Toxic rubbish coming from the states

[tripleace]

Apparently, a copule of Ghost ships (barges) are coming over from the states from us to get rid of.

A friend of mine is an aerial photograher and has been commissioned to photograph the ships.

Can the forum let me have asap the channel seperation buoys long and lat so that he can go up and fly along the middle.

Your early help would be greatly appreciated

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.boating-ads.co.uk> Boating Website</A>

 

[nordic_ranger]

What a terrible title for your post, how dramatic can you be? Why don't you look at earlier post regarding these ships? Are you sure they are any more contaminated with toxic waste than others that are broken up by this company? Do you not think that regulations regarding toxic waste are being adhered to by the company breaking up these ships? What about the much needed employment these ships are giving to the community? What do we have the Health and Safety Excutive for other than to control the actions of the Shipbreakers and other companies like them. Where do the wonder workers of this world find the credibility to compromise the the jobs of people and put them on the dole? Who are you guys and when will you wake up to the real world?

I am not associated to the company that are breaking these ships but wish them every success in bringing employment to our economy.

JIm.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tripleace]

I think I am a little more informed than your good self.

1. I am told the ships have been filled over the years with stuff.

2. The USA has the ability to break these ships but has regulated for MANY years not to allow it to happen. its the BUSH lot who have changed the rules on export. suprise suprise!

3. Many of these type of ships are being sent to ASIA to be broken up and are poluting the ocean over there. ( if you are not familiar with the planet. ALL the earths waters are connected)

4. I do not consider the possible creation of 200 jobs (which is speculation) worth the risk to my health. Why should we take the CRAP from the USA. Why is the risk of towing at 5 knots half way around the world profitable. ANSWER IS its HIGH RISK and the USA does not want it near them.

PS. THEY HAVE BEEN MOVED BECAUSE THEY ARE AT RISK OF LEAKING.

Last word from the states:

I frankly don't care if the ships are scrapped internationally or domestically," Rep. Jo Ann Davis said. "We just want them out of our back yard on the James River."

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.boating-ads.co.uk> Boating Website</A>

 

[MainlySteam]

Think you might find that stuff in any old vessel destined for scrap - the quantities/vessel also seem small if those given include all 13 ships. You would also probably find all of it, except the oil (and maybe that too), in similar quantities in your old buildings - what do you do with that? Any old house is also likely to have its share of asbestos, ozone depleting substances (old refrigerators and aircon) and PCB's (in old fluorescent light ballasts). Don't know what batteries you use in your computer, camera, etc but sure to have their fair share of heavy metals in them.

Sounds like your friends are scaremongering to me. While I know the UK register is small, I wonder where you friends think UK flagged ships should be broken up - maybe we shouldn't have ships at all because of their risk to the environment.

I would not concern myself about a USA government assessment of such risk as it is mainly political, after all they put warnings that microwave ovens are operating and may be hazardous to ones health signs on the doors into factory cafetarias.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[oldgit]

Difficult one this.One can understand the importance of having any sort of job in certain parts of the country.However does the right to employment take priority over the welfare of all others in the area.It is further complicated if you both live and work in the area.
My real problem in this matter is as to why the most tecnologicaly (spelling?) advanced country in the world will not/cannot clear up its own mess.
Brings to mind the used fuel rod debacle.Still if we can sort Japans nuclear waste why not the States.Our track record on H&S is def better than our colonial chums recall the President vetoing funds to clear up some ground water pollution recently.


<hr width=100% size=1>If it aint broke fix it till it is.

 

[qsiv]

As someone pointed out to me, more than that flies in and out of Heathrow every day ...

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tripleace]

your playground - the channel

at 5 knots, 2 ships today will be dragged along the english channel. they are old, in poor condition and with enough oil onboard to cause a problem.

All because the USA does not want to clean up there own mess.

British Government has destroyed our boat building industry and whats left now is having to take on demolition jobs.

Out of the 13 ships, 2 are going to be refurbished. that job is going to New York.

If its so safe for these ships why is teh minster of the environment now asking for an inquiry.

Its because "we the people" have now found out and votes will be lost.

If any of you want some free diesel (well heavy oil) then you should be able to go mid channel this afternoon and pick up a few hundred gallons from the leaking ghost ships.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.boating-ads.co.uk> Boating Website</A>

 

[oldgit]

Re:merchant marine.

Um not sure about government destroying our shipbuilding industry.You could ask why our shipping industry sourced their ships from Korea,Italy,Germany etc.
If subsidies no good for mines/airlines/steel,why OK for shipping or arms industry of for that matter housebuyers and currently topical pensions.


<hr width=100% size=1>If it aint broke fix it till it is.

 

[paulrossall]

Re: your playground - the channel

These ships have sea worthyness certificates.
You said in an earlier posting "the ships have been filled over the years with STUFF"
I am not familier with technical commercial shipping terms and am interested to know in laymans terms what "STUFF" includes.
Large single hulled tankers are much more likely to cause a major pollution problem than old empty boats should any of these vessel have a collision and sink.
IMHO.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Dave_Snelson]

I totally agree!!!

This country is not currently short of jobs or work. There is absolutely no logical reason for these ships to be towed across the Atlantic to be broken up here, except perhaps that we in Britain are well known as the worlds shit tip!!

Britain is known in Europe as the "dirty old man" and deservedly so with this lot continuing. In the US, if the slightest thing were to go wrong, there would be law suits flying around for Gazzillions of dollars - and its this that they wish to avoid, nothing else.

<hr width=100% size=1>Madoc Yacht Club
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.madocyachtclub.co.uk>http://www.madocyachtclub.co.uk</A>

 

[Dave_Snelson]

...and that makes it OK then???

<hr width=100% size=1>Madoc Yacht Club
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.madocyachtclub.co.uk>http://www.madocyachtclub.co.uk</A>

 

[MainlySteam]

Sounds to me like your are trying to take the moral high ground in the bottom of a gorge.

Following the alarmist attitudes strirred up over a few ships due for breaking and applying that to everything else, then lets ban all planes, all ships, all cars, all electronics, all petroleum products, etc so no toxic wastes when they are built or scrapped? Lets ban pleasure boats too - what happens to all the petroleum they burn during their lifetime, all the plastic they are made of, polluting lead keels and batteries, their electronics and all the CO2 that goes in the air generating electricity to build and maintain them?

No wonder the British shipbuilding industry died, probably because building ships is far more polluting than breaking them.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Dave_Snelson]

Moral high ground from the bottom of a gorge? Errm, I think not. Firstly, I have my boat serviced and oil changed in a way that does not pollute - my choice. Secondly, its LPG powered (read my biog) so my engines make water with a bit of CO2.

That aside - there is always a reason for these things and in this case its money. Money driven by potential litigation. I won't accept that they (the USA) don't know how to, or don't have the technology to, dismantle these ships. I also won't confuse ship building history in the UK with this subject, the issues and statements are completely non-sequitur.

<hr width=100% size=1>Madoc Yacht Club
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.madocyachtclub.co.uk>http://www.madocyachtclub.co.uk</A>

 

[kingfisher]

Hypocrit politicians.

Aside from the debate whether the US should take care of its own garbage (I'm just glad that they're not dumped in Lahore or Bangladesh)- These guys had a permit issued by the local council to scrap the ships.

And all of a sudden, the ships get a few newsarticles, and the permits are revoked. Well, should have thought about that in the first place.

I feel another "Erika"-scenario coming up: finding no place for these ships to dock, untill the first storm hits them, and they sink, and all will cry foul.

<hr width=100% size=1>Group of people on the pontoon: skipper is the one with the toolbox.
http://sirocco31.tripod.com

 

[tripleace]

In fact..

ABLE UK were advised not to set sail..

They did not have planning permmission to construct the dock required and were told not to go to sea. This they ignored and the boats are now here without all the right permissions. They do have some.

ABLE were trying to push it through and hope that because of the winter weather the ships would be stuck here whilst they get planning and the relevant documents sorted.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.boating-ads.co.uk> Boating Website</A>

 

[StuDryden]

Re: In fact..

youre full of crap, i am moored at hartlepool marina and able uk dock is literally 1/2 mile off the marina lock entrance,

able uk have had all the correct equipment, permissions and ability now for several years and have been in the process of demolishing such ships since the 1980's without any fuss being kicked up, it is all the southern greenpeace "hippies" that are causing all the bother in hartlepool over this as able has briefed all concerned and all boat owners - pleasure and the large fishing fleets - to the contentment of all in question

a word of advice - why try to stir up something you know by "hear-say"

<hr width=100% size=1>I dont care if its a PETROL it rocks

 

[tripleace]

Re: In fact..

Read:

I have no comment on your personal insult but please read this.....

http://www.earthjustice.org/news/display.html?ID=715

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.boating-ads.co.uk> Boating Website</A> <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by tripleace on 10/11/2003 16:55 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[oldgit]

Re: In fact rather curious as to why...

Why go to the extraordinary expence and risk of towing them all the way across the north atlantic in winter.Surely they must have the facilities to dispose of the things somewhere in the continental USA.
Appears that Mr president is happy to impose steel tariffs against us but does not mind sending us his used items of same./forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>If it aint broke fix it till it is.

 

[MainlySteam]

<<<I also won't confuse ship building history in the UK with this subject, the issues and statements are completely non-sequitur>>>

Why not. You must be personally totally opposed to shipbuilding because, as one involved in the industry, I can assure you that the pollution from the building of a ship, especially when you go back up all the supply chains for all its materials, equipment and fitout is many orders of magnitude greater than that from the breaking of any ship.

You may feel good about using LPG (the CO2 is a pollutant by the way) but how do you think it was mined and that the only reason you have it is that others usage of oils/natural gas enables the mining of LPG as a by product? How do you think the LPG was delivered to you, what fuel was used in doing so and what about the impact of the delivery vehicle on the environment (ship even maybe that one day will have to be broken, and which polluted during its construction), is your boat fibreglass, do you have any electronics on board, etc, etc?

Most who get on a band wagon about some so called potential polluting incident have no idea of the realities of the situation, nor of their own environmental impact nor that of the things they otherwise seem quite happy with. We all owe a debt to our planet and environment, but lets keep our management of that based on the real risks and facts rather than on periodic holier than thou crusades having no important foundation.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Dave_Snelson]

No, no, and more no.

As I used to work in oil expro (North Sea, Brent Field & Beryl Field) and also in production and refining, I do know the difference between long term non degradeable pollutants and short term degradeable pollutants. I am not against the safe disposal of any product that has come to the end of its life - quite the opposite. Your arguments, however do not answer the basic questions that opened this debate. 1) Why aren't the Americans doing this themselves, as they have the technology. 2) Why weren't the legal and capability statements made before the towing of these ships all the way across the Atlantic.

Ultimately, Able may well be able to carry out this work with profficiency and safety but they (and others) deserve to have this blow up in their faces for the lack of openness and transparency of reasoning.

<hr width=100% size=1>Madoc Yacht Club
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.madocyachtclub.co.uk>http://www.madocyachtclub.co.uk</A>