Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Sends Plutonium To France  
User currently offlineChrisdigo From Sweden, joined Oct 2003, 181 posts, RR: 5
Posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1232 times:

Two ships escorted by British Commando left Charleston, S.C. last Monday heading to Cherbourg, France. One of the ship is stuffed with 300lbs of military Plutonium. The trip will take 2 weeks.

The Plutonium will then be converted by the French company Areva into MOX, a commercial fuel. Once converted, it will be shipped back to the US in 2005.

Anti-nuclear activists, ecologists and Greenpeace are on alert. There is also a fear of an attack of the convoy by terrorists.

More details here

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996424

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20040921-1600-plutoniumshipments.html

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3228,36-380382,0.html

http://www.areva.com

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8090 posts, RR: 24
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1219 times:

Thank God Greenpeace is "on alert." I can rest easy now.


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29698 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1180 times:

Shoot Greenpeace.

There are your terrorists right there.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8616 posts, RR: 43
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1145 times:

Great, so everyone who physically opposes a technology that is creating severe environmental problems that will last for thousands of years is a "terrorist"... L-188, sometimes you do amaze me.


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29698 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1140 times:

Would you rather have it remain weapons grade???




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineJasepl From India, joined Jul 2004, 3582 posts, RR: 40
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1139 times:

The Le Monde article does have a point when it says that it is surprising that the Americans (and the Russians) can't convert their own Mox.

As for "Il n'est donc pas étonnant que les écologistes et les antinucléaires commencent à se mobiliser pour protester contre le transport de cette matière nucléaire..." - at least the Americans are shipping it to France for processing and then taking it back, rather than paying off some tinpot third-world country to take it off their hands.


User currently offlineFlyingColours From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2315 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1118 times:

Greenpeace like other environmentalist groups have done some nasty things in the past, Environmentalists against Animal Testing used to attack the scientests (and even threaten them and send death threats), those against GM crops destroyed farmers produce and in tern their livelyhoods.

BTW - Wasn't it Greenpeace who broke into a Nuclear Power Plant about 2 years ago, anyone who does that - even if exposing flaws should be arrested. The same thing goes for jurnalists who try and smuggle explosives aboard planes for example, what about those who get caught, maybe they are actually a real terrorist who wanted to blow that flight up but uses the "I'm A Jurnalist" excuse to get out of prison.

I just hope that if any protestors (or terrorists for that matter) come too close to the ships that they are dealt with accordingly.

* At least they are turning it into a fuel so there is less oil being burnt, in the longrun they are actually helping the environment by reducing air pollution and reducing the demand for fossil fuels.

I'm not against protesting, I support it but it is when the protestors start going to the extremes that I loose all support for them.

Phil
FlyingColours



Lifes a train racing towards you, now you can either run away or grab a chair & a beer and watch it come - Phil
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8616 posts, RR: 43
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1106 times:

"Would you rather have it remain weapons grade???"

Nope, I wouldn't. I don't support this protest because it is against this particular shipment, but because of its potential negative effect on the nuclear industry altogether. If/When this kind of protest makes the powers that be realise that there is no future for nuclear power plants without physical or even violent protest against them, they're hopefully going to understand that they ought to keep this industry from growing, instead of subsidising it. There are lots of energy sources, we don't have to depend on oil, gas, coal and nuclear power for all times. And we can't either, because we'll run out of them.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29698 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1101 times:

Algoes, Reminds me of the Napalm bombs that used to be in California.

The US Navy(I think) had a bunch of Napalm bombs in open storage in some desert out in California that where surplus for years. The neighbors and greenies all complained about them and wanted them removed, so after a few years of protests the Navy decided to do that, but then they had to come up with a plan to move them since some of them had started to corrode and leak. Well in the process of surveying the job somebody discoved some endagered desert rat had discovered the storage pallets for these bombs make really really good rat homes. So they Navy got sued over their removal plan because it might harm the rats. It took 10-15 years before the Navy finally got permission to drain the Napalm out of the bombs tank it and ship it to a power plant in Texas somewhere.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1082 times:

The Le Monde article does have a point when it says that it is surprising that the Americans (and the Russians) can't convert their own Mox.

That's because it's hard to get nuclear programs started here in the US. Nuclear is some sort of danger word that scares away any local support. While in more centralized countries where the nuclear programs are government completely it's easier to get approval and build. At least that's the way it was explained to me by a nuclear engineer, when I asked why France had more nuke per capita than the US, even though they are smaller.



At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineWhitehatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1069 times:

France is also a leader in civil nuclear power technology. They use nuclear for the bulk of their power generation, and the infrastructure for fuel processing is both tested and effective in France.

That's why they will be doing this work. They can do it efficiently and at the right price, and in safety.

MOX goes back into the nuclear fuel cycle for power generation purposes. It is useless for weapons in that form.


User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6661 posts, RR: 35
Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1069 times:

Great, so everyone who physically opposes a technology that is creating severe environmental problems that will last for thousands of years is a "terrorist"...

Please....severe environmental problems? The waste from spent rods is nothing compared to the massive pollution created from conventional fossil fuels today. People need to get over their NIMBY syndrome, ignorant selves and realize that nuclear energy is THE absolute best hope for the world to have uninterrupted, clean, efficient power.

Dig a hole in Yucca Mtn, Nevada and sock the waste away in there. Done.



User currently offlineChrisdigo From Sweden, joined Oct 2003, 181 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1057 times:

Jasepl: The Le Monde article does have a point when it says that it is surprising that the Americans (and the Russians) can't convert their own Mox.

It also says a Franco-American consortium called DCS (Duke-Cogema-Stone & Webster) is studying the construction of an American MOX plant in Savannah River (DEMox) . It may enter service in 2008.

Then another plant (CHEMox) may be build in Russia thus to make sure the two countries are de-stocking its plutonium at the same time.


User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8616 posts, RR: 43
Reply 13, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1019 times:

L-188, that story is insane! I don't know what to say, if everything happened the way your summary described it, it's a near-perfect example of people going berserk.

Slider, ask the people around Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and all those nuclear test ranges (best examples found in the former USSR and in China) what they think about the severe environmental problems caused by both civil and military applications of nuclear technology.

"Dig a hole in Yucca Mtn, Nevada and sock the waste away in there. Done."

We're talking tens of thousands of years here, so no one knows what might happen to that mountain. And if the nuclear waste gets exposed, people will witness a nice fat ecological disaster making what the area around Yucca Mountain may then be uninhabitable.

"People need to [...] realize that nuclear energy is THE absolute best hope for the world to have uninterrupted, clean, efficient power."

Again, how about Chernobyl and Three Mile Island? It takes only a bit of mismanagement to unleash a nuclear inferno.

Of course we need to put the nuclear waste we already have somewhere, and NIMBY attitudes won't get anyone any further, but we also need to reduce the amount of nuclear waste we will produce in the future. The best case scenario would of course be shutting down all nuclear plants right now and burying the remaining waste/fuel as safe as we can, but of course there isn't a way this can be done. What Greenpeace does is attracting attention to the problems of nuclear technology and causing the nuclear industry and its lobby some trouble. That's very important in my book.

I'd rather accept having to use less energy than put up with loads of nuclear waste in the future.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 14, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1012 times:

Slider: Please....severe environmental problems? The waste from spent rods is nothing compared to the massive pollution created from conventional fossil fuels today.

Incorrect. Burning fossil fuel does not create highly toxic and extremely long-lived waste. Their environmental effects are relatively benign in principle, only the massive scale makes them problematic.

It´s almost laughable how a government can invade Iraq on the flimsiest excuses and completely ignore the mounting evidence of the climate change, even going so far as trying to sabotage others making progress there. This year´s hurricane season merely adds another data point.

Wasting energy is the problem, much more than producing it!


Slider: People need to get over their NIMBY syndrome, ignorant selves and realize that nuclear energy is THE absolute best hope for the world to have uninterrupted, clean, efficient power.

It´s neither clean nor efficient. You´ll have highly toxic waste deposition sites that need to be guarded and maintained for tens of thousands of years. Together with the massive investment necessary even in the short term it´s simply a credit taken up on the expense of coming generations, just like any other kind of debt, only with much more dangerous "side effects". It doesn´t even make sense economically, let alone ecologically.


Slider: Dig a hole in Yucca Mtn, Nevada and sock the waste away in there. Done.

Sure. Only experience has demonstrated that practically all proposed dump sites have long-term stability issues. Expect the plutonium to visit you back home in a few years, decades or centuries in your drinking water.

The british, french and american processing sites are all highly contaminated already. "Safe"? Well, you move there first!

If it wasn´t for their highly subsidized nuclear weapons programs, most of the remaining countries would have given it up already.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29698 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 981 times:

L-188, that story is insane! I don't know what to say, if everything happened the way your summary described it, it's a near-perfect example of people going berserk.

Algoes, a couple of links, I did get some of the details wrong earlier, that is what happens when you work off memory.

Doesn't mention the rats, but the issues they had after the Navy did finally get permission to ship it off to be "Recycled" and then the recycler backed out leaving a couple of carloads of napalm floating helplessly in some railyard for a bit.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9804/14/napalm.update/
http://www.cnn.com/US/9804/13/napalm.shipments/index.html
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/mk77.htm
http://tchester.org/fb/issues/fbnapalm_rebuttal.html

Only the last link actually mentions the Kangroo rat nests, but that isn't surprising since they came into the picture prior to the internet.

That kind of hystaria isn't exactly unprecidented..

Look at when the US Army removed chemical weapon stores from Europe. Everybody was protesting that they where there. Then when a removal plan to ship them off to Johnston Atoll to be burned was announced, everybody protested everything about the routes, methods ect. Go only knows what would have happened if a plan to construct and on-continent burning facility had been announced instead.



[Edited 2004-09-26 06:27:41]


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineJasepl From India, joined Jul 2004, 3582 posts, RR: 40
Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 966 times:

That's because it's hard to get nuclear programs started here in the US. Nuclear is some sort of danger word that scares away any local support. While in more centralized countries where the nuclear programs are government completely it's easier to get approval and build.

How does that explain Russia then? If there's an example of a centrally-controlled country, it's Russia. Or is that just Russia for you?  Big grin

But you might be on to something. I think we've got a fair bit of our energy is nuclear-powered here in India - and almost no one seems to have a problem with it. In fact, it's not even an issue that ever comes up for discussion. France do seem to be on the right path for years now though. Sooner rather than later, I think a lot of countries will have to start using nuclear technology to meet their energy requirements.

Still, like I said, at least the Americans are shipping it to France for processing and then taking it back, rather than paying off some tinpot third-world country to take it off their hands. But the activists won't ever mention that, will they?


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29698 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 965 times:

How does that explain Russia then? If there's an example of a centrally-controlled country, it's Russia

I would argue that between 1991 and 2001 Russia in fact was not centerally controled. Only with Putin taking charge in 2000 has that started to change and bring back more central control. However I think I can also safely say that for a fair number of citizens, some of the old habits of the communist era didn't die, not opening your mouth against the goverment and it's projects being one of those habits.

But getting back to the point, how many nuclear projects have occured in Russia since word of the time they almost made Kiev glow in the dark got out?


Most of the current project the international community is performing in Russia deal with decommisioning old sub reactors and cleaning up soviet era sites.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineJasepl From India, joined Jul 2004, 3582 posts, RR: 40
Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 963 times:

You're right. But the Soviet nuke programs started much before 1991. I don't even want to wonder what they were doing with the plutonium back before then.

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29698 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 962 times:

I understand the are some real nasty spots up by the old soviet sub bases.

Particuarly after they started cutting up those old subs.

A lot of nuclear waste, and a lot of spots where it was buried/stored/disposed of that nobody knows about or forgot about.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineJasepl From India, joined Jul 2004, 3582 posts, RR: 40
Reply 20, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 959 times:

That makes me wonder what we do with ours?

User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8616 posts, RR: 43
Reply 21, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 949 times:

"A lot of nuclear waste, and a lot of spots where it was buried/stored/disposed of that nobody knows about or forgot about."

You got that right. Novaya Zemlya is now one of the most polluted areas of this planet, and that's not only due to the nuclear testing that has gone on there, but also due to the enormous amounts of nuclear waste that was simply put in barrels and dumped in the Arctic Ocean. Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia:

"A nuclear testing site named North Test Site was constructed in the mid-1950s, and existed during much of the Cold War. "Site A", Chernaya Guba (70.7N 54.6E), was used mostly from 1955-62. "Site B", Matochkin Shar (73.4N 54.9E) was used for underground tests in 1964-90. "Site C", Sukhoy Nos (73.7N 54.0E), was used from 1957-62 and was the 1961 explosion site of Tsar Bomba, a record 50-megaton burst. Other tests occurred elsewhere throughout the islands, with an official testing range covering over half of the landmass. In 1989 glasnost helped make the Novaya Zemlya testing activities public knowledge and opened the door for environmental assessment, and only a year later Greenpeace activists staged a protest at the site. Testing of nuclear weapons fell off dramatically during the 1990s and today only a limited amount of systems research is done at Matochkin Shar."

See, they don't only protest against "western" projects.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29698 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 944 times:

I don't think I complained about them only targeting western projects.

I do think they where pretty equal opportunity in that regard.

However I did enjoy the video of that russian freighter throwing that one female protester overboard.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8616 posts, RR: 43
Reply 23, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 936 times:

"I don't think I complained about them only targeting western projects."

Fair enough, I don't recall you doing that either. But I didn't mean to direct that last comment at you, either.

"However I did enjoy the video of that russian freighter throwing that one female protester overboard."

Well, to each his own... I wouldn't have liked it even if it were a whacko like Michael Moore or Bill O'Reilly, but I digress. The point is, I only support "physical protest" as long as no one gets hurt and no extensive damage to property is done.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
US Sends Warning To Iran--Sells Israel Weapons posted Thu Apr 28 2005 15:13:39 by RJpieces
2nd US Serviceman InIraq To Receive Medal Of Honor posted Fri Nov 10 2006 20:17:26 by FRAspotter
US Soccer Wants To Play In Venezuela posted Tue Oct 3 2006 18:33:47 by Derico
"Climate Change Will Destroy Us"-Pentagon To Bush posted Tue Aug 8 2006 15:01:04 by NWDC10
US Congress Reacts To Middle East Violence posted Thu Jul 20 2006 01:58:36 by RJpieces
I'm Off To France... posted Wed May 24 2006 22:13:16 by Pawsleykat
US TV Dominates To Much! posted Fri May 19 2006 23:18:56 by Bofredrik
US House Votes To Wall Up Mexico Border posted Sun Dec 18 2005 05:56:38 by N506CR
The Closest Many Of Us Will Get To Getting A Girl! posted Mon Nov 28 2005 03:08:40 by SHUPirate1
CA First US Legislative Body To OK Gay Marriage posted Wed Sep 7 2005 08:03:26 by Mdsh00