Further to the last post, I emailed Dart Energy's PR people to ask for some details about the hearing. In particular, according to Rob Edwards at the Herald:
Dart’s predicted radioactive discharges were highlighted in a submission to the public inquiry by Dr Ian Fairlie, a radiation expert hired by local objectors. He didn’t present his evidence because Dart objected to inaccuracies in his submission.
What precisely were the objections, I wondered. Well, the response was a bit of an eye opener. It seems that there were no objections lodged at all. The true story was given in the closing submission of Dart's QC to the inquiry:
A detailed precognition was lodged by [Dart's radiation expert] Mr Saleh together with a commentary on third party evidence. In light of Mr Saleh’s evidence [Concerned Communities of Falkirk, the protest group that hired Fairlie] withdrew significant parts of the evidence of Dr Fairlie, accepting very properly that it was wrong, and exaggerated or overstated the position. Thereafter following discussion it was decided Dr Fairlie should not give evidence and instead a minute of a meeting was lodged. The Minute is before the Inquiry but amounts to “broad agreement” regard NORM. In all the circumstances I invite you to hold that CCOF had simply misunderstood the issue of NORM. In addition I invite you to accept the evidence of Mr Saleh which was unchallenged. His conclusions were:
“6.1 Overall, on the basis of literature reviewed, potential radiological impacts assessed the proposals for the management of NORM waste arisings put forward by Dart Energy, and Dart Energy’s commitment to complying with the regulatory requirements under the RSAO3, it is my professional opinion that the potential impacts that would arise from the management and disposal of NORM wastes from the proposed development can be considered to be insignificant.
6.2 The evidence presented above demonstrates compliance with regulatory requirements to the satisfaction of the regulatory authority, it is hoped that the evidence addresses the concerns put forward by Dr. Fairlie on behalf of CCoF, regarding potential radiological impacts that may arise from the proposed development.”
So Fairlie presented a load of bunk to the inquiry, withdrew it and failed to take the stand when he realised he was going to look an idiot if he did, and then managed to get a toned-down, but still bonkers version accepted. But as commenters observe, we are talking about an expected radiation release into the Firth of Forth of:
And this, ladies and gentlemen is considered worthy of an article in the Herald. No wonder nobody wants to read it any more.