SAFETY concerns have been raised about above average radiation levels at a proposed wind farm development site in Aberdeenshire.
Renewable energy company RES are seeking to erect 16 onshore wind turbines on the Hill of Fare, with a planning application already submitted to Scottish Government ministers.
However, local campaigners against the development claim the project puts the health of locals at risk due to “above average radiation levels” recorded at the Hill of Fare back in the 1960s and 70s.
Frank Murray, a campaigner for the Hill of Fare Windfarm Information Group, said: “A key area that the developers, global renewable power generators, RES, have failed to consider is the health, safety, and environmental issues of Hill of Fare’s high radiation levels.
“In particular, the impact of intrusive construction work and what this would mean for residents, watercourses, and environment – but also for the workforce.
READ MORE: Voluntary code failing to reduce muirburn in Scotland, research finds
“Information that we have been made aware of shows that successive governments since the 1970s have been aware of and assessed the potential of harnessing uranium deposits at Hill of Fare and its wider radiogenic properties.”
The group cite surveys undertaken by the Institute of Geological Sciences between 1968 and 1973, which found that the Hill of Fare had above average natural radiation levels.
Campaigners say this could be an indication of uranium and that construction work could put the health of locals at risk.
They also point to a feasibility report into geothermal energy undertaken by the Scottish Government’s energy and climate change directorate in 2016.
The report noted that the “granite is reported to have moderately elevated concentrations of radiogenic elements at outcrop, raising the possibility that it is, or is close to being, a body of High Heat Production granite and therefore has the potential to provide above-background levels of geothermal energy”.
READ MORE: Protesters block entrance to Baillie Gifford over Israel investments
Murray added: “RES has made no mention of the potential challenges and impact of Hill of Fare’s radiation levels.
“What guarantees can be made about the safety of our water courses? Will our drinking water and air be contaminated with radiological matter during blasting?
“What protective measures will be put in place to ensure the safety of any future workforce? What will happen to the industrial and potentially contaminated waste?”
A spokesperson for RES said:
"The proposed wind farm at Hill of Fare was thoroughly scoped prior to the application submission and radiation has not been raised as a matter for concern by any statutory consultee.
"The Section 36 Application for this wind farm is currently with the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit and is open for consultation.
"As part of this consultation process, we have already received a response from Scottish Water, who have not objected.
"The protection of existing watercourses and private water supplies is of the upmost importance to RES and, if required, appropriate mitigation measures agreed with the relevant statutory consultees would be put in place.
"The Hill of Fare Wind Farm is predicted to deliver £150 million boost to the local economy and contribute to Scotland’s renewable energy targets."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel