Farmer and school girl stop nuke waste train (Germany)

[diamond14]

Farmer and school girl stop nuke waste train
von Diet Simon, adapting de.IndyMedia postings - 09.07.2004 11:25

A pupil and a farmer stopped a nuclear waste train on Wednesday by chaining themselves to the tracks in France just across the border with Germany. The protesters claim they were pretty brutally handled by the French gendarmes who removed them from the track.

The train was carrying four Castor waste containers from the shut-down nuclear power station at Stade near Hamburg in northern Germany to the plutonium factory at La Hague. It was stopped outside Kesseldorf near Lauterbourg.

http://germany.indymedia.org/2004/07/87162.shtml

[Heyo]

1. These people irk me....

Ever since they tried to stop Cassini.

Heyo

[geek tragedy]

2. Screwing around with a train full of radioactive waste

is an unambiguously idiotic idea.

[seventhson]

3. God Bless them. SOIMEBODY has to stand up to the fascists like Halliburton

that promote deadly nukes

a farmer and a sdchoolgirl are the only righteous human beings with the courage to do this and risk their lives for the benefit of humanity?

Shame on anyone who denigrates them!

We should all look to them for leadership and courage.

What a sad planet of stupid and suicidal humans we are.

[Massacure]

5. You would have been singing a different tune had the train derailed

Had it hit them.

[MadHound]

12. Had the train derailed,

The nuclear material would be just fine. The containers this stuff is shipped in have been designed to go through every possible scenario, including fires and massive explosions, and still safely contain the nuclear material inside.

I applaud these brave German citizens, and hope that there are more like them here in the US, for soon many of us will have thousands of tons of nuclear material going through our backyards on it's way to Yucca Mt.

[Massacure]

13. If they are so indestructable why do you oppose them so much?

[MadHound]

16. A number of reasons

Human error, long term damage, the fact that everything going through our back yards is going to Yucca Mt., where these containers will be unpacked and warehoused, the better to seep into groundwater.

Transport containers, barring human error(which is extremely minimized due to multiple redundancy checking) are extremely safe. They are subjected to multiple drop tests, explosions, fire, etc etc. But once these containers reach their destination, they are unpacked and shipped back where they came from.

Another objection is that though these containers are safe, they will not fully shield from everything, some radiation will still get through. Therefore, if you live near a highway or railline, expect your background radiation level to go up.

[wuushew]

17. Do you work for the coal industry?

n/t

[treepig]

4. an example of doing the right thing for the wrong reason

if the "right thing" is defined as attempting to protect the environment - stopping a (most likely diesel-powered) train reduces fossil-fuel derived air pollution that kills hundreds of thousands of people each year.

and i suppose that stopping the shipment of commercial power plant nuclear waste - which has killed two people ever - is also a damn fine thing to be doing.

these people are all-round heroes! bravo!

[seventhson]

10. If Dick Cheney were on your doorstep preparing to deliver nuclear sludge

to your children's bedroom, would you put your life on the line to prevent it?

[treepig]

15. well, at least there's a chance his pace maker will give out at

the last minute and my child will be spared.

unlike the fossil fuel generated air polution that's constantly invading my child's bedroom, that comes over all by itself, and - just like the terminator - cannot be stopped.

[seventhson]

20. Radiation spew from nuke plants is coming into your kids' bedrooms

and is far deadlier - though you knew that already didn't you?

Not ONE child tested in America has been found who is not been contaminated with man made radiation from the nuke industry:

www.radiation.org

you can defend that all you want or raise the red herring of fossil fuels (which I also oppose for the most part), but it does not change the fact that nuke waste is contaminating the globe and is causing millions of cancers.

I have cited my sources and you raise the same old claims that such radiation is safe or even good for us. That is insanity or worse.

Whatever - intelligent people will look at the facts (hopefully) and judge whether the Bush-Cheney nuke plans are safe or whether they are a new form of terrorism which poisons all of us.

[treepig]

21. so you're back on the "man-made" radiation kick

no point going through that song and dance again, since the information presented in post #14 appears to be incomprehensible to you.

anyhow, if you consider the 0.009 mrem of radiation spewed from a nuclear power plant to be so deadly, i trust you've never ventured into your basement, which - if it's typical - will expose you to ~200 mrem of radiation - or some 20,000 times more.

in any event, the quantity of radioisotopes released from burning coal in "conventional" power plants dwarfs the amount released from commercial nuclear power plants. so, if one is worried about being poisoned from nuclear waste, the sensible first targets to try to get closed down would be the coal-powered plants.

shutting them down would have the added benefit of preventing 20,000 premature deaths a year in the usa (and up to 1,000,000 in china) from non-radiaton-related pollution.

[seventhson]

22. The problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that...

different radioiusotopes have different effects on us.

Ingested and inhaled radioisitopes from nuke plants in our backyards are different in form from that in coal and hence have a different kind of impact.

strointium 90, for example, gets into the food cycle and then is ingested and is absorbed into our boines and teeth and ultimately into our reporductive organs and soft tissue where the decaying isotopes cause mutations, cancer and genetic damage .

I honestly do NOT know what types of radiation are in the burned coal -- but that is not my argument. I know that minimizing the dangers of nuke pollution which is affecting my children and yours is not solved by idle claims that coal is worse.

It is like saying whether you prefer a bullet to the brain or a decapitation - if it is deadly it should be opposed.

[treepig]

31. different radioisotopes have different effects due to their chemical

properties, not due to their radiation properties.

for example, strontium has similar chemical properties to calcium, and therefore can be localized to sites in the body where calcium is usually found.

besides your (incorrectly labeled) "man-made" radioisotopes, lots of naturally-occuring radioisotopes are found in the body (based on a 70,000 g person):

Nuclide
Total Steady-state Mass of Nuclide Found in the Body
Total Activity of Nuclide Found in the Body
Daily Intake of Nuclides

Uranium 90 µg 30 pCi (1.1 Bq) 1.9 µg
Thorium 30 µg 3 pCi (0.11 Bq) 3 µg
Potassium 40 17 mg 120 nCi (4.4 kBq) 0.39 mg
Radium 31 pg 30 pCi (1.1 Bq) 2.3 pg
Carbon 14 95 µg 0.4 µCi (15 kBq) 1.8 µg
Tritium 0.06 pg 0.6 nCi (23 Bq) 0.003 pg
Polonium 0.2 pg 1 nCi (37 Bq) ~0.6 µg

from: http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm

note that due to their chemical properties, K40, C14, and H3 all are incorporated into cells and their components, much like strontium 90 is into teeth.

interestingly (but not surprisingly) the radiation.org site does not prominently display the amount of strontium in teeth (and presumably bones). but, if you're persistent, it's about 160 mBq per gram of calcium. the body is about 1.5% calcium by mass, so that means the 70,000 g person would have about 1 kg of calcium, which would mean the maximum body burden of radiation due to "man-made" strontium would be about 160 Bq. but, by totalling the natural level of radiation indicated above, the "man-made" component is 160 Bq compared to ~19,500 Bq of "natural" radiation appears rather insignificant. in this case, i submit that it's more or less common sense that if the body defend itself against 20,000 units of natural radiation, it will not even notice the over 100-fold lower level of "man-made" radiation.

but if common sense isn't good enough, let's consider that a child's tooth contains 1 gram of calcium and becomes laden with nuclear power plant-spewed strontium. according the to radiation.org's god-like researchers, this tooth will be laden with 160 mBq of strontium which means that there will be 13,824 disintegrations (beta decay) per day, each at an energy of 0.546 MeV. subsequently, each emitted electron loses it's energy in a series of step-wise interactions with its surroundings generating a maximum of ~10,000 reactive oxygen species aka free radicals (in round numbers, see http://www.photobiology.com/educational/len/part2.htm if you want to do exact calculations). while these numbers - a total of 138,240,000 may seem large, they are - and remeber they are for an entire tooth - roughly only 1% of those generated naturally every day in a single cell (where 10 billion result from normal metabolism each day, see http://www.lfr.com/news/EBulletins/e-bulletin016.htm).

the bottom line is the the tiny amount of cellular damage caused by man-made radiation is literally a drop in the bucket of that caused by either natural radiation or natural metabolism (perhaps you wish to suggest to your family that they stop eating if they're worried about disease?). if you wish to continue to promote psuedoscience tothe contrary, that's fine, just stupid.

[donsu]

6. I applaud all attempts to stop everything nuclear

nt

[treepig]

7. i'm sure the millions of sick and ill people who would suffer

if your efforts reached fruition greatly appreciate your attitude.

One in three hospitalized patients are diagnosed or treated with radioisotopes, with 36,000 diagnostic imaging procedures and almost 100 million laboratory tests conducted annually.

http://www.cbvcp.com/nmrc/

oh well, as long as you can live in your nuclear-free world . . .

[seventhson]

9. Mo' better nukes from Treepig

the official voice of nucular reasoning on the boards

Nukes are killing people globally and the waste will be killing people for aeons.

www.radiation.org

http://www.euradcom.org/2003/execsumm.htm

excerpt from European study summary:

10. The committee concludes that the present cancer epidemic is a consequence of exposures to global atmospheric weapons fallout in the period 1959-63 and that more recent releases of radioisotopes to the environment from the operation of the nuclear fuel cycle will result in significant increases in cancer and other types of ill health.

11. Using both the ECRR's new model and that of the ICRP the committee calculates the total number of deaths resulting from the nuclear project since 1945. The ICRP calculation, based on figures for doses to populations up to 1989 given by the United Nations, results in 1,173,600 deaths from cancer. The ECRR model predicts 61,600,000 deaths from cancer, 1,600,000 infant deaths and 1,900,000 foetal deaths. In addition, the ECRR predict a 10% loss of life quality integrated over all diseases and conditions in those who were exposed over the period of global weapons fallout.

12. The committee lists its recommendations. The total maximum permissible dose to members of the public arising from all human practices should not be more than 0.1mSv, with a value of 5mSv for nuclear workers. This would severely curtail the operation of nuclear power stations and reprocessing plants, and this reflects the committee's belief that nuclear power is a costly way of producing energy when human health deficits are included in the overall assessment. All new practices must be justified in such a way that the rights of all individuals are considered. Radiation exposures must be kept as low as reasonably achievable using best available technology. Finally, the environmental consequences of radioactive discharges must be assessed in relation to the total environment, including both direct and indirect effects on all living systems.

[treepig]

14. ok i'll bite

and point out yet again that there's a vast difference between science from web-sites (which you love), and science from peer-reviewed research papers (which can be found by following the PUBMED link at the NIH's site: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ).

for example, the statement

epidemiological data fail to demonstrate detrimental effects of ionising radiation at absorbed doses smaller than 100-200 mSv.

from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12719923

makes the recommendation of "the committee" you cite that human exposure should be maintained under 0.1 mSv a bit odd. in fact, if you go to the EPA's "calculate your background exposure page" at

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/students/calculate.html

you'll find that radon alone (listed at 200 mrem, which is equal to 0.2 mSv) is double the maximum allowed dose according to this committee. then if you fly or live at high altitudes, you're really screwed! naturally!!

then the same link makes ridiculous statements such as:

Novel exposures include internal exposures to artificial isotopes like Strontium-90 and Plutonium-239 but also include micrometer range aggregates of isotopes (hot particles) which may consist of entirely man-made isotopes (e.g. plutonium).

these isotopes of course existed naturally during life's early stages, courtesy of the oklo natural breeder reactor (see http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/centre/waisrc/OKLO/ ) and cells have evolved defense mechanisms that allow them to cope with low to moderate levels of these, and all other radioisotopes, quite adequately.

[donsu]

19. and nuclear waste poisons how many more

a vicious circle


I'll like nuclear when they discover how to make the waste harmless.

[jpak]

8. Get ready USA

The DOE estimates that 35,000 to 100,000 rail and truck shipments will be required to transport spent nuclear fuel and other high level nuclear waste to the Yucca Mountain depository.

...and I applaud the protesters.

[geek tragedy]

11. Nuke fuel must be banned!

It's not like fossil fuels cause any problems.

[KDLarsen]

18. What were they trying to achieve?

I mean, this nuclear waste came from a shut-down nuclear power station - were they trying to make the train turn around, go back and restart it?

I'm a bit split on the topic of nuclear power - on one hand we've got to realize that the current methods of producing electricity, through oil or coal, is not an option a few decades down the road. Not to mention the immediate polution introduced to the air. And while the introduction of alternative energy sources (wind power for one) is going ahead, it's AFAIK no where near enough to cover the current energy requirement - not to mention the future requirement (look out for Chinese & Indian populations to require more energy in the future, as they're able to buy more luxury items that requires electricity). So, what's the current alternative, that really doesn't add any immediate polution? Nuclear Power - with all the hassles it does introduce.

[seventhson]

23. But that is the Big Lie

Nuclear power plants during operation and shutdown generally emit radionucleide pollutants into the air, water and ground.

A decommissioned plant in Connecticut has a nuclear plume into the groundwater that may extend up to 20 miles into heavily populated areas.

Brookhaven in NY had terrible groundwater problems from seepage and the highest breast cancer rates in NY state.

It is a bald faced lie for anyone to say there is no radioactive, mutagenic and carcinogenic releases from these plants.

The question really is whether what we are exposed to daily from these plants is likely to kill us and, if so, how likely and how soon.

Treepigs position is that it is safe and that fossil fuels are far more dangerous. My position, based on scientific data and peer reviewed studies I have read and my experience working for a Congressman who sat an unvironmental subcommittee with nuke jurisdiction, is that the long term and immediate dangers are FAR worse with nuclear.

The data is linked above that I rely on and whether coal and gasoline kills more of us than nukes is arguable, I suppose - but in both instances it is in the millions annually when you consider collateral damage from these noxious elements

[Kool Kitty]

27. Good info.

Great post. :thumbsup:

[Kellanved]

28. wait a second

What sense does it make to protest against a shut-down power plant? The plant is shut down, as will be all German nuclear plants within the decade; the German government is quite sympathetic to the Anti-Nuclear movement.
If it's a protest against Le Havre: let the French Greens handle it; they can invite German Greens should they need more manpower.
Apparently Germans are protesting in France against a shut-down German power plant: :shrug: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

With the pro-nuke French Government and the strict European laws against hindering the rail service, they should count themselves lucky not to be in prison.
Of course protesting in Germany would have been expensive: the police charges protesters for their removal from railway tracks.

[tom_paine]

24. In Imperial Amerika they would have been savagely beaten and arrested

Lucky for them they tried something like this in the Free World, NOT Imperial Amerika.

[seventhson]

25. or simply run over and murdered or maimed (as happened to Brian Willson

that Vietnam veteran activist protesting weapons of mass destruction out west whom they simply ran over, severing both his legs.

He is one of my heroes

[hightime]

29. Deleted message

Just wanted to see if I could make anyone look. :evilgrin:

[tom_paine]

30. Another atrocity pushed into my memory hole by Bushevik use of Trotsky's

Perpetual Revolution.

Yes, that moment was certainly emblematic of the Empire that now rules us.

[librechik]

26. wow. in this country the train just runs them over anyway and won't pay

the hospital bills of the amputees.

Germany--now there's a country where free citizens can make a difference.

eek.