Forum

Replies

• 

  Andrew Garner March 5, 2010 at 2:21pm

  It was a good programme but yet again highlighted the lack of real knowledge in this field I don't mean the expertise but as with so many things a real failure to grasp the importance of the risks involved. Here in Cornwall many would criticise the local authority for being over cautious and yet Corby were clearly under cautious. Also as a further example of this issue, more in line with us smaller gardeners, Bob Flowerdew defended his advocation for using recycled tyres for use in potato growing, without wishing to sound critical of Bob Flowerdew his comment was the age old 'it hasn't done me any harm' straight from the lips of the 90 year old smoker. Yet without proper treatment before use, tyres can be dangerous. When will we get a list of both hot spots and signs to look out for with regards contaminated soils as well as measures needed to ensure the safe use of products such as sleepers / tyres etc?
  I am fully aware as we all should be that the risks are real and massive with more often than not the second generation being those that predominantly suffer.
• 

  Pip Howard March 5, 2010 at 8:37pm

  I have to admit I agree with Bob Flowerdew on the tyre issue and there was some bad press over the recycling of tyres for shredding into use for new materials also recently - but if cleaned and processed well, (necessary for EN BS stamps), the evidence of risk is very low indeed.
  
  With regards the greening of post industrial sites - it is nothing new and with the cheapest option being bunding, what better to plant new woodland on such sites. As in Cornwall some of the ex heavy industry sites are now the best wildlife sites in the County with Kennall Vale, (An ex gunpowder factory) topping the bill
  
  

  

  
  As such should landscape industry as a whole be on the side on the argument advocating greening of such sites in favour of building on 'green' field sites, despite the obvious moral gut feelings against this, in order to help promote good landscaping and further the industry.
• 

  Pip Howard March 5, 2010 at 8:42pm

  By the way Andrew, Kerrier District Council did have a plan of contaminated zones - not sure what has happened to it post the One Cornwall thing, maybe worth checking out. But would be great to have maps for all areas available to all. Particularly with the costs in soil testing at the rates they are.
• 

  dgeorgea March 6, 2010 at 9:37am

  We are constantly warned off from planting food projects directly into the ground due to possible contamination. As one of the future projects in mind is for a community orchard I am currently waiting for the next committee meeting to authorise soil testing on two or three areas of the estate to see if we do have contamination and if so how bad it is.
  
  While the fruit trees we plan to use could be potted it would be so easy for theives to just turn up and walk off with the trees that it would not be worth the effort or money.
• 

  Pip Howard March 6, 2010 at 6:07pm

  Hi George, great to hear from you again.
  
  For small scale Urban planting for food, there is yet again scant evidence in the link between contaminated soils and uptake into the fruit / root of a plant this is largely due to the fact that it is almost a given that toxins will be present in such situations. Testing is often also so costly that it is easier and cheaper to simply carry out the remedial work. However and rightly so the organisations involved need the testing to justify the costs of the remedial work and bizarrely this can negate the remedial work due to the paid out high costs of testing.
  
  This is where Andrew's comments re a map of contamination based on existing data would be very useful indeed. It is often the case that sites are tested by several different consultants working for different bodies. I know a site in Plymouth of around 3500 square metres that had been tested with the same conclusions 6 times. The costs were horrendous. This would save so much money.