Nuclear scrap to be shipped to Sweden. Hippies scream foul.
38 replies, posted
[quote]Environmentalists on Tuesday decried a proposal to ship decommissioned nuclear generators across the Great Lakes and on to Sweden for storage, at the start of hearings into the radioactive shipment.
Bruce Power is seeking a license to transport 16 100-tonne steam generators from its nuclear plant in Owen Sound, Ontario across the expansive Canadian waterways and the Atlantic Ocean to be recycled in Sweden.
Environmental groups, opposition politicians and mayors of 100 towns along the proposed route through Lake Huron, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the Saint Lawrence seaway, fear contamination of the lakes that provide drinking water for 40 million people in Canada and the United States.
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission scheduled a two-day hearing into the radioactive shipment starting Tuesday, but has already dismissed environmentalists' safety concerns.
Terry Lodge, a lawyer representing a coalition of environmental groups, said in a statement: "This hasty, ill-considered proposal has involved little to no planning whatsoever to deal with an emergency involving the sinking of this shipment, containing as it would over 1,400 tons of radioactive steam generators."
The Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and the Sierra Club urged the government to order storage of the nuclear waste at the Bruce site, in accordance with its original plant refurbishment plan approved by an environmental assessment in 2006.
Canada should not start shipping radioactive waste outside the country, they said.
Bruce Power countered that the school-bus sized generators emit the same amount of radiation, if a person was to stand next to one of them for several hours, as a chest x-ray.
The company's chief executive Duncan Hawthorne told public broadcaster CBC that "a gross amount of misinformation" about the shipment was unnecessarily alarming Canadians.
"People talk about the radiation and fear if these things were to break open ... (they would) contaminate our drinking water forever and we'll never be able to use the Great Lakes," he said. "It's nonsense. It's technically nonsense. It's scientific nonsense."
Shipping them to a proper recycling facility operated by Studsvik "is an environmentally sound thing to do," Hawthorn insisted.
New Democrat MP Nathan Cullen, however, told a press conference: "The nuclear industry will say this is safe."
"But accidents, of course, happen," he added.[/quote]
[url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jEUbEeK6ADpavsy4lepB3MFavqMw?docId=CNG.ae1f52f284fe7bdc61d108d598765e69.4d1]**SOURCE**[/url]
Turbines in question, prior to removal.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/58/Bruce_A_Turbine_Hall_December_2002.JPG/800px-Bruce_A_Turbine_Hall_December_2002.JPG[/img]
1: NDP, you can shut the fuck up. Politics have absolutely nothing to do with this and your snipe comment was merely for press points.
2: Seems a lot more logical to boat it out rather than cut it up into smaller chunks and then trucking it to Halifax and THEN ship to Sweden, especially considering Bruce A and B are right on the lake.
Also, hasn't the great lakes been contaminated since the 20's?
fucking hippies, just send them to some shit developing country to be taken down by child labor, like we used to do!
I don't think heavy metal (:rock:) contamination is the same thing as radioactive contamination.. I'd assume radiation is a fair bit more dangerous. But unless the ship sinks somehow and the reactors break open I don't see how there would be a problem. That seems unlikely.
also, why not just scrap the reactors in Canada instead of shipping big chunks of steel halfway across the world.
[editline]06:28AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;25125591]I don't think heavy metal contamination is the same thing as radiactive contamination.. I'd assume radiation is a fair bit more dangerous. But unless the ship sinks somehow and the reactors break open I don't see how there would be a problem. That seems unlikely.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.starway.org/Titanic/pictures/Titanic%20BW.gif[/img]
Yeah, they should use some ship that has been designed to be virtually "unsinkable"
Yeah, they'll have to steer clear of the enormous icebergs that inhabit the temperate great lakes.
Why do people have the mindset that anyone handling dangerous materials or doing a dangerous job is an untrained, drunk, incompetent fool who will without a doubt fuck up and kill thousands?
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;25125620]Yeah, they'll have to steer clear of the enormous icebergs that inhabit the temperate great lakes.[/QUOTE]
Yeah and then just a straight course towards Sweden.
Doesn't wake any confidence as Swedish Navys flagship was sunk by a gust of wind 10 miles after the start of her maiden voyage
[QUOTE=mastermaul;25125646]Why do people have the mindset that anyone handling dangerous materials or doing a dangerous job is an untrained, drunk, incompetent fool who will without a doubt fuck up and kill thousands?[/QUOTE]
It would be nice if we could say truthfully that this is never the case.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;25125646]Why do people have the mindset that anyone handling dangerous materials or doing a dangerous job is an untrained, drunk, incompetent fool who will without a doubt fuck up and kill thousands?[/QUOTE]
They aren't, but still it's stupid to say that it would be 100,000% safe and nothing will ever happen. Even rocket scientists fuck up and blow up a shuttle with people inside them every once in a while.
Besides, why they just aren't scrapped in Canada, it feels like a waste of resources to drag reactors to Sweden.
[QUOTE=evilking1;25125668]Yeah and then just a straight course towards Sweden.
Doesn't wake any confidence as Swedish Navys flagship was sunk by a gust of wind 10 miles after the start of her maiden voyage[/QUOTE]
Plus you have to watch out for the vikings looking to get their hands on nuclear material for the viking mob.
[editline]12:41AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=evilking1;25125683]Besides, why they just aren't scrapped in Canada, it feels like a waste of resources to drag reactors to Sweden.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure they didn't just say "oh hell, we'll just dump it in Sweden for the fuck of it".
Somehow or another shipping it to Sweden is cheaper or more legal.
Oh yeah, enormous icebergs in the great lakes. Now I've heard it all. Dude, I fish on the great lakes every fucking day of the summer, there's no icebergs. Maybe moderately sized chunks of ice, but no icebergs. Look up and to the right on a world map, your typical "icebergs" are by Greenland.
[QUOTE=Superstormj;25125725]Dude, I fish on the great lakes every fucking day of the summer, there's no icebergs.[/QUOTE]
Holy shit! No icebergs?! Thanks for letting us know.
-snip-
Sorted.
3 posts down...
|
|
|
V
[QUOTE=Superstormj;25125748]Typical FP'er, getting into shit that wasn't directed towards him.
I was responding to the people who said "Oh Nooooeesss, Icebergz in teh graet laikz?!?!?"[/QUOTE]
but nobody said that there are icebergs in the great lakes.
Before you debate, read it all.
They are not sending the physical reactors to sweden. They are sending the old steam turbines which are only radioactive because they spent the last 25 years handling hot radioactive steam and coolant.
We can't break up the turbines here in canada because nobody exists here who is capable of cutting up and decontaminating the turbines.
Edit: You are also forgetting that freighters corss the oceans hundreds of times a year.
[QUOTE=evilking1;25125772]but nobody said that there are icebergs in the great lakes.[/QUOTE]
Sorry for getting a bit hostile, Hypno-Toad did say that though...
[QUOTE=Superstormj;25125748]Typical FP'er, getting into shit that wasn't directed towards him.
I was responding to the people who said "Oh Nooooeesss, Icebergz in teh graet laikz?!?!?"[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm[/url]
Is it REALLY that hard to detect?
[QUOTE=mastermaul;25125803][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm[/URL]
Is it REALLY that hard to detect?[/QUOTE]
Dude, it was already dealt with, chill the fuck out.
Talk about skipping a few posts.
Better yet, look above your reply...
[QUOTE=MIPS;25125775]
We can't break up the turbines here in canada because nobody exists here who is capable of cutting up and decontaminating the turbines.
Edit: You are also forgetting that freighters corss the oceans hundreds of times a year.[/QUOTE]
Would be about the time to teach people and create at least few jobs for a while.
And I am not forgetting, don't you forget that freighters can sink too. Very unlikely but not impossible. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shipwrecks[/url]
Although it wouldn't do a fuck to the ocean.
Shit, there shipping turbines to Sweden.
[QUOTE=evilking1;25125668]Yeah and then just a straight course towards Sweden.
Doesn't wake any confidence as Swedish Navys flagship was sunk by a gust of wind 10 miles after the start of her maiden voyage[/QUOTE]That was in the 1600s you twat.
[QUOTE=evilking1;25125668]Yeah and then just a straight course towards Sweden.
Doesn't wake any confidence as Swedish Navys flagship was sunk by a gust of wind 10 miles after the start of her maiden voyage[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure the ocean is large enough that one reactor dropping in would hardly be catastrophic. It's hardly like it would even happen anyways.
[QUOTE=Mr.T;25125876]Shit, there shipping turbines to Sweden.[/QUOTE]
Sorry for being off topic, but I wish there was an avatar like yours, dancing and all, but the headphone cord wraps around his leg and falls. I would sooo love it.
Sorry for being all giddy and shit, just took the equivalent of meth in pill form.
Just adding, its not actually meth, it's a pill with the effects of approximately 8 Monster BFC's.
Son of a bitch, my hands are now colder than ice.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;25125888]That was in the 1600s you twat.[/QUOTE]
ehehe but they still made a museum out of their national pride
[editline]07:13AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;25125899]I'm pretty sure the ocean is large enough that one reactor dropping in would hardly be catastrophic. It's hardly like it would even happen anyways.[/QUOTE]
it could take 100, only real hazard would be it sinking near some port city / etc
[editline]07:13AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Superstormj;25125901]
Sorry for being all giddy and shit, just took the equivalent of meth in pill form.[/QUOTE]
reported for pui
It's not like they're shipping fucking chunks of spent fuel rods, it's shipping sealed--
I'm pretty certain the turbines shouldn't be contaminated. Don't modern reactors have heat exchangers between the cooling loop and output loop?
[QUOTE=evilking1;25125904]ehehe but they still made a museum out of their national pride
[editline]07:13AM[/editline]
it could take 100, only real hazard would be it sinking near some port city / etc
[editline]07:13AM[/editline]
reported for pui[/QUOTE]
Wow, really?
PUI....
How about you learn to read. It's this shit:
[URL]http://hardcoresupps.com/cart/images/blackjax.jpg[/URL]
Oh, and reporting you for complete retardation. If that's how you want to play, so be it.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;25125899]I'm pretty sure the ocean is large enough that one reactor dropping in would hardly be catastrophic. It's hardly like it would even happen anyways.[/QUOTE]
[highlight]They are shipping turbines, [i]NOT[/i] reactors.[/highlight]
Why are you guys so quick to jump on the gun with starting arguments? Is it really worth your time?
Also, like the quote we all know and love says: Arguing on the internet is like the special Olympics; even if you win you're still retarded.
Also, 700 posts.
Seems rather silly, but Sweden does have a long-term program for dealing with radioactive materials, same as here in Finland. But I had thought Canada had also adopted such a program.
[QUOTE=evilking1;25125904]ehehe but they still made a museum out of their national pride[/QUOTE]Same reason anyone would make a museum out of an old ship, 'cos it's old. Doesn't reflect the current state of their naval vessels.
[QUOTE=MIPS;25125936][highlight]They are shipping turbines, [I]NOT[/I] reactors.[/highlight][/QUOTE]
Wow, that's it? Even though there may be radioactivity flowing through them, I think it's pretty marginal compared to the reactor itself, or just the spent rods.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.