plants and soil, and some will be filtered by other strata. This all flows out to sea via a natural fresh-water outlet at a place called Meikle Poo Craig, approximately 1KM east of their new proposed outflow. We have no issues with this process at all.
Anyone approaching stakeholders such as SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency) will be told that the company has a CAR licence to discharge their outflow to this burn (a licence that they pay SEPA for), that the water eventually flowing out to sea is of a high quality, and that SEPA have no problem with this. They could even conceivably say that when the pipeline is [first] built the water being piped will be absolutely fine and there is nothing to be concerned about - except perhaps the influx of fresh water at that location. That's wonderful, and that seems to be the message that is given to anyone contacting them in an official capacity. It suggests (without actually saying it) that it will all remain the same over the long term....and this is where it starts to become much less attractive or clear. Their own plans appear to show that the proposed pipeline inlet is in their existing settlement lagoon, by-passing their reed-beds altogether.
Drysdales submitted an "Applicants Supporting Comments" document to the council where it quoted this web site and claimed it had "significant inaccuracies" - you can see our response, and links to the document here. Even though it was a document in their defence of our "inaccuracies" it did not deny our suggestions that part of the waste-water processing could be removed (the most critical parts for clean water), but it also made a point of showing their current processing methods (of which we approve) as they are "at the moment" - our emphasis, but their words.
We hadn't considered that, but Drysdales' response to this web site started us thinking about that question. Their existing system is excellent so why do they
need to change it? The pipeline brings no benefits - economic, environmental, or social - and does represent a significant investment for them. It ruins a
landscape when it isn't necessary and brings no benefits to the table - unless there are plans to change their waste-water processing that they aren't revealing.
Is the medium to long term plan to bury the pipeline out to sea, get planning permission based on current treatments, then change the water treatment processes when no-one can see easily see or monitor the effluent until it is too late? We don't know, but we do know they want to bulid more factory units and the only room they have on their site are the large active-sludge ponds and reedbeds that do take up a lot of ground area. A similar suggestion regarding building on the reed beds is made in the objection by TA Dykes, who farms the land at Siccar Point and up to the outflow of the reed beds, and we agree. The current waste water flows through the burn that is on his farm.
Yes they would, but it wouldn't require a planning application if the current one is passed. It would then be a matter for SEPA alone to decide what protections were needed. Other stakeholders (the Council, Community Council, and SNH) would all be consulted for their opinion but this would not be subject to the same level of scrutiny or public input that a planning application allows. There's a good chance all the current objectors from around the world would not have their voices heard. Such a plan to remove widespread public scrutiny, if that is what is happening, would be underhand, duplicitous, undemocratic, and should not be allowed.
"The effluent from this site was once poured into a stream passing through it, and it converted the stream into a very foul smelling sewer. However, the problem was dealt with very successfully by installing a reed bed.."
Maybe not right away, but if their active sludge or reed bed systems are removed then absolutely yes - and their own plans appear to show that the reed-beds will be by-passed immediately. They haven't denied they have plans to remove them and we know they are looking for land to build upon. Considering there are no economic or environmental benefits to building a pipeline given their current processes, why would the company even want to build it? Is this planning application just the first-step in a process to change their existing treatment process to ones that are less effective and produce much less attractive effluent? You can make up your own mind.
In the objection by TA Dykes, who has farmed the land around Siccar Point for many years, and who has extensive experience of the quality of the water
coming from the plant into the Redheugh Burn, he makes indirect reference to the quality of the water before the active sludge and reed bed system were
installed. Anyone who knows or has met Tom Dykes will tell you he is a diplomatic gentleman who gets on with all his neighbours, is well known and
respected locally, and also has a business relationship with Drysdales and the Trust who own the land. If he says in his objection, "I was relieved when
the reed beds were installed" then you can be sure there were concerns before. Now that the reed beds and other processes are being used he states,
"I confirm that the quality of this water is good". Any backward change would be a negative step for the environment.
In another objection from Mr R Turner who lives at Redheugh and knows the burn where the effluent now flows said "The effluent from this site was once poured into a stream passing through it, and it converted the stream into a very foul smelling sewer. However, the problem was dealt with very successfully by installing a reed bed, and the water in the stream has now been clear for many years."
The important thing to remember is that THAT effluent was licenced by SEPA. Do you really want that type of effluent flowing near Siccar Point? That's what might end up happening if Drysdales remove any of their waste-processing facilities - especially the reed beds.
The pipeline outflow is only 150m from Siccar Point. Not only will laying the pipeline scar and damage the immediate vicinity, but if these changes occur as we've suggested they might, it is not going to be a pleasent environment.
Not by the trenching or pipeline laying process - those are 150m east of Siccar Point. It will leave an unsightly scar though, and spoil the pristine landscape
around Siccar Point. It will end up with an ugly concrete-filled trench running against the natural sedimentary strata in the sandstone platform that is all
part of the landscape that helped Hutton develop his theories, and will be highly visible to all future visitors to Siccar Point. If the effluent does change
(and we have good reasons to think that it might) then the potential damage or danger to Siccar Point itself is more obvious although it would require extensive
modelling of the effluent flow to get a completely accurate picture.
The current active-sludge and reed beds remove vast amounts of organic material and nutrients, and result in the current outflow being good quality water. If these are removed then vegetable chippings, organic matter, potential pesticide and herbicides (see our response to Drysdales for more information about these) and dirty silty water will be flowing at the rate of around 360,000 litres per day. It is our belief that if this happens anyone visiting Siccar Point in the future will see a stream of discoloured water flowing from this outflow, but that might be the least of their worries. This effluent could contain organic matter, nutrients, salts, and other compounds that could be washed ashore or onto Siccar Point potentially creating a health hazard, a smell, and dirty & uhealthy intertidal zones. If the other 2 stages (silt settlement and vegetable trimmings) are removed, this will result in even less salubrious effluent and will be real eyesore.
Not that we know of. You would think that given their experience they would be aware, but we have no evidence to suggest they do. It would be a shocking proposition and revelation if they did or had given it their unofficial or tacit approval.
Perhaps. We can't come out and say they they WILL be doing this, but with everything said above it all points to this being part of a process towards
making changes to their current water treatment process - and these changes are unlikely to be for the better when it is run down a pipeline that
is hidden from view.
If changes aren't being planned to their waste water treatment, then what difference will piping it away make from their current process of outflow into a local burn? It seems an awful large investment for no return or benefit.
If treatment changes ARE planned, then we can still see no reason to build the pipeline. Any environmental protections suggested by SEPA would be "on site" so surely the company could save itself a fortune by not building the pipeline and continue to use the burn - even if they have to build a small (much less expensive) pipeline the few yards to the burn? That must be the least intrusive, least expensive, and most sensible solution.
It all suggests that Drysdales know the effluent in the future is going to be so unpalatable that the easiest solution for the company is to attempt hide it from view and dump it at sea away from prying eyes, easy monitoring, and public scrutiny. We have enough issues with the location of the pipeline, but if our thinking is correct then it introduces a much more sinister and worrying element - will the effluent really be so bad that hiding it from view is the only or the best solution they can think of?
If these changes happen, will Siccar Point be affected directly? That depends on the local tidal movements.
What's the objection?
It's not just Siccar Point that's in danger. The Marine Conservation Site at St Abbs may under threat too along with every beach, cove and inlet
between Barns Ness to the North West and St Abbs in the South East.
Our Objection Page is being re-written to bring it into line with current planning policies. We will update this page as soon as we can.
We have attempted to align our objections with the Scottish Borders Council Structural Plan, and we've dealt with the issue of 2 fronts - the pipeline route, and the effluent.
In summary, the pipeline is permanently destroying and scarring the landscape in an Area of Great Landscape value for no economic or social gain,
and should be rejected on that basis.
The propose pipeline route contravenes Policy N3 (National Sites), Policy N11 (Areas of Great Landscape Value) and Policy N12 (Coastline) of the SBC Structural Plan. It also contravenes Policy N6 (Environmental Impact) as no Environmental Impact Assessment has been carried out.
In additional the applicaton also contravenes Sections 1.17 on sustainable development, Section 1.20 taking into account the views of the community, Section 1.34 Environmental Quality, Section 2.7 conservation of designated sites, Section 2.19 protecting areas covered by landscape designations and to conserve the character of the wider landscape, Section 2.22 in protecting the unobstructed character of the coastal landscape type and their high sensitivity to built development, and Section 6.3 (Waste Management) where the precautionary principle is to "ensure that action is taken now to reduce the potential for damage to the environment or human health in the future" and where "focus should be placed on waste reduction, reuse and recycling, with landfill [and we assume dumping at sea] seen as a last resort for the residual waste".
The planning application should be rejected.
Given Drysdales current system that is licenced by SEPA, there is no economic benefit to building this pipeline. This is highly suggestive that the character or composition of the effluent is likely to change, otherwise there would be no need (and no sense) to build this pipeline.
* - these figures assume the 14,000 tonnes is the raw amount of vegetables processed. If it's the finished processed tonnage that is shipped to their customers then the respective figures would be 1500 tonnes per year (4 tonnes per day on average) at 10% wastage and 21,000 tonnes (57 tonnes per day on average) at 60% wastage. .
What you can do
Please object. Due to the volume of objections Scottish Borders Council has extended the date for objections. You now have until 23 September 2012 to lodge your objection. Best to do it sooner rather than later.
The more people we can get writing official or unofficial objections, the greater the chance of stopping this. If no-one does anything about it there's a good chance this planning application will be given the green light. Don't let it happen.
This is the most important thing you can do as this is the official process. The planning application must be approved, and if no-one raises objections the planning application could be passed. You must object to this terrible plan. Here's what to do:
Wednesday 5 September 2012
We've been asked by Scottish Borders Council if we could request that anyone who lives in the UK, and wants to contact them to raise an objection, to use the registration process as described directly below. We appreciate that it is a slightly longer process, but it helps the planning department enormously in making sure your objection quickly becomes part of the official record.
If you live outside the UK, the only contact method available at the moment is via email. For those who have expressed concerns about whether your email will be accepted as part of the record, we know that the planning department are working extremely hard to make sure all emails are added to their site as quickly as possible.
The council may update their system to accept registrations from outside the UK, but it is unlikely this change will take place before the closing date for applications.
The most common method of objecting is via post, but given the limited time available, the best way to have your objection heard is probably to register online and raise your objection directly.
If you don't reside in the UK you can email your comments. Please see "Object to the Planning Application by Email" below.
It's not a very user-friendly system and a few people have commented that it's very difficult to register, but please stick with it. You will get there in the end.
Please Note: Your name, address, and the comments you make will be publicly available. Only do this if you are happy for this to happen.
See the Application for yourself, and read the associated documents. You can then make up your own mind about the plans.
The Ref Number is: 12/00929/FUL
You can also send your objection by email. This may be the best method if you do not live in the UK. Here's how:
We'd be grateful if you didn't send your email directly to Scott Shearer, the person in charge of this application at SBC. Please just use the "prs" and "ped" email addresses below. Your email will reach him.
If you want to CC anyone else into your email, you might want to consider:
Crown Estates own the land between the low and high water mark.
We have been informed by Dunglass Estate that the land over which the pipeline will be laid is now held in Trust (Childrens Trust Dunglass Estate) and is managed by the "Trustees of Childrens Trust Dunglass Estate". Dunglass Estate have no direct ownership of this land any more.
The contact details for this trust are:
Sale and Partners
The land where the pipeline will be laid has been kindly placed into trust by Dunglass Estate. Dunglass Estate no longer have any direct involvement in the management or ownership of this land. We extend our sincerest apologies to Dunglass Estate for the huge influx of emails they have received regarding this planning matter. Of course, we'd still be grateful if the Estate would object to the proposed plan, but that is a completely different matter.
Please do not contact Dunglass Estate regarding this issue. They have no direct influence on this planning matter.
There are 2 major official agencies who could object to the proposal. They are Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA).
SNH would have concerns with the protection of the natural heritage of the site, and SEPA would have concerns regarding the untreated effluent waste being poured directly into the sea. Neither agency seems to have raised any strong concerns but they are sensitive to public opinion. It may be worth contacting them to express your view - politely - and ask them to strongly object to this planning application.
Scottish Natural Heritage claim the proposed site is outwith the area of SSSI. That may be strictly true, but the boundaries of the site are not large or extensive and the scarring will be visible and obvious for anyone visiting Siccar point : if the application is allowed the scar will remain as a constant reminder of the practice of official dogma over good sense and an appreciation of the importance of the location.
Contact: Anne Brown, Operations Officer
Heriot Watt Research Park
Contact: Stephanie Balman, Planning Officer
Note: The contact details and email addresses are publicly available on the documents submitted by these organisations via the Scottish Borders Council web site. If you do contact these people we ask that you are polite and respectful at all times.
The address of SEPA at Clearwater House may have to be renamed if they allow untreated silty water and organic agricultural waste to be pumped untreated into the Firth of Forth....just a few miles up-stream of the popular beaches of Coldingham Sands and Eyemouth and the internationally important marine area at St Abb's Head - we're sure the divers will delight in swimming in a vegetable soup.
The landowner who could object to the planning applicaton, and possibly stop it in its tracks as the pipeline passes through (under) land that they own. This is Crown Estates.
The Crown Estate
16 New Burlington Place
No. I live nearby, but the pipeline will have no direct impact on me. It may produce a brown silty outflow that can be seen from my house - or it may not (I don't know) - but that would be the extend of my direct "inconvenience". I think it is appalling that someone would even consider digging a trench on such a sensitive and world famous location, and I'm even more shocked that the agencies set-up to protect such things don't seem to have any objections.
I'm sure there are thousands of geologists and scientists who think such proposals are beyond belief. It is them we're relying upon to come forward and make their objections heard.
People who are helping to get the word out
Scottish Borders Council woudn't have received many objections to the plannning application if it wasn't for the efforts and selfless hard work of lots of people. Here's some of those we've been told about...
They were the first to respond to our call for help. They quickly mobilised their members and made a massive difference in not only submitting their objections, but in helping to spread the word so quickly.
They've also helped us keep on top of the factual information on the site. If there are any factual mistakes on the website regarding the geology then they are entirely our own.
Here's the link to the news article on their site.
Jim has also helped us with geological information and has been great at spreading the work. He was kind enough to share his correspondance with Scottish Natural Heritage and give us permission to reproduce it on the site.
You all know who you are!!
Quite a few people have been kind enough to help us, provide advice, and even given us permission to recreate parts of their correspondence on the web site, but prefer to remain anonymous for various reasons. All of them have made their public feelings known via objections to the plan.
Has written an open letter to the Scottish Borders Council expressing his concerns about the pipeline, it's route, and its effects on the landscape around Siccar Point. Given his impressive credentials Scottish Borders Council should be listening to him.
Here's a link to his open letter.
Garry is helping to raise awareness "over the pond" as he puts it and helping our Facebook page and web site attract more visitors.
Unfortuntely for Garry his plans to visit Siccar Point were scuppered by the Foot & Mouth outbreak. Hopefully when he gets a chance to come back the site will still be in its pristine condition.
Here's a link to Garry's Blog.
Dave Thomas is a scientist and software engineer working for the IRIS (Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology) PASSCAL ( (Program for Array Seismic Studies of the Continental Lithosphere) AOF (Instrument Center and EarthScope USArray Array Operations Facility) Programme in New Mexico who carry out cutting-edge seismological research into the Earth's geological structure and processes.
His post and comments at "The Panda's Thumb" is helping to spread the word about this development.
Here's a link to David's Post.
Gunnar has posted a blog on SciLogs, a popular blog for scientists throughout the world for sharing ideas and news. The first picture on his blog is looking back at Siccar Point from a location a little further away than the proposed pipeline, and when the tide is in - the picture makes it obvious just how close this pipeline is to the unconformity.
As he says, people in Germany are "much concerned about the threat to this important site", and hopefully his blog will help to spread the word over there and help to stop this development.
Here's a link to Gunnar's Post.
That's the ones we've been made directly aware of. We're sure there are others. Please email us a link - whether for or against the plan - and
well add them to the site.
What follows is some other links that we've found. They are not in any specific order.
A blog entry at Scientific American from the geologist David Bressan.
A Policy and Position Statement from the Geological Society.
Unfortunately, their statement contains a number of inaccuracies that they haven't seem fit to correct despite us pointing them out. For instance:
A post at the Twenty First Floor (sorry, we don't know the name of the person who posted it).
An article by Andrew Alden in the geology section of About.com.
A post by "mzkleen" on the Fossil Forum a very busy and popular internet Forum.
A post by Zen Faulkes an award-winning blogger and invertebrate neuroethologist.
A post by Rob Schneider on his personal blog.
A post on Muck Rack a popular site frequented by journalists and the media.
Is it true or not
We have heard comments from people that some view this site as inaccurate and inflamatory. We can't say that we're particularly cut-up about these comments, but we will address them briefly.
It may be making some people a bit inflamed, but that's sometimes the nature of these things. If people don't like what we are saying they are free to ignore it or counter to it, but we'd prefer if they read it with an open mind. We're happy to publish well thought-out competing views to our own if we think it will help people receive a more "accurate" picture. We're not a bunch of fanatics, we just want to protect Siccar Point and its surrounding landscape from the development and what might be coming out of that pipe.
We try to present accurate data and information. All of our references to figures on our web site are cited so people can check the details for themselves. Even our opinions are backed up by research (that we cite), and any suggestion we make, or question that we ask, is backed up with the reasoning behind it. We do not take what we're told as being factually correct without questioning it and doing some research first. Our own position comes from long thought and a study of the evidence, not repeating what others say without question. We know that not everyone will agree with our position, but we have yet to have someone counter the facts we present or the opinions we offer, and be able to provide definitive evidence or proof to the contrary.
We know that making a statement does not make it the truth, and repeating what others say - particularly when it comes from those whose reputation or financial interests are at stake - without even looking at the evidence, asking relevant questions, and without seeking other opinions to be be sure you are not being led astray, would be foolish. Our site lets you see our evidence and lets you think about our reasoning. If you don't agree then you have at least been given the chance to make an informed decision, not be a spreader of gossip.
We are aware that some sites have repeated inaccuracies or "facts" that they were told, and to their credit most have changed their sites to reflect this when we have contacted them. Unfortunately we don't have time to police the internet. All we can ask is that you take all statements and opinions with a pinch of salt (even ours) check the evidence for yourself, ask questions about what you are reading/being told, and consider the reasoning behind opinions, seek alternate positions, then make up your own mind. Never, ever, assume that just because it's an official body or comes with some authority that what they say or write is correct - they can be just as easily be fed the wrong information and be misled as anyone. Be your own person, and make up your own mind. That's the most we can ask.
We hope you agree with us that this is application is insenstive and ill-conceived, and should not be allowed, but if you don't agree then we can respect that too.