Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Plutonium Shipment to France on the Way

Posted by michael on from the watch-out-for-icebergs dept.

duesi writes "According to BBC News a British vessel is carrying 140 kg of weapons grade plutonium from the US to France to turn it into nuclear fuel. It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to see that this is a dangerous thing... Similar shipments have happened before, for example in 1999 and 2002 but BBC writes that this is the first time weapon grade plutonium has been shipped ever."

8 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. In other news... by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to see that this is a dangerous thing...

    In other news, people do dangerous things every day... Like transport sulfuric acid in train tankers through residential neighborhoods. Some things are dangerous. That's life.

    Environmentalists say it presents a major terrorist target.

    Shouldn't environmentalists be worrying about the environment? How come the article doesn't say anything about *security experts* being worried about this? Couldn't they have found any?

    Greenpeace says the plutonium should be disposed of as nuclear waste to avoid the transport and proliferation risks.

    Right, because being stored in a hole somewere will be safer than reprocessing it and using it. We're much better off with all this weapons grade material sitting around than not existing....

  2. Maybe not the first time. by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    this is the first time weapon grade plutonium has been shipped ever

    It's the first time that the PUBLIC knows about it, but isn't necessarily the first time that weapon grade plutonium has been shipped.

    Big difference.

    --
    94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
    1. Re:Maybe not the first time. by Tailhook · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's the first time that the PUBLIC knows about it

      This is hardly the first time the public knew about it. Weapons grade plutonium is shipped about routinely; in weapons.

      We put on boats. We fly it around in aircraft. We haul it in trucks on public roads. Shipping significant quantities of weapons grade plutonium has been routine for over half a century.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  3. Whats the problem? by Inominate · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Both have a squad of armed police on board from the UK Atomic Energy Agency Constabulary.
    The ships carry naval cannons, have satellite monitoring, twin engines and hull protection.

    These are _armed_ ships, with armed security. An attack on them would require a warship. So north korea or iran or some other nation is going to attack and try and seize this ship? A couple terrorists with guns and a speedboat isn't going to cut it.

    I fail to see how this is any more dangerous than the transportation of any hazardous chemicals, or gold bullion, except it seems to be rather more secure.

    Hooray for sensationalist alarmist stories!

  4. That is the irony, isn't it? by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Greenpeace would rather have the plutonium "disposed of as nuclear waste" while it is still weapons-grade material, rather than truly converted to nuclear waste and made useless for fisson bombs first.

    This is one reason why, despite being an environmentalist, I have little use for today's environmental "movement". The groups who go to great efforts to paint themselves green turn out to be watermelons.

    --

    Sustainability and energy independence essay
    1. Re:That is the irony, isn't it? by ivan256 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's clear what the unspoken meaning is though. They're throwing out red herrings to inderectly support their anti-nuclear power agenda. They don't directly care about potential terrorist threats, they are just anti energy consumption. People like this aren't really environmentalists. Their goal isn't truly to protect the environment, but to enforce a particular lifestyle on others. The members of these organizations have either bought into that policy, are essentially cattle following the group, are horribly misinformed about what is actually best for the environment, or are just plain stupid. Whenever a chance presents it self, the oportunity should be taken to expose groups like greenpeace (and especially greenpeace) as social engineering organizations with goals that are not merely environmental, or in many cases not actualy envorinmental at all. As long as a single person still views what a group like Greenpeace says as credible, there is one too many people believing them.

  5. Re:Penny Henny by RWerp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The French (and other nations opposing the invasion of Iraq) were not afraid of fighting terrorists (Germany, for example, sent a large contingent to Afghanistan) They just prefer to use other methods than blowing up a functioning state and inviting the terrorists from all over the world for a party.

    --
    "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
  6. Non-nukes know nothing by PickyH3D · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's funny, the difference between what people in the [nuclear] industry know, and what many of you think you know.