Nuclear safety agency defends Great Lakes shipments - Polidicks

...And so it continues... [img]http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/topstories/2010/02/16/bruce-plant-cp-679056.jpg[/img] [quote]The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is blasting what it calls "misinformation" and "fearmongering" about its decision to allow Bruce Power to transport 16 decommissioned nuclear steam boilers through the Great Lakes to Sweden for recycling. "The word nuclear, every time it appears... there is the fearmongering," said Ramzi Jammal, executive vice-president of the nuclear watchdog. In a rare technical briefing, Jammal and three other high-ranking commission officials say the shipment was routine and completely safe. Before granting the power company permission, the commission ran through a series of "implausible" scenarios. Among them was the possibility of the boilers cracking open and contaminants leaking out — a near-impossible event according to Patsy Thompson, CNSC director general of environmental and radiation protection and assessment. "At no time, if there is an accident and radioactive material is released, would there be a situation where drinking water supply plants would be at risk," Thompson said. The level of radiation coming out of the sealed boilers was well below even a medical dose of radiation, the officials said. 'We are not reassured' But that was cold comfort to David Ullrich, executive director of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, an umbrella group that advocates on behalf of municipalities along those waterways. "We are not reassured," he said. "I think it is unfortunate that they have chosen to characterize opposition and questions about the shipment as fearmongering." The issues being raised are legitimate, Ullrich added. Quebec has concerns about the shipments as well. The provincial national assembly is drafting a motion that will ask the federal government to review the CNSC's decision and, if necessary, overturn it. "We want just the federal government to make sure that this decision is the right one," Quebec Environment Minister Pierre Arcand told the CBC. That motion will be debated next week. The commission last held a technical briefing of this sort after Sept. 11, 2001. [/quote] [url=http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2011/02/11/nuclear-briefing.html]**SOURCE**[/url] Okay, so we can't transport them over land. We can't transport them over water. We certainly can't fly them out either. So you pretty much say you don't want them to go anywhere, yet at the same time, I'm sure you don't want them buried on-site either. Okay assholes, Listen: You are just going to have to decide which is the [i]least[/i] dangerous method and deal with it because otherwise, you are acting like a massive spool of red tape. Edit: [b]Stop posting those BS videos about those indestructible containers.[/b] Those are for transporting fuel, not 20+ foot long scrap steam turbines and boilers. No fuel is being transported in this case. This means the contaminated material is stored in slightly more conventional sealed steel containers which were designed to the size of the items being put in them. It's these more conventional containers everyone is paranoid about. [b]EDIT[/b] [url=http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1058975-Nuclear-safety-agency-defends-Great-Lakes-shipments?p=28084271&viewfull=1#post28084271][b]Click here to quickly be fast forwarded to the UK's little bitchfest about the scrap.[/b][/url]

The containers used for shipping nuclear stuff are more or less indestructible, no need to be scared.

[quote]"The word nuclear, every time it appears... there is the fearmongering," said Ramzi Jammal, executive vice-president of the nuclear watchdog."[/quote] Got that right.

People who are scared of nuclear power are people in the way of progress and should be dealt with at all costs.

[QUOTE=Hoffa1337;27995183]The containers used for shipping nuclear stuff are more or less indestructible, no need to be scared.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mHtOW-OBO4[/media] It would probably take a nuclear bomb to destroy them!

[QUOTE=Uureke;27995453][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mHtOW-OBO4[/media] It would probably take a nuclear bomb to destroy them![/QUOTE] [b]Once again, these containers are not being used.[/b] We are talking about the transport of VERY large pieces of contaminated scrap metal which can not be safely cut up on site. They can not be put in these containers. Also, those containers are for transporting new or depleted fuel which is NOT going to be transported in this case.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;27995357]People who are scared of nuclear power are people in the way of progress and should be dealt with at all costs.[/QUOTE]

Just ship them and get it the fuck over with.

You could ship this shit inside a kilometer-thick slab of diamond and these people would still bitch and moan and talk about how nuclear power is a conspiracy by a bunch of corporations that don't care about the environment or some shit.

There is no considerable risk here...just the usual paranoia.

Let them bitch and moan, then rub it in their face when it gets transported without the slightest hitch.

More people die every year from air pollution than everything from Chernobyl. I don't get why people get so worked up over nuclear power.

[QUOTE=shatteredwindow;28008241]More people die every year from air pollution than everything from Chernobyl. I don't get why people get so worked up over nuclear power.[/QUOTE] Because the waste will seep into the Earth's core and BLOW UP THE PLANET.

[QUOTE=shatteredwindow;28008241]More people die every year from air pollution than everything from Chernobyl. I don't get why people get so worked up over nuclear power.[/QUOTE] Chernobyl also caused massive amounts of mutations all over the world and there's a zone of inclusion around it that's uninhabitable by humans. It's not the initial damage that occurs so much as the long-term damage with radiation. However I think the US Navy has shown there's nothing to worry about as long as you know what you're doing, there's never been a dangerous mishandling with their nuclear-powered ships.

Bitch moan bitch moan bitch moan. Shut the fuck up and stop trying to prevent it. If you really care about the earth, then you would let this shit be transported. Besides, Nuclear power isn't fossil fuels now is it.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;27995357]People who are scared of nuclear power are people in the way of progress and should be dealt with at all costs.[/QUOTE] Haha, I love the way you try to sound so edgy with the "should be dealt with at all costs". We just need to educate people about nuclear power more rather than letting them be taught by the media who just fear monger.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;28013832]Haha, I love the way you try to sound so edgy with the "should be dealt with at all costs". We just need to educate people about nuclear power more rather than letting them be taught by the media who just fear monger.[/QUOTE] [b][i]...at all costs![/i][/b] :kratos:

No, this will kill everyone

As a citizen of the Great Lakes region, and as a citizen who lives somewhat close to two active nuclear power plants, I am wholly unconcerned.

Seriously, we've had two incidents in the history of Nuclear power. One went bad the other was completely averted.... TWO IN THE HISTORY OF US USING THIS SHIT! We've had more incidents with fucking gasoline!

Launch it into the sun.

[QUOTE=cccritical;28008408]Chernobyl also caused massive amounts of mutations all over the world and there's a zone of inclusion around it that's uninhabitable by humans. It's not the initial damage that occurs so much as the long-term damage with radiation. However I think the US Navy has shown there's nothing to worry about as long as you know what you're doing, there's never been a dangerous mishandling with their nuclear-powered ships.[/QUOTE] Air pollution has still done more damage. C02 stays in the atmosphere for a really long time, not sure on the exact number, but I'm pretty sure it's longer than nuclear waste, which is ~10,00-100,000 years. Also, air pollution damages people, by giving them lung diseases, increasing free radicals, etc, and one year is still just as bad as whole of Chernobyl even with long term effects.

[QUOTE=Gradient Sol;28018491]Launch it into the sun.[/QUOTE] Transporting nuclear waste on a boat gets people up in arms, so let's strap it to a bomb.

[QUOTE=Gradient Sol;28018491]Launch it into the sun.[/QUOTE] No one's concerned about where we'll put the waste, the problem is that you'll still have to transport it to a facility for it to be launched into space.

[QUOTE=Billiam;28029741]No one's concerned about where we'll put the waste, the problem is that you'll still have to transport it to a facility for it to be launched into space.[/QUOTE] Well...the whole "launching nuclear waste on pillars of fire" is a little more worrisome than getting it to the launchpad. Unless you live in the Great Lakes area I suppose.

Launching it into space would be too expensive and wouldn't be a commercially viable option.

[QUOTE]"The word nuclear, every time it appears... there is the fearmongering," said Ramzi Jammal, executive vice-president of the nuclear watchdog."[/QUOTE] Assault energy

I love environmentalists. If you even mutter the word "Nuclear", they spas out and babble about how Nuclear power plants will kill us all.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;28043729]I love environmentalists. If you even mutter the word "Nuclear", the spas out and babble about how Nuclear power plants will kil us all.[/QUOTE] Well look at the thousands killed when Chernobyl spontaneously exploded without warning!!

[QUOTE=Ridge;28043852]Well look at the thousands killed when Chernobyl spontaneously exploded without warning!![/QUOTE] The reactor was of a poor design with a known flaw that the KGB withheld from the operators of the plant whom were running a test in an unsafe manner. It was the perfect storm in terms of nuclear disasters and should not be considered a baseline for other nuclear power plants.