If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Economist)   Soviet-era bombs, chemical agents and munitions dumped on the bottom of the Baltic Sea over decades has created a mess more scary than 10 busted Japanese reactors, and no one is paying attention   (economist.com) divider line 51
    More: Scary, Baltic Sea, Japanese, chemical weapons, nuclear reactors, dumping, German submarines, toxic wastes, oceanographies  
•       •       •

3951 clicks; posted to Geek » on 22 Nov 2013 at 7:55 AM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



51 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-22 08:00:29 AM
See, the Soviets were bad because the dumped just anywhere. We only dumped in agreed-upon places. So we know where the mustard gas will leak.

Or something.
 
2013-11-22 08:12:35 AM
Wouldn't any fish that ingested mustard gas kind of...die right there? It's not like they'd carry it around with them for very long, I'd think.
 
2013-11-22 08:13:29 AM
It's a mess but not even remotely as scary as Fukushima. We're all screwed at this point anyway, last one out get the lights.

http://www.youtube.com/w atch?v=WiBVBdM77s4
 
2013-11-22 08:15:34 AM
FTFA: "Some scientist called it a "ticking time-bomb".

I read that as "farking Time-Bomb"

Sad thing is, that reading isn't untrue....
 
2013-11-22 08:22:00 AM
I can see this as a problem that lasts decades. If one shell breaks per month (releasing all of its goodies) it would take decades to through all of the shells.
 
2013-11-22 08:24:01 AM
White people problems.
 
2013-11-22 08:27:46 AM
Meh.  They're dumping fly ash everywhere around here.  We're all pretty much screwed in many, many ways.
 
2013-11-22 08:39:41 AM
I thought this was the entire premise of spongebob squarepants?
 
2013-11-22 08:45:14 AM
For comparison, this is just as bad as the US disposing of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain.  It's exactly the same thing!
 
2013-11-22 08:48:45 AM

GoldSpider: For comparison, this is just as bad as the US disposing of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain.  It's exactly the same thing!



Almost as bad as Three Mile Island!
 
2013-11-22 08:55:33 AM
That's because nuclear power deniers can only point and screech at one thing at a time.
 
2013-11-22 08:59:44 AM

GoldSpider: For comparison, this is just as bad as the US disposing of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain.  It's exactly the same thing!


A better comparison might be the tons of chemical and nuclear weapons/waste that we've also dumped in the ocean, which actually is the exact same thing.
 
2013-11-22 09:00:32 AM
Ftfa:

One possible explanation is that the Soviets had a fairly care-free attitude to where they dumped the weapons

oi42.tinypic.com
 
2013-11-22 09:10:50 AM

lifeboat: Ftfa:

One possible explanation is that the Soviets had a fairly care-free attitude to where they dumped the weapons

[oi42.tinypic.com image 320x240]


I would have gone with:

i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-11-22 09:12:47 AM

Hand Banana: It's a mess but not even remotely as scary as Fukushima. We're all screwed at this point anyway, last one out get the lights.

http://www.youtube.com/w atch?v=WiBVBdM77s4


The video does not name all its talking heads, but of the ones it does name:

Helen Caldecott - anti-nuclear activist
Kevin Kamps - anti-nuclear activist
Paul Gunter - anti-nuclear activist
Arnold Gunderson - an interesting one: he worked in the nuclear industry, got fired, and is now in the pay of anti-nuclear activist organisations.

I'm pretty sure the other people being (uncritically) interviewed will also turn out to be in the pay of the anti-nuclear lobby. Note that these people do not supply evidence for their claims which are conveniently forward looking and unverifiable. The animation near the end, showing the pacific turning red, is based on modelling, NOT measurement.

I hope user Hand Banana is happy in his echo chamber of nuclear energy denialism.
 
2013-11-22 09:17:58 AM

THE GREAT NAME: That's because nuclear power deniers can only point and screech at one thing at a time.


Deniers?  Did you mean opponents?  Because I'm pretty sure even those who oppose it don't claim that it does not even exist.
 
2013-11-22 09:19:45 AM
Two next-gen console releases in the space of a week and you require me to care about this? Really?
 
2013-11-22 09:20:14 AM

nekom: THE GREAT NAME: That's because nuclear power deniers can only point and screech at one thing at a time.

Deniers?  Did you mean opponents?  Because I'm pretty sure even those who oppose it don't claim that it does not even exist.

Deniers

because they seek to deny the world the benefits of cheap, plentiful energy.
 
2013-11-22 09:20:19 AM
b.vimeocdn.com: it can't be that bad, unlike profit obsessed West, Soviets care about people and their environment
 
2013-11-22 09:58:59 AM
Meanwhile, the SS Richard Montgomery bides its' time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Richard_Montgomery
 
2013-11-22 10:03:25 AM
Seriously? They're going to talk about the disposed chemical weapons but not the fact that standard operating procedure for refueling soviet nuclear powered ships was:
1) Stay off shore, out of sight of land, at the refueling rendezvous point
2) Signal "Engine Trouble" over the radio in case anyone happens to be watching
3) Dump spent nuclear fuel rods straight into the ocean
4) Load new fuel rods from fuel tender into reactor
5) Signal "all clear" on radio
6) Continue on your merry way.

And they didn't dump JUST spent fuel. The admittedly dumped at least 18 WHOLE NUCLEAR REACTORS into the ocean as well as scuttling 20+ ships that had severe contamination, including their remaining fissile materials.

So, if Hand Banana thinks that this kind of stuff doesn't even compare to Fukishima, they've got another thing coming.
 
2013-11-22 10:04:20 AM
Someone was paying attention.

badassoftheweek.com 
Hi there!
 
2013-11-22 10:08:17 AM

THE GREAT NAME: nekom: THE GREAT NAME: That's because nuclear power deniers can only point and screech at one thing at a time.

Deniers?  Did you mean opponents?  Because I'm pretty sure even those who oppose it don't claim that it does not even exist.

Deniers because they seek to deny the world the benefits of cheap, plentiful energy.


lol, that claim sailed off on its own accord long, long ago. There's nothing about nuclear power that is cheap, except for magical, commercially unproven technologies.

If it's so cheap, care to explain why the industry requires fully government backed loan guarantees, and dramatically reduced liability requirements? Also, why is it that the private bond market won't touch nuclear with a 20-foot lead pole?

Financially, modern nuclear is a losing proposition, which is why plans for new plants are being scrapped faster than you can say, "Yucca Mountain."
 
2013-11-22 10:21:29 AM

tallen702: Seriously? They're going to talk about the disposed chemical weapons but not the fact that standard operating procedure for refueling soviet nuclear powered ships was:
1) Stay off shore, out of sight of land, at the refueling rendezvous point
2) Signal "Engine Trouble" over the radio in case anyone happens to be watching
3) Dump spent nuclear fuel rods straight into the ocean
4) Load new fuel rods from fuel tender into reactor
5) Signal "all clear" on radio
6) Continue on your merry way.

And they didn't dump JUST spent fuel. The admittedly dumped at least 18 WHOLE NUCLEAR REACTORS into the ocean as well as scuttling 20+ ships that had severe contamination, including their remaining fissile materials.

So, if Hand Banana thinks that this kind of stuff doesn't even compare to Fukishima, they've got another thing coming.


The commies were many things, but environmentally friendly was never one of them. They regarded the earth like rick James on Eddie Murphy's couch.
 
2013-11-22 10:25:09 AM

Hand Banana: It's a mess but not even remotely as scary as Fukushima. We're all screwed at this point anyway, last one out get the lights.


EVERYBODY PANIC!!!
i.imgur.com
 
2013-11-22 10:40:11 AM

MrSteve007: THE GREAT NAME: nekom: THE GREAT NAME: That's because nuclear power deniers can only point and screech at one thing at a time.

Deniers?  Did you mean opponents?  Because I'm pretty sure even those who oppose it don't claim that it does not even exist.

Deniers because they seek to deny the world the benefits of cheap, plentiful energy.

lol, that claim sailed off on its own accord long, long ago. There's nothing about nuclear power that is cheap, except for magical, commercially unproven technologies.

If it's so cheap, care to explain why the industry requires fully government backed loan guarantees, and dramatically reduced liability requirements? Also, why is it that the private bond market won't touch nuclear with a 20-foot lead pole?

Financially, modern nuclear is a losing proposition, which is why plans for new plants are being scrapped faster than you can say, "Yucca Mountain."


It would be cheaper if:
1/ Nuclear power deniers didn't keep demanding more and more expensive safety measures that are out of proportion ot the risk and
2/ Enough plants were built to pay for the cost of research training etc, which they would be if nuclear power deniers stopped lobbying governments to stop building them.

It is nuclear power deniers who drive up the prices with their lobbying.

Ivo Shandor: Hand Banana: It's a mess but not even remotely as scary as Fukushima. We're all screwed at this point anyway, last one out get the lights.

EVERYBODY PANIC!!!
[i.imgur.com image 750x568]


Nuclear power deniers don't want you to know this inconvenient truth.
 
2013-11-22 10:50:10 AM

THE GREAT NAME: Nuclear power deniers don't want you to know this inconvenient truth.


Erm...it's not about the totals, it's about the concentration.
 
2013-11-22 10:51:20 AM

Kibbler: See, the Soviets were bad because the dumped just anywhere. We only dumped in agreed-upon places. So we know where the mustard gas will leak.

Or something.


To appease "open-minded" people, college writing courses should teach that when writing anything about any nation outside the U.S. you must mention the U.S. in every other sentence.

"Europe once did this thing. But the U.S. is just as bad. And later on Russia did this other thing. But the U.S. is just as bad. And China once even did that other thing. But the U.S. is just as bad. Which brings us to that thing Japan once did. We should mention though, that the U.S. is just as bad."
 
2013-11-22 10:52:39 AM
Fano:The commies were many things, but environmentally friendly was never one of them. They regarded the earth like rick James on Eddie Murphy's couch.

Pretty much sums it up succinctly. I love showing people pictures of Norlisk in the dead of winter. Nothing like black snow to get the point across at just how dirty they still are over there. Heck, even the summertime images from Google Earth are frightening!
 
2013-11-22 11:04:02 AM

KhanAidan: THE GREAT NAME: Nuclear power deniers don't want you to know this inconvenient truth.

Erm...it's not about the totals, it's about the concentration.


Heh. Typical nuclear energy denier, always moving the goal posts:

Denier: It's the X!!!
Sensible person: X is not true, here's why...
Denier: But it's not the X it's the Y, stupid!!!
Sensible person: oh you wanna talk about Y, well here's why Y is not true...
Denier: But that doesn't disprove X!!! HAHAHAH I WIN!!
 
2013-11-22 11:16:41 AM

Hand Banana: It's a mess but not even remotely as scary as Fukushima.


No, I can't agree with that, especially if you start looking at the situation in the White Sea.
http://www.euronews.com/2012/09/26/nuclear-danger-remains-over-dumpi ng -of-damaged-soviet-submarines/
The mess the Soviets left far out does Fukushima and everything the U.S. and NATO did.  And the U.S. and NATO have spent a crazy amount of money trying to clean it up. (http://www.bellona.org/english_import_area/international/russia/nuke -w eapons/nonproliferation/24803 , and http://cns.miis.edu/opapers/op1/  for example).  Yes, the U.S. and NATO did naughty, messy things, but the Soviet Union out did us by orders of magnitude.
 
2013-11-22 11:17:26 AM

THE GREAT NAME: I hope user Hand Banana is happy in his echo chamber of nuclear energy denialism.


What is that even supposed to mean?

Are you trolling or just stupid.
 
2013-11-22 11:31:44 AM

Dwight_Yeast: THE GREAT NAME: I hope user Hand Banana is happy in his echo chamber of nuclear energy denialism.

What is that even supposed to mean?

Are you trolling or just stupid.


You not familiar with this use of the term "echo chamber"? It means the anti-nuclear activists can only hear thmselves and each other, and so are convinced that their spurious scaremongering claims are true, because they don't hear anything else. These people are deniers because they deny the benefits of nuclear power.

Hoe that clears things up for you.
 
2013-11-22 12:01:31 PM

THE GREAT NAME: It would be cheaper if:
1/ Nuclear power deniers didn't keep demanding more and more expensive safety measures that are out of proportion ot the risk and
2/ Enough plants were built to pay for the cost of research training etc, which they would be if nuclear power deniers stopped lobbying governments to stop building them.

It is nuclear power deniers who drive up the prices with their lobbying.


This line of thinking works only if you pretend that "nuclear power deniers" were united in their effort in every single country in the world. In reality, nuclear power is flopping in capitalist societies because it's too damned expensive. With exception of communist China, almost every other nation on the planet is turning their back to nuclear power.

At this moment in time, far more reactors are being shuttered, cancelled and scrapped than being built. Nuclear is a fading dream that never materialized. 50 years ago, they promised power "So cheap that you won't need a power meter." It was a lie. Decades and decades of nuclear technical and financial failures prove that.
 
2013-11-22 12:31:38 PM

MrSteve007: THE GREAT NAME: It would be cheaper if:
1/ Nuclear power deniers didn't keep demanding more and more expensive safety measures that are out of proportion ot the risk and
2/ Enough plants were built to pay for the cost of research training etc, which they would be if nuclear power deniers stopped lobbying governments to stop building them.

It is nuclear power deniers who drive up the prices with their lobbying.

This line of thinking works only if you pretend that "nuclear power deniers" were united in their effort in every single country in the world. In reality, nuclear power is flopping in capitalist societies because it's too damned expensive. With exception of communist China, almost every other nation on the planet is turning their back to nuclear power.


Actually, UK turned its back on Nucelar power as a result of CND lobbying backed by the green movement. However, we are now moving back towards it. Our costs will be high, but that's only due to lost momentum, resulting from our CND-driven 3-decade sabbatical. More recently, Germnay is turning away from nuclear, due to successful activism following Fukushima (death toll 0). Germany is now every bit as hysterical about environmental issues as it was 100 years ago. OTOH France, which is very proud of its staus as a nuclear power having been whipped in two world wars, is embracing nuclear, has done for a while, and is selling lots of electricity to neighbouring countries - a great success story.

At this moment in time, far more reactors are being shuttered, cancelled and scrapped than being built.

I assume you are assuming everybody reading that realises that nuclear stations that reach their design lifetime MUST be shut down by law. Because if they didn't, they might get the wrong impression and you wouldn't want that.

50 years ago, they promised power "So cheap that you won't need a power meter." It was a lie.

No lie. It would have been that cheap except for the collossal pressure put on them by hyper-reactionary backward-facing nuclear power denying lobby groups with massive financial backing.

Decades and decades of nuclear technical and financial failures prove that.

Actually, nuclear power's record over the last 50 years, given the number of kilowatt-hours it has produced globally, is pretty good. Compared to the dire fortelling of your nuclear-denialist forefathers, it deserves a AAA+ rating.

I would mention another brigade of doom-saying chicken-little control freaks whose predictions never came true, but "them up there" are being really fussy about going off-topic.
 
2013-11-22 01:29:32 PM
Soooooo.....if I go swimming there I can finally get my superpowers?

Because I've been due some powers for a while now
 
2013-11-22 01:44:15 PM
Subby, you are engaging in hyperbole again

It isn't true that no one is paying attention.   Based on the article, Jacek Beldowski is paying a lot of attention to the issue.    As long as Jacek cares, I feel comfortable, that it will be taken care of
 
2013-11-22 01:46:43 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Actually, nuclear power's record over the last 50 years, given the number of kilowatt-hours it has produced globally, is pretty good. Compared to the dire fortelling of your nuclear-denialist forefathers, it deserves a AAA+ rating.


History shows that a civilian nuclear powerplant has a little bit over a 2% chance of reactor meltdown over its life. There are 435 operating, civil nuclear reactors currently.

In the past 45 years, there have been 9 civilian reactor meltdowns
1967 - Chapelcross, Scotland
1969 - Saint-Laurent, France
1977 - A1 Jaslovske Bohunice, Czechoslovakia
1979 - Three Mile Island - USA
1980 - Saint-Laurent, France
1986 - Chernobyl, USSR
2011 - Three separate reactors at Fukushima, Japan

Of course, not all of those resulted in containment breach, but at least 5 of them did. That doesn't count any military reactors, reprocessing, criticality accidents or experimental reactors, which would roughly triple the number of meltdowns.

I find it interesting how you ignore the glaring financial failures of nuclear power. How about people being forced to pay for billions of kilowatt hours that were never produced? Did you know that nuclear power is the cause of the largest public bond default in history? WPPSS. Even though it happened nearly 4-decades ago, people in my region are still paying on their utility bills for nuclear powerplants that never came online.

More recently:
Ratepayers on the hook for several billion of dollars for closed nuclear plants.

A billion dollar upgrade to a nuclear power plant in California is a bust, permanently shuttering the plant.
If you'd like, I could find the articles on recent, failed nuclear projects in South Africa, Canada, and of course the mass closures of plants in Germany and Japan.
 
2013-11-22 03:12:58 PM
Environmental damage done by Communists doesn't count, because, because, because, BUSH LIED!
 
2013-11-22 03:26:46 PM

Ivo Shandor: Hand Banana: It's a mess but not even remotely as scary as Fukushima. We're all screwed at this point anyway, last one out get the lights.

EVERYBODY PANIC!!!
[i.imgur.com image 750x568]


That chart seems a bit premature being that it is continuing to dump that material into the ocean and ground water every single day with no end in sight.
 
2013-11-22 03:29:30 PM

tallen702: The admittedly dumped at least 18 WHOLE NUCLEAR REACTORS into the ocean


They also put a bunch of reactors into orbit with their RORSAT program. One of them came down over northern Canada in 1978 and a couple of others fell into the ocean, but most of them are still up there.
 
2013-11-22 03:32:08 PM
Also wtf, I'm not denying nuclear energy. I fully support it when handled properly, it's better than anything else we have at the moment. I'm just saying the way the Japan plant was built and the way Tepco handled things was totally farked up.
 
2013-11-22 05:52:08 PM
lh4.googleusercontent.com

Maybe if it had a scary map with some white block text it'd get more facebook likes.
 
2013-11-22 07:56:27 PM
Why would they risk lifting that stuff and releasing it? Wouldn't it be better to just cap it with a thick layer of clay ? After a thourough bottom survey to locate it all of course.
 
2013-11-22 09:19:07 PM

Bendal: Wouldn't any fish that ingested mustard gas kind of...die right there? It's not like they'd carry it around with them for very long, I'd think.


It's like herring in mustard sauce right from the sea!
 
2013-11-23 07:49:31 AM

MrSteve007: THE GREAT NAME: Actually, nuclear power's record over the last 50 years, given the number of kilowatt-hours it has produced globally, is pretty good. Compared to the dire fortelling of your nuclear-denialist forefathers, it deserves a AAA+ rating.

History shows that a civilian nuclear powerplant has a little bit over a 2% chance of reactor meltdown over its life. There are 435 operating, civil nuclear reactors currently.
In the past 45 years, there have been 9 civilian reactor meltdowns
1967 - Chapelcross, Scotland
1969 - Saint-Laurent, France
1977 - A1 Jaslovske Bohunice, Czechoslovakia
1979 - Three Mile Island - USA
1980 - Saint-Laurent, France
1986 - Chernobyl, USSR
2011 - Three separate reactors at Fukushima, Japan


These are mostly old designs that have been superceded. Also, Chernobyl was not built or run to western safety levels, and so doesn't count.

Nuclear power deniers should take a look at the disasterous accident record of wind turbines before they dismiss nuclear. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2NscsOj2AY
 
2013-11-23 07:53:02 AM

Hand Banana: Ivo Shandor: Hand Banana: It's a mess but not even remotely as scary as Fukushima. We're all screwed at this point anyway, last one out get the lights.

EVERYBODY PANIC!!!
[i.imgur.com image 750x568]

That chart seems a bit premature being that it is continuing to dump that material into the ocean and ground water every single day with no end in sight.


FIRST HIT on a google for Fukushima news: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24958048

Clearly there is an end in sight. Why do you hate-filled denialists lie so much?
 
2013-11-23 07:54:38 AM

Hand Banana: Also wtf, I'm not denying nuclear energy. I fully support it when handled properly, it's better than anything else we have at the moment. I'm just saying the way the Japan plant was built and the way Tepco handled things was totally farked up.


Stop trying to de-tox yourself, denialist.
 
2013-11-23 07:57:01 AM
Wrencher:a thourough bottom survey

 
2013-11-23 09:27:18 AM

MrSteve007: THE GREAT NAME: It would be cheaper if:
1/ Nuclear power deniers didn't keep demanding more and more expensive safety measures that are out of proportion ot the risk and
2/ Enough plants were built to pay for the cost of research training etc, which they would be if nuclear power deniers stopped lobbying governments to stop building them.

It is nuclear power deniers who drive up the prices with their lobbying.

This line of thinking works only if you pretend that "nuclear power deniers" were united in their effort in every single country in the world. In reality, nuclear power is flopping in capitalist societies because it's too damned expensive. With exception of communist China, almost every other nation on the planet is turning their back to nuclear power.

At this moment in time, far more reactors are being shuttered, cancelled and scrapped than being built. Nuclear is a fading dream that never materialized. 50 years ago, they promised power "So cheap that you won't need a power meter." It was a lie. Decades and decades of nuclear technical and financial failures prove that.


France?
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report