AFTER THE STORMS: Cigarette packets washed up on Dorset beaches harmful to wildlife, says conservationist

Dorset Echo: AFTER THE STORMS: Cigarette packets washed up on Dorset beaches harmful to wildlife, says conservationist AFTER THE STORMS: Cigarette packets washed up on Dorset beaches harmful to wildlife, says conservationist

A CONSERVATIONIST says the number of cigarette packets being washed up along the Dorset coastline is harmful to wildlife.

As reported in the Echo, a cargo ship lost a number of containers as it crossed the channel in storms earlier this month.

There was estimated to be around 11 million cigarettes in the shipment, which was travelling from Rotterdam to Sri Lanka.

Portlanders awoke on Tuesday morning to find Chesil Beach littered with cigarette packets and more were found washed up in Kimmeridge the following day.

Coastguards were called again on Wednesday after dozens of cigarette packets and two 20-litre drums of old engine oil washed up.

Rescue teams headed to Kimmeridge Beach on Wednesday at midday.

During the search they also investigated two 20-litre plastic drums, which were found to contain old engine oil.

Conservationist Steve Trewhella said: “My concern is from the damage from the cellophane packaging to wildlife.

“It goes back to the shipping industry. Something needs to be done about the waste in the sea.”

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:00am Fri 28 Feb 14

Laadeeda says...

Lost a number of containers is an understatement!

496 to be exact from one of the Maersk line vessels. Apart from the danger to the environment, the risk of further damage to vessels who hit one of these containers maybe carrying a more volatile cargo is mind boggling.

Maerk know they lost the cargo, they reported it themselves on there web site. The MRCA are aware, so come on Government - get to grips with these people.

I bet if it was crude oil you'd be jumping on the compensation bandwagon and clear up would have been immediate.
Lost a number of containers is an understatement! 496 to be exact from one of the Maersk line vessels. Apart from the danger to the environment, the risk of further damage to vessels who hit one of these containers maybe carrying a more volatile cargo is mind boggling. Maerk know they lost the cargo, they reported it themselves on there web site. The MRCA are aware, so come on Government - get to grips with these people. I bet if it was crude oil you'd be jumping on the compensation bandwagon and clear up would have been immediate. Laadeeda
  • Score: 1

10:54am Fri 28 Feb 14

Kaptain_Von says...

When I first read the headline I had a strange vision of a couple of seagulls standing on the beach puffing on an Embassy No.1.
When I first read the headline I had a strange vision of a couple of seagulls standing on the beach puffing on an Embassy No.1. Kaptain_Von
  • Score: 11

11:08am Fri 28 Feb 14

IDONTKNOWIFITISTRRUE says...

Conservationist Steve Trewhella said: “My concern is from the damage from the cellophane packaging to wildlife.
So what does he expect - that nothing is ever wrapped in cellophane in case it is ever carried on a cargo ship which might lose a container overboard in a storm. The owners of these ships do not deliberately lose the containers.
Conservationist Steve Trewhella said: “My concern is from the damage from the cellophane packaging to wildlife. So what does he expect - that nothing is ever wrapped in cellophane in case it is ever carried on a cargo ship which might lose a container overboard in a storm. The owners of these ships do not deliberately lose the containers. IDONTKNOWIFITISTRRUE
  • Score: -3

1:22pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Dorsetdumpling says...

Kaptain_Von wrote:
When I first read the headline I had a strange vision of a couple of seagulls standing on the beach puffing on an Embassy No.1.
Ah - they weren't seagulls - they were Puffins!

(sorry)
[quote][p][bold]Kaptain_Von[/bold] wrote: When I first read the headline I had a strange vision of a couple of seagulls standing on the beach puffing on an Embassy No.1.[/p][/quote]Ah - they weren't seagulls - they were Puffins! (sorry) Dorsetdumpling
  • Score: 12

1:39pm Fri 28 Feb 14

JamesYoung says...

Laadeeda wrote:
Lost a number of containers is an understatement!

496 to be exact from one of the Maersk line vessels. Apart from the danger to the environment, the risk of further damage to vessels who hit one of these containers maybe carrying a more volatile cargo is mind boggling.

Maerk know they lost the cargo, they reported it themselves on there web site. The MRCA are aware, so come on Government - get to grips with these people.

I bet if it was crude oil you'd be jumping on the compensation bandwagon and clear up would have been immediate.
It's yachtsmen that are at most risk from these. Hitting one at speed can result in injuries from the impact, and because yachts are generally not steel, there is a strong probability of a sub waterline holing and subsequent rapid sinking. They have a tendency to float just on or below the waterline and are not easily visible.
[quote][p][bold]Laadeeda[/bold] wrote: Lost a number of containers is an understatement! 496 to be exact from one of the Maersk line vessels. Apart from the danger to the environment, the risk of further damage to vessels who hit one of these containers maybe carrying a more volatile cargo is mind boggling. Maerk know they lost the cargo, they reported it themselves on there web site. The MRCA are aware, so come on Government - get to grips with these people. I bet if it was crude oil you'd be jumping on the compensation bandwagon and clear up would have been immediate.[/p][/quote]It's yachtsmen that are at most risk from these. Hitting one at speed can result in injuries from the impact, and because yachts are generally not steel, there is a strong probability of a sub waterline holing and subsequent rapid sinking. They have a tendency to float just on or below the waterline and are not easily visible. JamesYoung
  • Score: 3

2:23pm Fri 28 Feb 14

shy talk says...

Dorsetdumpling wrote:
Kaptain_Von wrote:
When I first read the headline I had a strange vision of a couple of seagulls standing on the beach puffing on an Embassy No.1.
Ah - they weren't seagulls - they were Puffins!

(sorry)
Did the two gulls get a light from a swan called Vesta?
[quote][p][bold]Dorsetdumpling[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kaptain_Von[/bold] wrote: When I first read the headline I had a strange vision of a couple of seagulls standing on the beach puffing on an Embassy No.1.[/p][/quote]Ah - they weren't seagulls - they were Puffins! (sorry)[/p][/quote]Did the two gulls get a light from a swan called Vesta? shy talk
  • Score: 5

10:10pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Tinker2 says...

Dorsetdumpling wrote:
Kaptain_Von wrote: When I first read the headline I had a strange vision of a couple of seagulls standing on the beach puffing on an Embassy No.1.
Ah - they weren't seagulls - they were Puffins! (sorry)
or a Shag with a fag?
[quote][p][bold]Dorsetdumpling[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kaptain_Von[/bold] wrote: When I first read the headline I had a strange vision of a couple of seagulls standing on the beach puffing on an Embassy No.1.[/p][/quote]Ah - they weren't seagulls - they were Puffins! (sorry)[/p][/quote]or a Shag with a fag? Tinker2
  • Score: 2

5:26pm Sat 1 Mar 14

not too distant says...

"Shotgun me fish..!"
"Shotgun me fish..!" not too distant
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree