Radiating Remnants: Nuclear Waste Barrels Litter English Channel

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   

German journalists have discovered barrels of radioactive waste on the floor of the English Channel, just a handful of thousands dumped there decades ago. It was previously thought the material had dissipated. Now politicians are calling for the removal of the potentially harmful containers.


This is a major disaster area with 28,500 barrels of waste in the channel!


Some 28,500 containers of radioactive waste were dropped into the English Channel between 1950 and 1963. Experts have assumed that the containers had long since rusted open, spreading the radioactivity throughout the ocean and thus rendering it innocuous. But a new investigative report from the joint French-German public broadcaster ARTE has concluded that the waste is still intact at the bottom of the sea.


The level of radioactivity are unbelievable. Just add another environmental disaster the many that are brewing around the world from big energy. Check out the levels in the barrels.


As part of an investigative report set to air on April 23, affiliated German public broadcaster SWR sent an unmanned, remote-controlled submarine into the canal's depths, where they discovered two nuclear waste barrels at a depth of 124 meters (406 feet) just kilometers from the French coast. Jettisoned by both the British and the Belgians, the containers hold some of the estimated 17,224 metric tons of low-level radioactive waste dumped in the English Channel's underwater valley known as Hurd's Deep, just north of the isle of Alderney, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The British barrels are estimated to have contained 58 trillion becquerels (units of radioactivity), while the Belgian barrels held some 2.4 trillion bequerels. By way of comparison, the European Union's limit for drinking water is 10 becquerels per liter.


Source

Now add this to Chernobyl, Fukushima, ans potentially San Onofre in the near future and we can see that besides nuclear accidents contaminating the world, we have innumerable radioactive waste in who knows where waiting to be released into the environment and contaminate sea life, land,& air. This is a problem that needs to be addressed to find a permanent way to dispose of said waste safely, Just dumping it in the deep ocean is not a solution. These are just British and Belgian waste barrels. It make one wonder what other countries have done with waste around the world.

edit on 27/4/13 by spirit_horse because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
This is seriously disgusting. How could any sane person think just dumping Nuclear radioactive material into the ocean will be ok and just disperse it enough to not do anything...

Who are these idiots who did this and can we hold them accountable for their stupid actions! It doesn't affect just one nation, but all nations, animals, sea creatures, people on earth. Stupid gits!



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   
The funny thing was i was watching the 1970's program UFO and they was dumping nerve gas into some deep sea trench so perhaps truth is not stranger than fiction



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Great Catch OP! I seem to recall a big expose' in USA Today years ago that covered other "known" dumping grounds around the world for radioactive waste. People scream at the idea America stacks this poison on-site but at least it's still there and can be handled. Many others have apparently been making that aspect of nuclear power and weapons develop vanish by just dropping it into the deep oceans. One site in the Southern Ocean comes to mind as a particularly "popular" dump for radioactive waste.


Scary stuff.... it's like they really thought 'out of sight, out of mind'. Yeah, I guess it is too. For awhile ....



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Yea, I just don't understand how anyone can think dumping waste in the ocean is a good idea. And this is probably just one of a lot of dumping sites. And I am not sure they are going to be able to clean up the site like some politicians were wanting. The barrels are rusted and are also pretty deep.... I am not sure it wouldn't be more risky trying to clean it up and having it spread around than leaving it in place.



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Whilst I find the idea of dumping any untreated waste at sea somewhat disgusting and short-sighted, I do have a question...

If they assumed the containers had rusted open long ago and hadn't been overly bothered by that assumption, why are they now upset at the waste still being inside it's containers? Surely they would eventually rust and, slowly, release the waste as previously assumed.

I note that the OP says there is many times more radiation than permitted by EU law, but if the containers did rust and leak, you wouldn't have all that material escape at once, but slowly over time making the numbers quoted nothing more than sensationalism, really.



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
I note that the OP says there is many times more radiation than permitted by EU law, but if the containers did rust and leak, you wouldn't have all that material escape at once, but slowly over time making the numbers quoted nothing more than sensationalism, really.


First off, I did not say anything about EU law and the numbers. That is directly from the article if you read it. The article written by authentic reporters would be the ones you need to question.

The numbers quoted are from their investigation of the site, and other research. You call it sensationalism, they call it researched facts.

Maybe I am misinterpreting what you said. Since the information on the laws of the EU and numbers were in the post, you may not have been directing that at me, but the writers of the article.

edit on 27/4/13 by spirit_horse because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by spirit_horse
 


Indeed you are misinterpreting, so keep your knickers on
!

OP = Opening post, which includes the article. It wasn't meant to mean you or what you said personally, but simply the information contained within.

Now, I am not disputing their figures, what I am saying is that it is highly unlikely that all 28 thousand barrels will leak ALL their material at the same time, but rather slowly as previously thought they would, so it is sensationalist of the article to paint the picture that all of that radioactivity will be released in such a manner.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Unfortunately, both water temperature and turbulence decreases towards the sea bed. So, reduced water temperature would slow down rusting, and the lack of turbulence would further reduce any chemical processes. Being in a canal would further reduce these effects. They could either create a concrete sarcophagus underwater and move the barrels into it, or retrieve them.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   
KK- I know VERY little about Nuclear anything but I have a question.

Wouldn't it be far better to bury our Nuclear waste in the middle of a desert somewhere where its already barren and virtually lifeless (I realize there is life in the Desert) VS the Oceans? I mean, we get food, water and a myriad of life sustaining things from the Oceans and dumping waste there seems ludicrous. Yes, we continue to have more and more waste every year- Why not centralize it in the desert?

I know its off topic but I am curious why anyone would choose the Ocean?





new topics
top topics
 
5

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant