OneGuyFromBarlick

Damage to our coastal structures could be put down to Fracking, mother nature finds all the cracks and crevices left by a lack of general repair. She then forces in water at great pressure, widens them and then withdraws sucking out all the loose material, when this becomes a continuous action some thing has to give.

More simply known as erosion, there's no need to use an emotive phrase like `fracking'.

A matter of when the cap fits, the damage to the coastal rail track was a perfect example.

I'd imagine that shale would erode pretty quickly when exposed to the sea whether it had been hydraulically fractured or not, It isn't exactly granite.

Pluggy wrote:I'd imagine that shale would erode pretty quickly when exposed to the sea whether it had been hydraulically fractured or not, It isn't exactly granite.

There was a time in railway engineering when all ballast was granite, and lasted a long time. The coastal railway failed because the sea wall failed, the man who walks the track probably never checked it.

Whats the failure of a sea wall in Dawlish to do with fracking ?

Quite. If you follow that definition, the hydraulic mining of china clay with high pressure jets is fracking. Being a pesky engineer I'd rather use the correct terminology.

There is non so blind as them that will not see. The term anology would answer why fracking could be used. The term erosion is usualy considered to be wear over a great period not the action of the tide over a 4 hour period

I've looked up several definitions of erosion - This is typical

" The group of natural processes, including weathering, dissolution, abrasion, corrosion, and transportation, by which material is worn away from the earth's surface."

None of the definitions I found mention over what period of time it occurs.

Flash floods can cause erosion in hours, even minutes.

Please look carefully at the terms I used, in no way can they be construed as Definite or pedantic.

hartley353 wrote:Please look carefully at the terms I used, in no way can they be construed as Definite or pedantic.

Why not use the correct definition for the effect then?

Fracking is a relatively modern word made up to describe the man made process of injecting water (and sometimes chemicals) under great pressure into the sub-strata in order to fracture gas bearing rock. I am positive that the current mining companies exploring this technology have not moved any rigs down to the coast to work on the strata supporting the railway line.

Erosion on the other hand has been with us since the planet formed, it's effect are not subject to any form of time restraints as correctly identified by Tripps and Tizer above. As an educated bloke I can't see why you can't use the correct terminology for what actually happened or are you not sure of the difference?

It is extremely topical and of the moment. By using the word some folk may understand the effects under the earth, I'd bet it is soon every day language.

Dredging is in every day use all of a sudden.....
The Met Office have said that while individual storms can't be shown to be climate change, extreme events such as the succession of Atlantic lows we are experiencing at the moment warrant a higher level of attention as they could be evidence of a change in weather patterns. (LINK)

The whole business of flooding and who is to blame brings to mind the early days of WW1. Plenty of mud and water with lions led by donkeys. Any action now is too late. How many times have we seen viable industries handed over to private enterprise only to see maintenance and advancement cut to the bone in the interest of profit. Finally at the point of collapse its handed back to Joe Public to pick up the tab. In the Somerset case it looks like EU subsidies have overtaken common sense. To quote the old adage "just follow the money".

During the flood saga, I've picked up a couple of interesting facts. Not sure whether either is true.

It is not possible to insure against flooding in Holland.

Teddington derives from Tide end town.

I noticed yesterday that the River Cam had overflowed near the town centre, but only onto the area where it is supposed to. Don't think there'll be much punting for a while though.

Just watched the news, funny how important the flooding issue has become now the Home Counties are threatened.

Glad im noy young
http://horizon-magazine.eu/article/thaw ... es_en.html

Then there is all the methane trapped in the sea bed... LINK

You have to hope that faster progress is made on fusion, which happens to be a subject linked to from Bodger's link page:
http://horizon-magazine.eu/article/worl ... or_en.html

Tiz. Dead right. I saw some of the preliminary work on fusion at UCAL at Berkeley in the 1980s and have always believed that this is the ultimate clean technology for power generation. Roll on!

By coincidence there was a piece on fusion on the World Service this morning. A pesky scientist (and a lady as well!) gave a very clear description of the use of lasers to contain the process. (LINK)

I'm glad to see at least one politician is getting serious about climate change at last...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26165326
Ed Davey attacks Tories on climate change
Government efforts to combat climate change are being undermined by some Conservatives, Liberal Democrat cabinet minister Ed Davey is to claim. The energy secretary will say attempts to discredit the scientific evidence of climate change threaten a breakdown of the political consensus on the issue. He will say some Tories are combining with the UK Independence Party to create a "diabolical cocktail". But David Cameron says he is committed to reducing carbon emissions.
In a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research think-tank, Mr Davey will accuse critics of government policy of a "wilfully ignorant, head in the sand, nimby-ist conservatism". He will say that such attitudes combined with the Euroscepticism of some Conservatives could undermine efforts to achieve international agreement. Mr Davey will say: "I fear that on climate change and energy policy, political consensus is in danger of breaking down. "From the right, fringes of the Conservative Party and UKIP are parroting the arguments of the most discredited climate change deniers, seizing on any anomaly in the climate data to attempt to discredit the whole. "This is undermining public trust in the scientific evidence for climate change, overwhelming though it is. This type of climate change-denying, conservatism is wilfully ignorant, head-in-the-sand, nimby-ist conservatism.

[Of course, the BBC wheeled out Nigel Lawson on the Today programme to do his usual rubbishing in the face of all the evidence.]

My own view is that regardless of whether the case has been made or not, the sensible thing to do is to plan for worst case. The undoubted increase in extreme events is, in itself, evidence that there may be indeed change occurring. It is perverse and illogical to argue against this.

Now we're beginning to hear from the people who know most about the climate problems...Nicholas Stern has written an article for The Guardian:
Flooding and storms in UK are clear signs of climate change, says Lord Stern
"Author of 2006 report says recent weather is part of international pattern and demonstrates urgent need to cut carbon emissions"
"The devastating floods and storms sweeping Britain are clear indications of the dangers of climate change, according to Lord Stern, the author of a 2006 report on the economics of climate change. Writing in the Guardian, the crossbench peer said the flooding and storm damage demonstrate the need for Britain and the rest of the world to continue to implement low-carbon policies to reduce the probability of greater tragedies in the future."
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... lord-stern