| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
accadacca
Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Posts: 7035
Location: The Interwebs
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:13 pm Post subject: Railcar Leak in South Salt Lake - Hazardous Chemicals |
|
|
http://kutv.com/siteSearch/local_story_066073738.html
I saw this story on the news early this week. The jokers filled it up with some nasty stuff. The sucker combusted right near downtown. :gloom:
We had a debate about stuff like this in another post. This helps confirm my argument that nuclear waste should not some thru Utah. For this very reason! :nono:
Send it somewhere else, just not here! :2gun: |
|
| Back to top |
|
rockgremlin
Joined: 09 Dec 2004
Posts: 3824
Location: Hotel California
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well for one thing, when they transport nuclear waste, they don't just lump it all in some generic railcar and ship it off. There are a whole different set of standards in place for transporting nuclear wastes.
Again, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: We can't adopt the NIMBY (not in my back yard) mentality. It's irresponsible. So you don't want it coming through Utah. Do you think residents in any other state feel differently? If noone agrees to transport the stuff, then we're at a stalemate, and it just builds up, and builds up until stockpiles are enormous! What then?
We have to face the music. It has to be transported at some point, it's inevitable. Nuclear waste is about the LAST thing you should play hot potato with!! "I don't want it, YOU take it! No, I don't want it, YOU take it!!" It's ridiculous, and it gets us nowhere.
Maybe we should just stick our heads in the sand, and pretend it's not there, - oh wait, we're already DOING that!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
accadacca
Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Posts: 7035
Location: The Interwebs
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
:boxing: I knew this would get you going. :lol8:
rockgremlin wrote: Well for one thing, when they transport nuclear waste, they don't just lump it all in some generic railcar and ship it off. There are a whole different set of standards in place for transporting nuclear wastes.
Transportation is the main problem that I have. :nod: There have been too many documented cases of spills due to inproper handling. You get these half breeds loading & transporting the stuff and its a recipe for disaster. :whoops: I will have to track down some of the stories.
rockgremlin wrote: Maybe we should just stick our heads in the sand, and pretend it's not there, - oh wait, we're already DOING that!!
:roll_lol: :roll_lol: |
|
| Back to top |
|
rockgremlin
Joined: 09 Dec 2004
Posts: 3824
Location: Hotel California
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well then, what do you propose we do with it? Wave a magic wand? If Utah doesn't want it, and Nevada doesn't want it, and Arizona doesn't want it, etc, etc, etc, then how are we gonna resolve the situation?
Ya, I know there are risks involved. Spills have occurred in the past. But at the same time, the stuff has to be dealt with at some point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
sharp
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I AGREE WITH ROCKGREMLIN IT HAS TO GO SOMWERE AND THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A RISK BUT WATA YOU DO IF NV WANTS IT LET THEM HAVE IT I KNOW THAT ALOT OF LITTLE TOWNS THERE WERE COUNTING ON IT FOR THE RAILROAD AND THERE ECONEMIE |
|
| Back to top |
|
accadacca
Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Posts: 7035
Location: The Interwebs
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
sharp wrote: I AGREE WITH ROCKGREMLIN IT HAS TO GO SOMWERE AND THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A RISK BUT WATA YOU DO IF NV WANTS IT LET THEM HAVE IT I KNOW THAT ALOT OF LITTLE TOWNS THERE WERE COUNTING ON IT FOR THE RAILROAD AND THERE ECONEMIE
I would say send it to Tooele. They are used to it! :jump_nutt:
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that they have been breathing some nasty stuff. :gloom:
Does it show? I better not go there! :naughty: |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
