View Full Version : 'Ghost ships' at Nigg proposal
I see that yet another knee jerk reaction has been immediately issued by some of Highland Council regarding the possibility of decommissioning ships at the old Nigg yard. The press hype shouts about 'ghost' or 'toxic' ships to make it sound dramatic and someone feels duty bound to bring out the NIMBY attitude straight away.
The fact seems to be that a responsible company, which has to follow strict environmental guidelines, wants to decommission these ships in a dry dock area. This therefore does not mean (as headlines imply) that they are going split open a floating hull, spewing all manner of chemicals into the firth!! :roll: Get a grip Councillers and find out the facts before turning away business from the area!
My point of concern about the issue would be to ensure that there are waste disposal routes identified as part of the planning consent. I wouldn't like to see piles of scrap lying around the coast, but I somehow don't think that is what is proposed. And let's face it, even if it was, it couldn't look any worse than the unofficial car scrap yards all round Caithness....
Fifi, check this out, would you want this toxic stuff on your door step....I know I would not.
Highland Council are right
http://www.ghostships.co.uk/
No, I wouldn't want them either. The US should deal with its own toxic mess.
In March, Washington district Judge Rosemary Collyer dismissed a case brought by environmentalists who said the vessels were laden with dangerous chemicals such as asbestos and cancer-causing PCBs and as such their export would violate US laws.
I doubt that they are laden with PCBs and asbestos unless they have cargo holds that have been unemptied... there will be some asbestos but there are specialist firms and measures to dispose of it properly, I can't see what the problem is. These chemicals are nothing what we as Britons have dealt with before.
Golach, just carefully look at the language that is used on that propaganda that you are peddling, it appeals to the misinformed and the easily frightened.
Well, apparently the "quantity of asbestos per ship was no more than 100 tons (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/09/04/ghost.fleet.reut/)". Oh yeah, Rheghead, that's hardly laden. :eek: :confused
Don't forget that the plan is to strip the ships of the asbestos and PCPs (which are cancerous and were banned in the 70s) and dump them in landfill sites.
Teeside already has 4 of these ships. I think the UK's done enough already.
Whitewater
02-Jun-05, 22:46
I don't like the idea of handling waste from other countries, we can't handle our own properly. If the stuff is harmless why don't they keep it and dispose of it themselves.
We certainly do not want to be a dumping ground for waste from America or anywhere else for that matter.
The government might be getting paid well for it but what are they going to do with it then, I don't think that this is the sort of legacy we should be leaving our children and grandchildren. [mad]
Well, apparently the "quantity of asbestos per ship was no more than 100 tons (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/09/04/ghost.fleet.reut/)". Oh yeah, Rheghead, that's hardly laden. :eek: :confused
Don't forget that the plan is to strip the ships of the asbestos and PCPs (which are cancerous and were banned in the 70s) and dump them in landfill sites.
Teeside already has 4 of these ships. I think the UK's done enough already.
Drutt, you have obviously been drawn into the scaremongering of this whole issue. Can you quantitatively state how much asbestos will be removed from these ships?
I could easily say "the quantity of asbestos per ship was no more than 900 tons" Gawd even worse!! But I would still won't be telling a lie because I have been soooo inspecific. The reality may well be no more than a tonne of asbestos, an average roof of a pre 1960s roof. In return, Nigg gets a handy contract and some prosperity.
Similiarly, I could easily say that the quantity of cancer causing burnt toast per ship was no more than 100 tons, Gawd, send them back for goodness sake!!!!
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...
Well, apparently the "quantity of asbestos per ship was no more than 100 tons (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/09/04/ghost.fleet.reut/)". Oh yeah, Rheghead, that's hardly laden. :eek: :confused
Don't forget that the plan is to strip the ships of the asbestos and PCPs (which are cancerous and were banned in the 70s) and dump them in landfill sites.
Teeside already has 4 of these ships. I think the UK's done enough already.
Drutt, you have obviously been drawn into the scaremongering of this whole issue. Can you quantitatively state how much asbestos will be removed from these ships?
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...
Err - a little asbestos is a dangerous thing also, and I doubt if you Rheghead - know for sure either. "A little knowledge........." - A very clumsy parting shot at another thread contributor.
Let's not become a dumping ground for waste from other countries - the same happens with nuclear waste.
Since the Americans undoubtadly have the technology to deal with asbestos at source - you have to think it is just a bit arrogant to send it elsewhere for disposal.
They are saying: "We can afford not to deal with our own waste" Good for you!
Err - a little asbestos is a dangerous thing also, and I doubt if you Rheghead - know for sure either. "A little knowledge........." - A very clumsy parting shot at another thread contributor.
Well, I have qualifications in the identification, health concerns and disposal of asbestos. I have worked as a chemist and as an engineer and have worked with asbestos in shipbuilding for over twenty years.
If there is a bigger asbestos nerd here please let me know...
Err - a little asbestos is a dangerous thing also, and I doubt if you Rheghead - know for sure either. "A little knowledge........." - A very clumsy parting shot at another thread contributor.
Well, I have qualifications in the identification, health concerns and disposal of asbestos. I have worked as a chemist and as an engineer and have worked with asbestos in shipbuilding for over twenty years.
If there is a bigger asbestos nerd here please let me know...
Good for you - that's nice
MarineEngineer
Well, I have qualifications in the identification, health concerns and disposal of asbestos. I have worked as a chemist and as an engineer and have worked with asbestos in shipbuilding for over twenty years.
If there is a bigger asbestos nerd here please let me know...
As mareng said, that's nice for you. Truly. Go wallow in your expertise if it makes you feel special.
I still don't see why, under any circumstances, asbestos and PCPs from the US need to be buried in UK landfill sites. That's not about scaremongering. That's about thinking that every country should be responsible for its own toxic waste.
Rheghead, check this out, the hulks brought over last year have still not been touched and are still lying in Hartlepool, why should they be brought to Nigg,
http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/toxicghostfleet_teeside.htm
Im sorry this is what I meant to post
Golach - the sites that you have posted links to are not supporting your argument!! In all of them they are either press comment (designed to hype the issue) or in the last one a very well presented support of the project, quote "Does it not occur to anyone that Able UK are developing a skill which will help to preserve our battered planet, not destroy it. They know how to take ships to pieces safely. They must conform to the most stringent safety regulations overseen by the most diligent regulator in the world – the Health and Safety Executive. They have got the job because the Americans do not have the resources themselves, not because it is necessary for them to export their problems. Dismantling these relatively innocuous vessels in Hartlepool, is great opportunity, for the Company with the contract, the working population of Teesside, the ship-owners of the world and finally the population of the planet."
What's your point??
Well, I have qualifications in the identification, health concerns and disposal of asbestos. I have worked as a chemist and as an engineer and have worked with asbestos in shipbuilding for over twenty years.
If there is a bigger asbestos nerd here please let me know...
As mareng said, that's nice for you. Truly. Go wallow in your expertise if it makes you feel special.
I still don't see why, under any circumstances, asbestos and PCPs from the US need to be buried in UK landfill sites. That's not about scaremongering. That's about thinking that every country should be responsible for its own toxic waste.
Spot on Drutt - and they will never consider these recycling centres down in the southern counties of England either.
We are rapidly becoming known as the dustbin of Europe.
Well, I can only see a lot of benefits from this contract to dismantle these ships.
The Able U.K. website (http://www.ableuk.com/index.htm) gives very good info on what they are capable of doing. They are recyclers of ships, what better way to ease global warming and the environment than to recycle ship machinery into other ships and the steel plate? The asbestos is going to landfill, it is a natural substance that doesn't degrade, so will not leak into the soils, in fact they are simply putting it back from where it came, into the ground.
This contract will give much needed work to bolster prosperity in the downturn from the oil and gas sector.
what better way to ease global warming and the environment than to recycle ship machinery into other ships and the steel plate?
Sure, but why can't the US deal with their own decomposing, disintegrating ship carcasses?
The asbestos is going to landfill, it is a natural substance that doesn't degrade, so will not leak into the soils, in fact they are simply putting it back from where it came, into the ground.
And what of the PCPs which were banned in the 70s due to their links with cancer?
This contract will give much needed work to bolster prosperity in the downturn from the oil and gas sector.
Are we really so desperate for work that we need toxic waste from the US?
Drutt, Im with you all the way
I suppose that since Able UK can dispose of this safely and responsibly then your objections have no grounding in terms of health and safety, moreover, they have deeper roots in terms of anti-American sentiment?
I suppose that since Able UK can dispose of this safely and responsibly then your objections have no grounding in terms of health and safety, moreover, they have deeper roots in terms of anti-American sentiment?
I can't tell if you're deliberately misreading me, Rheghead, or, well, I shan't linger on the alternative explanations. [disgust]
I thought I'd made it clear that I thought that all countries should deal with their own toxic waste. This applies to all developed and developing countries, regardless of wealth or expertise. If you can't deal with the waste, don't produce it. It has nothing to do with the fact that these ships have come from the US, other than the fact that they have both the wealth and expertise to deal with them, which means I absolutely see no reason whatsoever why they should have been sent here.
Let's not forget that these 4 ships were sent on their journeys here before the appropriate consent and approval had been obtained. Let's not forget that this has led the British government to feel compelled to agree to their being dealt with in the UK, rather than have them face a second risky journey across the Atlantic.
We ought also to not forget that the plan had been to take the ships through the Pentland Firth, rather than the English Channel, and there have been no assurances that future 'ghost ships' would not take the originally planned route, despite concerns about the environmental risks posed.
The US is "the only developed country that has not ratified the 1989 Basel Convention, an international agreement aimed at stemming the shipment of hazardous waste (http://www.guardian.co.uk/waste/story/0,12188,1086648,00.html)".
According to the same article in the Guardian, "seven years ago Bill Clinton ruled that the US navy's "ghost fleet" of 120 decomposing hulks could not be scrapped in developing countries because their pollution and toxic loads risked the lives of shipyard workers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/waste/story/0,12188,1034598,00.html)" (my emphasis).
According to this site (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles9/Lobe_Toxic-Ghost-Ships.htm), "Clinton outlawed the sale of mothballed ships for scrap overseas both because of the environmental hazards they posed to ocean waters" but this was overturned by George W Bush's administration, despite the fact that several US companies bid for the contract that Able UK won. They have the technology to deal with these ships right there in Virginia!
Friends of the Earth, the RSPB, and local groups in Teeside asked for the export to be stopped. The Environment Agency has expressed concerns. Yet still the wishes of the Bush administration seem to take precendence.
Environmental groups in the US have also sought to block their export, because they acknowledge the dangers posed by their journey across the Atlantic, as well as the risks posed to the environment and workers at their destination.
The export of these ships sets a dangerous precedent. Though you may argue, Rheghead, that Able UK is more than capable of dealing with these ships, their contract is for only 13 ships. The US has around 150 ships that could be exported to developing countries instead (such as China and India), because it would be cheaper. That these countries have less advanced technology, fewer environmental controls and an appalling approach to worker protection does not appear to concern the Bush administration.
As responsible citizens, with regards to both the environment and the welfare of developing countries, I believe it is imperative that we tell the US to deal with its own waste, rather than rub our hands with glee at the prospect of a few jobs at Nigg.
If you think that my opinions are based in anti-American sentiment, then you clearly have no ability to see the world from another's eyes.
If a bit of temporary employment really is our primary goal, I truly despair.
Able UK should take whatever job meets their abilities.
Silly to think that every country must take care of its own. Why can't every country simply hire the best company to do the work in an environmentally safe way?
Whoever wants the job can earn the money for the good work they do. Anything else than that is anti (fill in any non UK country). :eyes
I thought I'd made it clear that I thought that all countries should deal with their own toxic waste.
As fandango says, it is folly to think that every country should look after their own waste, has it occurred to you that they aren't capable? In respect to spent nuclear fuel rods, would you rather that radioactive isotopes be available for terrorist use when Sellafield has a controlled system for reprocessing and return system?
Drutt, I mostly respect and agree with your views, but surely given your past theme of posts, you would be the last person who would be denying those third world countries the technologies that we enjoy in the west?
This isn't the proper route to take on a moral level, is it?
I thought I'd made it clear that I thought that all countries should deal with their own toxic waste.
As fandango says, it is folly to think that every country should look after their own waste, has it occurred to you that they aren't capable? In respect to spent nuclear fuel rods, would you rather that radioactive isotopes be available for terrorist use when Sellafield has a controlled system for reprocessing and return system?
To which countries are you referring? Which countries would be making radioactive isotopes available for terrorist use? Surely, if this were occuring, there would be greater issues to deal with than 'selling' Sellafield as the place to send your radioactive material?
I am very much in favour of the use of nuclear power, but don't believe that to be grounds for making Sellafield an international nuclear dumping site.
...surely given your past theme of posts, you would be the last person who would be denying those third world countries the technologies that we enjoy in the west?
This isn't the proper route to take on a moral level, is it?
I would in no way suggest that third world countries should be deprived of available technologies should they be able to benefit from them.
That said, there are 2 important issues to consider.
1) Countries which disregard or downplay environmental protections and/or worker protections should not, imo, be assisted with acquiring technologies in which we, in the UK, or by international standards, would regard such environmental or worker safety concerns as paramount. Such assistance should only be available where those countries were prepared to adopt and meet acceptable standards.
You may think that I would be attempting to keep developing countries from developing. I would ask why the health of a worker in China is worth less than that of a worker in the UK.
2) The Bush administration has not, to date, demonstrated a concern for how developing countries deal with toxic waste, environmental protection, worker safety etc. In fact, you could argue that between its import tariffs and taxes, farmer subsidies, trade sanctions and the imposition of 'free trade' on developing countries, it has done everything it can to keep developing countries 'in their place' (though that issue is for another thread).
What would make you think they'd assist them with developing advanced technologies, even to deal with waste from the US? I'd be highly suspicious that it'd be more a case of 'out of sight, out of mind' as they rub their hands with glee at having seen the back of the toxic ships at a cheap price.
Could they not get a Tesco, Argos and homebase at Nigg - that would solve all their problems.
Well, apparently the "quantity of asbestos per ship was no more than 100 tons (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/09/04/ghost.fleet.reut/)". Oh yeah, Rheghead, that's hardly laden. :eek: :confused
Don't forget that the plan is to strip the ships of the asbestos and PCPs (which are cancerous and were banned in the 70s) and dump them in landfill sites.
. There are no landfill sites in Highland that can take asbestos, anyway once its below the ground it's not much of a hazard, much less hazard trhat in a ship at least. :)
Maybe a commercial idea for someone then, as asbestos is considered a non-reactive hazardous waste which can be disposed off in a non-hazardous landfill (provided it has a seperate cell dedicated only to asbestos).
Could they not get a Tesco, Argos and homebase at Nigg - that would solve all their problems.
They could build them on top of the landfill site after it has been checked and landscaped. Problem soved, everybody is happy.
frank ward
04-Jun-05, 10:55
> SSP: Highland Council must rule out break up of toxic ships
>
> Scottish Socialist Party national convenor Colin Fox MSP today called on
> Highland Council to specifically rule out planning permission for the
break
> up of US toxic ships at the Nigg Yard.
> Colin also called on Highland Council to state that their preferred option
> for the Nigg Yard is for the building of renewable energy technology.
> On a visit to Inverness just before the General Election Colin visited
> 'Wavegen' which is a world leader in marine renewable energy.
>
> Colin said today;
> "I have spoken to people in Inverness and the surrounding area today and
the
> message is very clear; they want Highland Council to specifically rule out
> planning permission for break up of these floating environmental disasters
> at Nigg.
> "The threat to the environment is very clear and this part of Scotland in
> particular has to be protected from the danger that these ships pose.
> "The question of the future of Nigg is also very important to the people
of
> the area and I am calling on Highland Council to state clearly that their
> preferred option would be for the yard to be used for the production of
> renewable energy technology.
> "Currently the problem is that there is no public strategic plan for
> renewables and no public money.
> "The SSP is the only party that clearly raises the need for the public
> ownership of key industries so that we can begin to plan our energy needs
as
> part of a strategy to save the planet from environmental catastrophe."
> [ends]
Is there not a contradiction here Frank? If we are to take a “holistic” look at the problem, does it not make sense to remove these “floating environmental disasters” or are the SSP just like all the other parties who advocate the NIMBY approach to curry them local favour.
And this centre for renewable energy, is this another one? Or am I confused, I thought I read that there was a proposal to use the Dounreay site as a centre for renewable energy research………nothing hard and fast of course, probably just another sound bite from a politician (sic). Perhaps you could furnish us with the SSPs proposals for energy of the future.
Maybe a commercial idea for someone then, as asbestos is considered a non-reactive hazardous waste which can be disposed off in a non-hazardous landfill (provided it has a seperate cell dedicated only to asbestos). Mmmm, someone's been reading the EA website :cool:
Wrong, I actually found it here:
http://www.sepa.org.uk/pdf/guidance/landfill_directive/Disposal_Asbestos_Wastes.pdf
But I only searched to see if there were any different regulations for disposal in Scotland than those that are internatioanlly accepted.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.