Ghost ships..

[Ohdrat]

Should we accept these environmental time bombs?

Why are we yet AGAIN doing the US's dirty work?

Are the risks involved greater than the benefits to the UK economy?

Personally as you can see from Q 2 I think this work is not worth the environmental risks.. what happens if a Hoolie blows up in the channel... , they break loose from their tugs and end up on our beaches? Judging from last years sinking/wrecking debacles in the Channel I cannot see how anyone can accept this risk!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Bergman]

Difficult one this

Certainly 200+ jobs in Hpool would be a welcome boost to local economy and Able seem confident of doing job safely.

Don't see fact that ships are American is particularly relevant either way. The question is economic benefit v environmental risk. When you consider the risk of shipping vast quantities of oil and gas around the globe, not to mention all the other potentially hazardous cargoes it would seem to be a relatively small and managable risk.

I do think the actions of Hpool council are particularly silly. Why wait until ships are a few days away from port before deciding that the dry dock is not suitable. How they come to be qualified to make such a statement surprises me. All that achieves is delay with ships floating about pointlessly increasing the risk of an incident. Still with a monkey as mayor what can one expect? Local MP Mr Mandelson seems very quiet on the subject too, can't think why.

I do think towing them across Atlantic at this time of year is less than wise. They've been hanging around for years so could have waited for next Spring/Summer with less chance of bad weather and less risk of incident.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Neraida]

I'm afraid that I am somewhat sceptical about the whole affair. It is very easy for the press to turn this whole affair into an imminent disaster, and ignore the numerous Lloyds Surveyors that have given the craft the of to move. Remember it is Lloyds that will pay for the clean-up if it goes wrong.

As an ex merchantman myself, from a long line of salty old dogs, it goes against my gut to think that the guys i relied on to tell me the vessels that I went to sea in were upto the job, would get it wrong on a matter so sensitive.

As has already been said, the fact that the vessels are american is irrelevent, IMHO just another thing for the press to get their teeth into...

I must say now, before I get shot down in flames, this is purely my opinion.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.quest-net.org/jamesaustin/images/Img1094.JPG>Recognise us?? </A>

 

[Novice]

This is just a load of media hype. In all manner of industrial premises across the UK, companies are removing asbestos from steam pipes, pressure vessels and other insulating applications effectively and safely. The other chemicals which these ships contain are PCBs and diesel fuel. PCB's are toxic oily compounds, used for much of the latter half of the 20th century as coolant oils in high voltage transformers. Again, across Britain, old transformers have been scrapped, the PCBs drained out and safely disposed of in special hazardous waste incinerators.

Unfortunately, people would prefer to listen to emotion than science when it comes to issues like this.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[StugeronSteve]

Whether, or not, we should be decontaminating / breaking vessels for other nations, or reprocessing the world's nuclear waste, are issues that could be debated for ever. The major concern in the ghost ship issue is the suitability of the vessels for the passage they are making. At least they are not destined for some Pacific Rim / Indian Ocean beach, to be broken by poorly protected and untrained workers, where the resultant waste may be dumped without regard for environment or health. As a nation we (and the Americans) have the expertise to take these hulks apart safely.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Aja]

Can it really be true that in the whole of the US there are no breakers that can handle these ships? It cant be economic to tow these ships across the Atlantic to be broken up?

Donald

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[webcraft]

I am extremely concerned at our society's lack of respect for the natural environment and lack of imagination as to the consequences of that neglect.

However, this particular brouhaha would seem to be a lot of fuss about nothing. I saw the head of the company that has the contract speaking on TV tonight and he pointed out that they regularly remove much larger quantities of asbestos from more difficult sites (eg when decommissioning power stations).

The 'toxic materials' are essentially asbestos, which is everywhere in the process of being (safely?) removed from our built environment, and waste oil.

Keeping these ships at sea at this time of year is IMHO far more irresponsible than taking them into the prepared dry dock and having them dismantled by specialists. However, in view of the limited amount of contaminants they contain, describing them as 'time bombs' seems a little over-dramatic, especially when compared with issues such as reprocessing of nuclear material or waste incinerators.

Of course, this is not the first time the good folk of Hartlepool have panicked about an imagined danger from abroad . . . looks like they're planning to hang another monkey.

- Nick



<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.bluemoment.com>http://www.bluemoment.com</A></font size=1>

 

[Ohdrat]

Mandy .. quiet oh no the demon of New Labour thinks that the Able should be allowed to do the dirty work and no doubt has been whispering in certain ministers' ears..

As for 200 jobs for Hartlepool... most will go to "specialist contractors" outside Hartlepool.. basically there aren't the specialist skills required in Hartlepool, so no I don't actually think there will be much economic gain for Hartlepool.

Anyway I would have thought that the way forward regarding toxic waste is to transport it as little as possible.. I know this is not generally the case at the moment but I do think that globally this is the way forward .. this is of course providing you have the opinion that we are custodians for the following generations..

Have to say after the recent wreckings / sinkings I hardly have any faith in the term Seaworthy..

NB the Tugs are all Dutch.. this is where the real money is and at no environmental risk (directly) to the Netherlands... The dutch obviously, (I think) have it better worked out than we do..

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ParaHandy]

Re: basel action network

there is a member/contributor hereabouts of the Basel Action Network (sort of private eye of shipping world). there website is www.ban.org.

they tried to stop the ships sailing in September and succeeded in temporarily stopping the other 9 .. the US Federal Court judgement on 2 Oct for the Temporary Restraining Order is given on the website. all the planning consents (lack of) etc which are exercising everybody now were well known months ago ....

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Heckler]

just watched paxman harass a reluctant enviro person who wriggled and twisted, the bottom line here is that there is a company ready willing and ABLE to recycle these boats in this country.
the tree huggers are using emotive terms like full of toxic chemicals. they have asbestos on board and some electric cable with pcbs in them, wow , so have lots of other tack dating back to the 1940s including prefab houses still being used. if the company can deal with it in a responsible manner (which said enviro person confessed they can do) and provide some much needed proper jobs and make a profit to pay taxes for new labour to throw away so what?
stu

<hr width=100% size=1>http://www.beneteau-owners-association.org.uk

 

[Mirelle]

Cough, splutter

Since the Basel Action Network have published on their website a column written by me without asking my consent or paying me for it (we scribblers have to live!) you might as well all have the benefit of it:

http://www.ban.org./Library/shipbreaking_oh_dear.html



<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?

 

[Mirelle]

Teacup. Storm in.

What a load of codswallop. These ships are not particularly hazardous, and breakers yards in Britain have broken any number of similar vessels over the decades.

<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?

 

[ParaHandy]

Re: Cough, splutter

as ever, (your) good advice is always cheap or somesuch ... can't remember exact words ... too late for the brain ...

knowing Seal Sands at H'pool i thought all the fuss a bit OTT (you wouldn't want to go there) but not on the evidence of abysmal lack of preparation ....





<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Jacket]

the difference being, if there's an accident on land, the contaminant diffuses slowly through the soil, and can be contained relatively easily using measures such as slurry walls until a clean up operation is compleated.

Whereas if a ship is wrecked, the sea spreads the polutant far and wide in a very short time, making cleanup operations almost inpossible.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Magic_Sailor]

I agree

I can see the benefit for creating jobs etc - no question.

But, I've got this uncomfortable feeling that we're seen as the dustbin for those rich Americans. I can't help thinking of that awful beach in India (I think it is) where all those hulks are broken up or just lay rotting; an seeing some sort of parallel.

Magic

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://hometown.aol.co.uk/geoffwestgarth/myhomepage/travelwriting.html>Click for website!</A>

 

[Mirelle]

Books have been written on this....

but rather than write one I will just post the link to the industry experts' website:

http://www.itopf.com/

To put a very large subject in a nutshell, broadly speaking, the sea, provided it is fairly rough and not very cold, will break down any ordinary pollutant much faster than occurs on land, where contamination of groundwater will remain for many years.

Cold seas are another matter, which is why Arctic and Antarctic pollution legislation is written quite differently.

<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?

 

[ParaHandy]

aahhhmm ... ohdrat ... convinced i've seen more than 13 ghost ships in the english channel alone .....

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Heckler]

problem is that

all the tree huggers jump on the band wagon and attempt to use politically correct emotive subjects to screech at the moon (have you ever noticed how they all have that sideways turned in your face spittle loaded look about them?) especially when the us of a is involved?
seems to bring out the worst in them,
stu

<hr width=100% size=1>http://www.beneteau-owners-association.org.uk

 

[cgull]

Re: Pollution,Nov 5

How much pollution do Fireworks cause?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[webcraft]

Re: problem is that

Am I to understand from this somewhat vitriolic post that you don't like environmentalists?

- Nick

<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.bluemoment.com>http://www.bluemoment.com</A></font size=1>