Nuclear safety agency defends Great Lakes shipments - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Ridge;28043852]Well look at the thousands killed when Chernobyl spontaneously exploded without warning!![/QUOTE] This is a joke, isn't it? I can't tell.

If there is controversy over it... Then it probably shouldn't get shipped. That lake could turn into one big giant radiation thingy. And then Chicago would be like Chernobyl in 50 years. That'd be fucking scary, but I live in Brazil lol. :tinfoil:

[QUOTE=fenwick;28045384]This is a joke, isn't it? I can't tell.[/QUOTE]Yes, it's a joke.

[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] Because every single environmentalist is an alarmist with no regards to evidence or scientific backing. Just like every athiest is driven to murder by their lack of godly ideals, right guys?

[QUOTE=ChristopherB;28044331]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.[/QUOTE] BUT IT STILL EXPLODED SO NUCLEAR POWER IS BAD FOR MOTHER GAIA. /c

[QUOTE=shatteredwindow;28038527]Launching it into space would be too expensive and wouldn't be a commercially viable option.[/QUOTE] Plus when the aliens find it and get cancer they're gonna be piiiiissed.

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;28046566]Because every single environmentalist is an alarmist with no regards to evidence or scientific backing. Just like every athiest is driven to murder by their lack of godly ideals, right guys?[/QUOTE] It's called sarcasm.

[QUOTE=Protection;28045513]If there is controversy over it... Then it probably shouldn't get shipped. That lake could turn into one big giant radiation thingy. And then Chicago would be like Chernobyl in 50 years. That'd be fucking scary, but I live in Brazil lol. :tinfoil:[/QUOTE] This is one of the many cases in which inaction is a far more dangerous alternative to actually getting the job done. The controversy is the result of paranoia which in turn is the result of a lack of proper education regarding nuclear technology.

[QUOTE=ChristopherB;28037686]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.[/QUOTE] Yeah I agree, burying it into a mountain where it'll never see the light of day sounds like the better option.

[QUOTE=Billiam;28061531]Yeah I agree, burying it into a mountain where it'll never see the light of day sounds like the better option.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic, but yes, storing it underground is the safer if a safe location. The US storage facility in Nevada is a great example. It isn't too seismically active and isn't near any sources of water underground. Once material reaches the site it is in the safest place it could be.

Well, we are all clear to get them send out to the atlantic for the long leg of the trip. [b]BUT THEN.....[/b] [quote][b]Nuclear cargo ignites 'alarm' in U.K[/b][/quote] [quote]It's been controversially approved for a Great Lakes crossing by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, but a radioactive shipload of decommissioned steam generators from Ontario's Bruce Power plant is now headed for a rough ride overseas, where a coalition of British municipalities is urging the U.K. government to prevent the atomic cargo from passing close to Ireland and Scotland. The Nuclear Free Local Authorities, an umbrella group that includes 75 local governments throughout the British Isles, has expressed its "deep alarm" that the Canadian shipment of "highly radioactive waste" -16 retired generators, each the size of a school bus -is expected to skirt the U.K. coastline sometime this year en route to a Swedish recycling plant. About 90 per cent of the steel is to be decontaminated at the Studsvik recycling facility in Sweden and sold in world metal markets. The remaining radioactive material will be shipped back to Canada for long-term storage at the Bruce Power nuclear station, located on the eastern shore of Lake Huron, about 250 kilometres northwest of Toronto. Local officials from northern Scotland's Orkney Islands have expressed concerns about the planned three-week, transatlantic voyage -probably by the heavy freighter MV Palessa -with its cargo of Canadian generators. And the Scottish government has said it is "always concerned" about the movement of radioactive material and "will be seeking assurances that this waste is transported in a safe manner through Scottish waters." "We don't want them passing by our waters and putting our communities at risk. The waste should remain in Canada and be safely managed there," NFLA chair Bailie George Regan said in announcing the launch of a campaign to stop the ship from passing by. "The shipment will contain a cocktail of radioactive materials which, even at low levels, are potentially dangerous to human health," he said. "The implication of an accident involving such a shipment does not bear thinking about." Such claims in Canada have been strongly rejected by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which ruled on Feb. 4 that the retired equipment could be safely moved through lakes Huron, Erie and Ontario, then down the St. Lawrence River and out into the Atlantic Ocean. [/quote] [url=http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Nuclear+cargo+ignites+alarm/4291353/story.html]**SOURCE**[/url] Astonishing. I have never seen so much negativity over the transport of hazardous waste, ever.

[QUOTE=ChristopherB;28065211]I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic, but yes, storing it underground is the safer if a safe location. The US storage facility in Nevada is a great example. It isn't too seismically active and isn't near any sources of water underground. Once material reaches the site it is in the safest place it could be.[/QUOTE] But then it's left as an awful legacy for us to discover, well, after thousands of years. But it's the best way to deal with it anyway

We should take all the nuclear waste and dump it into a volcano.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;28086530]We should take all the nuclear waste and dump it into a volcano.[/QUOTE] And hopefully it will be badass.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;28086530]We should take all the nuclear waste and dump it into a volcano.[/QUOTE]Just what we need, radioactive volcanic eruptions.

Another big conspiracy is that the government is taking the water all over the world over and poisoning it for population control...It's so damn true! Don't you believe me?! WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;28087365]Just what we need, radioactive volcanic eruptions.[/QUOTE] Then dump it into a volcano at the bottom of the sea.

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;28087365]Just what we need, radioactive volcanic eruptions.[/QUOTE] You are diluting several tons of radioactive material with several million tons of molten rock in the crust alone, not to mention that's generally unwise practive to loiter around active volcanos.

[QUOTE=Kimaru;28087570]Another big conspiracy is that the government is taking the water all over the world over and poisoning it for population control...It's so damn true! Don't you believe me?! WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE![/QUOTE] Alex Jones, is that you?