geezer466 Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossybabe Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 Had it been Southampton, we would never have been told. Maybe the trick of a state seeming to be green is simply secrecy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkman Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 Uranium and explosives on the same ship. That's reckless and criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Belgrano Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 Plenty of Uranium and Exlposives at Faslane Naval Base..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geezer466 Posted May 19, 2013 Author Share Posted May 19, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantic Purple Slug Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkman Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossybabe Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Plenty of Uranium and Exlposives at Faslane Naval Base..... All quite accessible if you climb over the gates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19 year mortgage 8itch Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cashinmattress Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Plenty of Uranium and Exlposives at Faslane Naval Base..... Plenty of radioactive material and explosives on oil drill rigs and fracking land wells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Uranium and explosives on the same ship. That's reckless and criminal. My first thought as well. Who thought this combination was acceptable wants firing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Plenty of radioactive material and explosives on oil drill rigs and fracking land wells. 'Plenty' of radioactive material? Or trace? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkG Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 '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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkG Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACR Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Those depleted uranium trimming weights are incredibly surprising how something so small can be so heavy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cashinmattress Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuG III Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantic Purple Slug Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantic Purple Slug Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuG III Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.