Littlestone
|
Re: Silbury's structural integrity
Aug 07, 2007, 13:25
|
|
So where's the explanation of CURRENT work to the SHAFT ??
There isn't one.
Furthermore, there's no explanation of how the polystyrene will be extracted - and we all know how that stuff behaves when it's broken up. Unless the top of the shaft is covered with a temporary structure (which would also help protect the interior of Silbury from rainfall) there's a strong possibility that pieces of polystyrene will get blown all over the surrounding countryside.
That's just the external problem - more worrying is that the interior of Silbury will be forever contaminated with pieces of polystyrene.
|
Squid Tempest
|
Re: Silbury's structural integrity
Aug 07, 2007, 13:38
|
If they lower something charged with static (a big balloon?) down the shaft, all the little bits of polystyrene would stick to it...
*apologies for the flippancy, but the image of them doing this appealed to my sense of humour.
|
Rockrich
|
Re: Silbury's structural integrity
Aug 07, 2007, 14:03
|
|
Just a thought, but maybe the information contained in the updates is a good few weeks old by the time it comes out, so we’ll be forever weeks behind in updates. They also could also be using avoidance tactics in an attempt to minimise panic. Worrying times for the old girl.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Silbury's structural integrity
Aug 07, 2007, 14:53
|
"avoidance tactics in an attempt to minimise panic."
Wot, rioting in the streets? How thoughtful to have spared us that!
No, I'm not sure "praiseworthy secrecy" for the sake of either the public or the hill will fit with the facts, although I have little doubt that may come up, rather soon.
(The facts it doesn't fit with are that loads of people go up there all the time and all have eyes).
|
Rockrich
|
Re: Silbury's structural integrity
Aug 07, 2007, 16:46
|
|
nigelswift wrote: "avoidance tactics in an attempt to minimise panic."
Wot, rioting in the streets? How thoughtful to have spared us that!
No, I'm not sure "praiseworthy secrecy" for the sake of either the public or the hill will fit with the facts, although I have little doubt that may come up, rather soon.
(The facts it doesn't fit with are that loads of people go up there all the time and all have eyes).
I’m absolutely flummoxed why any opinion with a mere sniff of understanding for EHs position/stance gets such swift rebuke.
Anyways, I’ll crawl back into the hole from whence I came and keep my opinions to myself in future.
|
ocifant
|
Re: Silbury's structural integrity
Aug 07, 2007, 17:33
|
...asssuming it's not raining at the time, in which case the water would have a direct line to the most sensitive part of the hill.
A simple tarpaulin cover, properly weighted for windy conditions would be required. And as has been demonstrated over the past couple of weeks, EH haven't thought of that yet.
|
moss
|
Re: Silbury's structural integrity
Aug 07, 2007, 18:01
|
|
Rockrich wrote: Just a thought, but maybe the information contained in the updates is a good few weeks old by the time it comes out, so we’ll be forever weeks behind in updates. They also could also be using avoidance tactics in an attempt to minimise panic. Worrying times for the old girl.
Well actually a new statement has appeared on the site....
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/New_schedule_statement_aug_07.pdf
From what I saw on Wednesday, Silbury is still intact ;), the tunnel was very closed, but interestingly there seemed to be some work going on top of the mound, a machine perhaps up there?
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Silbury's structural integrity
Aug 07, 2007, 20:00
|
I'm very sorry to have come over as being other than simply having an opinion that differs from yours in a friendly fashion, it wasn't my intention in the least I assure you.
I guess I approach it weighed down with a lot of previous baggage relating to a lack of information coming through and a feeling that whatever the motive this, above everything (since it seems to carry an increased risk over what was previously announced) ought to have been announced and explained before the event not after.
|
Pilgrim
|
Re: Silbury's structural integrity
Aug 08, 2007, 02:18
|
|
nigelswift wrote: Well, Update 12 is out.
Entirely about discoveries in the trench. Not a word about the structural problems or the removal of the polystyrene from the centre.
I guess they judge that's of secondary importance to the peasantry, eh?
Absolutely bloody outrageous.
I'm a bit concerned about this from the STATEMENT – New schedule for Silbury Hill conservation project found here:
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/New_schedule_statement_aug_07.pdf
" The project will then be completed with the removal of as much of the loose backfill left after the 1960s excavation as possible, before engineers re-pack the tunnel with chalk to stabilise the Hill for the long term."
Are we compromising here? As much as possible? It all sounds very muddy to me (no pun intended); who exactly decides when enough backfill removal is enough? Someone on site, or an accountant?
Peace
Pilgrim
X
|
Littlestone
|
Re: Silbury's structural integrity
Aug 08, 2007, 09:55
|
|
Silbury Hill Week 12 - ENGINEERING UPDATE now available at http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.17511
|
