US dumping toxic crap on UK

[Halfsilver]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/11/12/ghost.fleet.reut/index.html

I read this and immediately thought about you, Stay.

Enjoy. :smilegrin:


-grays/d (some things almost make me agree with stay's anti-US views)

[AkMan]

Haha. The British firm won the bid. Let em have the ships.

[JustMe]

US is paying 16.7m for them to scrap it? If they are paying for it, why is it so bad?

[Halfsilver]

i dunno....a small island's ability to absorb such a large amount of toxic waste isn't as good as ours. Think of the enviromental impacts that an operation like that will have on the water and stuff.

[JustMe]

They shouldn't have agreed to do it then. You can't blame the US for their stupidity of saying yes.

[Halfsilver]

LoL.

I guess it is kinda funny, if you think about it.

Still, I think that the environmental effects that it will have on the british isles are going to be horrible. They weren't going to allow it, because the firm that won the bid didn't have a dry dock. So the dismantling would be done in the water. Imagine that crap going in the water?

-grays/d

[JustMe]

Sucks for them, while I do feel bad for the innocent people it could harm, the firm should have thought more about the economy and people rather than the money. You still cannot blame the US for that. Oh well...

[Miss X]

heh, like our waters could get any worse. People have been campaigning for years to stop the water being polluted but the government does fuck all about it, they have more important issues to deal with, for example last week they had to debate whether shops should be allowed to play christmas music before december.......

[HarmNone]

I would be interested to know with what these ships are contaminated. Asbestos is mentioned. Hell, the whole world is contaminated with asbestos, which was commonly used in the past in all kinds of construction. We are still removing it from old buildings and the like here in the US.

Non-friable asbestos, or hard-waste asbestos, is not considered toxic and is found in many landfills world-wide. Friable asbestos (asbestos that can be turned to powder when pressed with the hands) must be disposed of in specially cleared landfills. There are several of these in the UK and other countries, including the US.

Sounds to me like an international open bid was put out for disposal of these wastes, and Able Ltd. in the UK won the bid. Had a disposal company in the US won the bid, the asbestos would be handled here.

Now, if there are other more toxic wastes on these ships, there might be a problem worth getting our knickers in a knot over. However, at this point we do not know that there is, in fact, such a problem.

The point at issue here is that a UK company bid for the contract to dispose of these wastes, and won that contract with (I presume) the lowest bid. How in the hell anybody can say that is the fault of the US is a complete mystery to me.

The article says there is a hold on any more "ghost" ships sailing until a hearing is held to determine whether or not the UK is willing to accept these wastes for disposal. It would seem to me that the company (Able Ltd.) that bid for the contract would have checked with their government before bidding. If that was not done, the company has a problem that needs to be addressed and, apparently, is being addressed.

No sense in witch-hunting on minimal information, Greys. It only raises hackles...which, I might add, is probably why you posted this at all. :)

HarmNone will do some more research on this

[Halfsilver]

hackles are good.

The ships collectively contain over 500 thousand gallons of oil, for one thing.

The oil has been festering in the ships for the many decades that they have been sitting here in VA. When oil does this, it produces toxic chemicals and gases, not usually associated with 'fresh' oil.

I'm not going on minimal info, I've been following this story for a week or so now, and I completely disagree with the way it is being handled.

::shrug::

I can post the 4 or 5 other articles on the same topic, if you are interested.

Really, Harmnone, I'm not so bad.

[Edited on 11-14-2003 by Halfsilver]

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Halfsilver
hackles are good.

The ships collectively contain over 500 thousand gallons of oil, for one thing.

The oil has been festering in the ships for the many decades that they have been sitting here in VA. When oil does this, it produces toxic chemicals and gases, not usually associated with 'fresh' oil.

I'm not going on minimal info, I've been following this story for a week or so now, and I completely disagree with the way it is being handled.

::shrug::

I can post the 4 or 5 other articles on the same topic, if you are interested.

Really, Harmnone, I'm not so bad.

[Edited on 11-14-2003 by Halfsilver]

Heh. I did not intend to intimate that you were "bad", Greys. Just that lone articles of the type you linked do not present enough evidence on which to form an opinion. They serve only one purpose for most people, and that is to inflame. :)

I had assumed, although it was not said, that there was probably oil and/or fuel on these ships. I am aware of the gases standing oils produce, having grown up on oil fields. ;) However, these too are wastes that can be safely handled and disposed of if the company contracting to do so is properly equipped. Since Abel, Ltd. bid for the contract, I would certainly hope they are equipped to safely carry out that which they have contracted to do.

Time will tell. The ships that are there are there. Those waiting to sail are here. Until the particulars and UK legalities are thrashed out in the UK, it is not clear whether or not a true problem exists.

That was my purpose for posting. I am not one to get my feathers ruffled (or my hackles up) until I have sufficient information, and a proper reason to do so. In this case, those criteria have not been met. :cool:

HarmNone will remain cool until reason dictates otherwise

[Moist Happenings]

There are more toxic waste dumps in New Jersey alone than is going over to the UK to be taken care of.

It can handle it

In the grand scheme of things, it really isn't that much waste compared to what we're dealing with on a global scale.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Miss X
heh, like our waters could get any worse. People have been campaigning for years to stop the water being polluted but the government does fuck all about it, they have more important issues to deal with, for example last week they had to debate whether shops should be allowed to play christmas music before december.......

Want the water to stop being poluted? Stop buying things made in factories. That's what I thought. The government can't wave it's magic fairy wand and stop polution.

[Moist Happenings]

Yeah seriously. Factories give you three extra pollution icons. If you don't build the hoover damn -1 for all your cities and -3 for the city it's in you're screwed!

So you have to build hydro plants instead.

[Miss X]

I'm more concerned about raw sewage being dumped too close to land, but of course there are many causes of pollution. While I am fully aware that the government cant 'wave its magic fairy wand' they can take measures to limit the amount of waste thats dumped in the sea.
Unfortunatly its not an issue that many people in this country view as high priority therefore the government do little about it.
Of course, if we all stopped buying factory made goods, then it may make a difference, but at the end of the day its the government (enviromental dept) that set the limits and make the rules.
Vx

[Moist Happenings]

Originally posted by Miss X
I'm more concerned about raw sewage being dumped too close to land, but of course there are many causes of pollution. While I am fully aware that the government cant 'wave its magic fairy wand' they can take measures to limit the amount of waste thats dumped in the sea.
Unfortunatly its not an issue that many people in this country view as high priority therefore the government do little about it.
Of course, if we all stopped buying factory made goods, then it may make a difference, but at the end of the day its the government (enviromental dept) that set the limits and make the rules.
Vx

Dn't blame it all on the government. The Government is run by the people(supposably). And if people didn't WANT that stuff, it wouldn't be produced. Supply and demand, you know?

[Miss X]

I dont recall blaming it all on the government. I was simply pointing out that they set the limits for how much sewage is dumped in the sea etc.
I am well aware that if people stopped buying goods from the companies that cause polution then they would stop producing therefore reducing polution, but I am also a realist.
As for the government being run by the people, well to a certain extent yes, but they don't always act in the best interest of the people, nor do they carry out all the actions the majority of people wish they would do.
Vx

[Moist Happenings]

Well, what can I say, people are sheep. If they elect someone who doesn't do what they want then it's their own fault. Not saying all people are idiots.

...just most of them.

But keep in mind that it's a fine line to walk between what's right and what's wrong. There are priorities, and i'm sorry to say that the environment has been put on the backburner for some time now. But there's no action without a consequence.

ex.

You lower the amount of factory-made goods that are allowed to be produced, despite demand for such items
Those things become more expensive, and less people buy them.
Taxes get raised to cover the loss.
People get pissed, vote for a raise in the number of factory-made goods made, elected official doesn't get re-elected.

Just for example, that is. Not saying that's what would happen.

[Edited on 11-14-2003 by Neff]

[Latrinsorm]

I take Economics! :D

Solution to stop pollution: the government sells tickets that allow you to pollute. You can't pollute at all without them. The companies bid on them, and the company that wants each ticket gets it. When it becomes unfeasible to buy more tickets, they'll stop. Will they still pollute? You bet! It will be at a much lower rate.

As for s/d, you're assuming that these firms are price givers, which is probably not true. If Company A decides to raise it's prices and Companies B thru E keep their prices their same, haha at A, because they're going out of business. If A-E all raise prices, they will supply less than the demand. Eventually, someone will lower their prices to capitalize on the dead-weight loss. No problem. :cool: And that' not even getting into sticky prices, menu costs, or some other terms that I don't really know what they mean.