Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

geezer466

Hamburg Major Ship Fire Nuclear Material

Recommended Posts

http://rt.com/news/h...-ship-fire-464/

The German city of Hamburg likely avoided a major technological disaster on May 1, when a freighter ship caught fire. It had several tons of radioactive material and explosives among its cargo, it was revealed.
The Atlantic Cartier was transporting around 9 tons of uranium hexafluoride, a radioactive highly violate and toxic compound most commonly used as an intermediate material in the production of nuclear fuel. The vessel also had 180 tons of flammable ethanol and 4 tons of explosives at the time the fire broke out.
The news of the averted disaster in Hamburg was broken by the opposition Green Party. It criticized the city authorities for not reporting the full details of the incident on its own initiative.

"It is an outrage that the Senate has not informed the public about this near catastrophe," Greens' member of the Hamburg parliament Anjes Tjarks said. "Here one must speak of a cover-up."

Makes you wonder what else they forget to tell us about.... Had this news been released at the time of the incident it would have headlined all major European news stations for a couple of days at least and sparked a huge debate about having dangerous materials transit through heavily populated areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had it been Southampton, we would never have been told. Maybe the trick of a state seeming to be green is simply secrecy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

Had it been Southampton, we would never have been told. Maybe the trick of a state seeming to be green is simply secrecy.

Well "being kept in the dark" does have a more literal meaning too. Frankly ignorance is bliss, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of Uranium and Exlposives at Faslane Naval Base.....

Hardly a centre of population though is it? Unless you count Helensburgh and Garelochead? The latter has a nice Italian restaurant.

Which is why is was chosen to port the Posidon/Trident Nuclear Subs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uranium and explosives on the same ship.

That's reckless and criminal.

Really depends on how enriched the stuff was. My guess was that it was depeleted and therefore not really that radioactive at all.

But ... it would still be pretty unpleasant stuff.

So in this case you would probably be talking nasty toxic chemicals and explosives on the same ship rather than the bogey word nasty toxic radioactive chemicals and explosives on the same ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really depends on how enriched the stuff was. My guess was that it was depeleted and therefore not really that radioactive at all.

But ... it would still be pretty unpleasant stuff.

So in this case you would probably be talking nasty toxic chemicals and explosives on the same ship rather than the bogey word nasty toxic radioactive chemicals and explosives on the same ship.

Hasn't depleted uranium used as armour plating in the Iraq war caused all kinds of birth defects and the like? I'm sure I read that somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 tonnes is not a lot and besides its a toxic hazard more than a radiation one. I bet far higher quantities of far more toxic chemicals travel without concern everyday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Plenty' of radioactive material? Or trace?

Boeing 747s, at least the early ones, had something like half a ton of depleted uranium on board as balance weights. Not sure whether it's still used in modern airliners.

Hence the scandal a few years ago when a crashed 747 was 'found to be carrying DEPLETED URANIUM!' by clueless journalists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is so much news happening daily that news channels have to be selective about what they cover and do not cover.

If the fire had got out of control and the material threatened the people of Hamburg I am sure it would have made the UK news - do you ever stop and think about what RT does not cover?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boeing 747s, at least the early ones, had something like half a ton of depleted uranium on board as balance weights. Not sure whether it's still used in modern airliners.

Hence the scandal a few years ago when a crashed 747 was 'found to be carrying DEPLETED URANIUM!' by clueless journalists.

I'm not sure if 747s are found on many oil drill rigs and fracking land wells. Cashinmattress claims that there is 'plenty' of radioactive material on oil drill rigs and fracking land wells. I'm calling BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if 747s are found on many oil drill rigs and fracking land wells. Cashinmattress claims that there is 'plenty' of radioactive material on oil drill rigs and fracking land wells. I'm calling BS.

And my point was that there's plenty of radioactive material in places you wouldn't even expect; in the 747's case, alongside a hundred tons of jet fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those depleted uranium trimming weights are incredibly surprising how something so small can be so heavy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm calling BS.

There is a myriad of industry and government publications on the radioactive materials associated with oil and gas drilling.

Google it, or ask somebody who works in the industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a myriad of industry and government publications on the radioactive materials associated with oil and gas drilling.

Google it, or ask somebody who works in the industry.

Well, I asked you, so presumably you don't work in the industry. Nor do you provide any link to back up your claim.

You said there is 'Plenty of radioactive material and explosives on oil drill rigs and fracking land wells.' as if the amounts are comparable to the 'plenty' on the aforementioned nuclear base or the tons on the cargo ship.

Radioisotopes are used in small amounts for a variety of purposes, and exposives are used in small amounts in some fracking. Not all the explosives used in fracking a well need be stored on-site all the time, but could be brought in as needed.

So I suggest that you are wrong, and that the amounts used are trace or trivial by comparison.

i may appear to be labouring a point, but I am genuinely interested in the issue (and have Googled it as you suggest) but you appear to be unable to back up your claim, and nothing I have read so far backs you up either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And my point was that there's plenty of radioactive material in places you wouldn't even expect; in the 747's case, alongside a hundred tons of jet fuel.

In the ground, in the air, in your keyboard, in you etc...

People get all worked up about radiation meanwhile its quite literally everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I asked you, so presumably you don't work in the industry. Nor do you provide any link to back up your claim.

You said there is 'Plenty of radioactive material and explosives on oil drill rigs and fracking land wells.' as if the amounts are comparable to the 'plenty' on the aforementioned nuclear base or the tons on the cargo ship.

Radioisotopes are used in small amounts for a variety of purposes, and exposives are used in small amounts in some fracking. Not all the explosives used in fracking a well need be stored on-site all the time, but could be brought in as needed.

So I suggest that you are wrong, and that the amounts used are trace or trivial by comparison.

i may appear to be labouring a point, but I am genuinely interested in the issue (and have Googled it as you suggest) but you appear to be unable to back up your claim, and nothing I have read so far backs you up either.

Logging uses neutron sources for total porosity. I think tracer is sometimes used in the same way as in the human body, ie you can inject it into the wells and follow the path through the radioactivity.

I don't know too much about the neutron sources but my guess they would be highly radioactive by any measure (there are many, particle energy, flux etc).

The question is how you measure your radioactivity. If you are measuring in terms of particle flux my guess is that your average neutron source would emit more than a quite a lot of depleted uranium.

Whether this constitutes "plenty" or not I guess depends on your opinion, so it's subjective and not worth arguing about. Certainly for me it would be "plenty" if you were stood next to a source for any length of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Logging uses neutron sources for total porosity. I think tracer is sometimes used in the same way as in the human body, ie you can inject it into the wells and follow the path through the radioactivity.

I don't know too much about the neutron sources but my guess they would be highly radioactive by any measure (there are many, particle energy, flux etc).

The question is how you measure your radioactivity. If you are measuring in terms of particle flux my guess is that your average neutron source would emit more than a quite a lot of depleted uranium.

Whether this constitutes "plenty" or not I guess depends on your opinion, so it's subjective and not worth arguing about. Certainly for me it would be "plenty" if you were stood next to a source for any length of time.

Fair enough. We all know that radioactrive materials are stored in places. The OP was about the way radioactive materials and explosives were together, in large quantities, in a densely populated area, and on top of that, a fire broke out, and top of that, the public were still not told nor evacuated.

The explosives may have been of a type that would not detonate in a fire, but nonetheless if I was asked to carry out a H&S risk assessment, I would question why explosives and radioactive (and incidentally, very toxic) materials were on ther same ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. We all know that radioactrive materials are stored in places. The OP was about the way radioactive materials and explosives were together, in large quantities, in a densely populated area, and on top of that, a fire broke out, and top of that, the public were still not told nor evacuated.

The explosives may have been of a type that would not detonate in a fire, but nonetheless if I was asked to carry out a H&S risk assessment, I would question why explosives and radioactive (and incidentally, very toxic) materials were on ther same ship.

It's an issue more of drawing conclusions without all the available facts, and believing that reading a x hundred odd word article can convey the full complexity of the situation, something people tend to do when they see the words toxic and nuclear.

Speculation on courses of action is largely pointless without access to the full information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an issue more of drawing conclusions without all the available facts, and believing that reading a x hundred odd word article can convey the full complexity of the situation, something people tend to do when they see the words toxic and nuclear.

Speculation on courses of action is largely pointless without access to the full information.

Yes, but RT seddit so its got to be true!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 244 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.