Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ex-navy chief denies Russia dumped nuclear waste in Baltic Sea
Nuclear Power Daily ^ | 1/05/2010 | AFB

Posted on 02/07/2010 12:39:24 AM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld

The former commander of the Russian navy's Baltic fleet on Friday denied Swedish media reports that Russia dumped radioactive and chemical waste into Swedish waters in the Baltic Sea in the early 1990s. "This is complete nonsense and a clear provocation, propagated at an international level," Admiral Vladimir Yegorov, who commanded the Baltic fleet from 1991 to 2000, told the Interfax news agency.

Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt on Thursday called for the previous governments to explain a television report that Russia dumped chemical weapons and radioactive waste off the shores of a Swedish island in the Baltic Sea.

According to the television report on the SVT network on Wednesday, the waste dumped in Swedish waters between 1991 and 1994 came from the giant Karosta naval base in the Latvian port city of Liepaja.

"The naval forces that were pulling out of the Liepaja naval base in Latvia in the early 1990s did not have chemical weapons, radioactive materials and waste," Yegorov insisted.

He added that the Russian naval forces were monitored by Latvia as they pulled out of the port and that the naval command acted "strictly within the framework of Russian and Latvian agreements."

A summit of heads of state of countries bordering the Baltic Sea was to take place in Helsinki Wednesday to try to solve the problems of one of the world's most polluted seas.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was due to attend.

(Excerpt) Read more at nuclearpowerdaily.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Politics/Elections; Russia
KEYWORDS: balticsea; balticseafleet; chemicalweapons; nuclearwaste; radioactivewaste; russia; russiannavy

1 posted on 02/07/2010 12:39:25 AM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Until 1990, the Soviet Navy routinely dumped radioactive waste in Far Eastern and Arctic waters. There were 13 areas of nuclear waste dumps in Arctic seas and 10 areas off-shore in the Russian Far East.The Russian navy simply sank 57 vessels filled with nuclear waste. Sixteen decommissioned reactors were also sent to the deep, including six with unloaded fuel.


2 posted on 02/07/2010 12:44:07 AM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld ("I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution."-Dr.Werner Von Braun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove; struwwelpeter

Chernobyl and Chelyabinsk-40 come to mind ...


3 posted on 02/07/2010 12:44:50 AM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, John 11:25, 14:6, 1 Tim 2:5, John 3:17-18, John 20:31, 1 John 5:13, John 6:69)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle

Are the Russians crazy?


4 posted on 02/07/2010 12:45:51 AM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld ("I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution."-Dr.Werner Von Braun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

And the K-219 Yankee I class


5 posted on 02/07/2010 12:46:47 AM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, John 11:25, 14:6, 1 Tim 2:5, John 3:17-18, John 20:31, 1 John 5:13, John 6:69)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

Waiter... why does the fish you just served have 4 eyes?


6 posted on 02/07/2010 12:46:49 AM PST by Trajan88 (www.bullittclub.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

Waiter... why does the fish you just served have 4 eyes?


7 posted on 02/07/2010 12:46:51 AM PST by Trajan88 (www.bullittclub.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

Worse ... they’re Russian.


8 posted on 02/07/2010 12:47:48 AM PST by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove
Are the Russians crazy?

Only the leaders.

9 posted on 02/07/2010 12:48:01 AM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

Just too poor and/or irresponsible to deal with this stuff.


10 posted on 02/07/2010 12:48:07 AM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, John 11:25, 14:6, 1 Tim 2:5, John 3:17-18, John 20:31, 1 John 5:13, John 6:69)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


11 posted on 02/07/2010 12:49:03 AM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld ("I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution."-Dr.Werner Von Braun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle

“And the K-219 Yankee I class”

16 2-warhead (I think) missiles and 2 reactors — fairly deep water


12 posted on 02/07/2010 12:50:11 AM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, John 11:25, 14:6, 1 Tim 2:5, John 3:17-18, John 20:31, 1 John 5:13, John 6:69)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle

More like irresponsible


13 posted on 02/07/2010 12:51:26 AM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld ("I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution."-Dr.Werner Von Braun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

The last known incident of dumping at sea by the Russian Navy occurred in 1993, when approximately 900 tons of liquid radioactive waste were dumped into the Sea of Japan.


14 posted on 02/07/2010 12:54:48 AM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld ("I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution."-Dr.Werner Von Braun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

ain’t nuclear power great? enter the apologists.


15 posted on 02/07/2010 12:57:18 AM PST by RC one (WHAT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trajan88

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/4159688/Four-eyed-spookfish-only-vertebrate-to-use-a-mirror-to-pick-up-light.html

:)


16 posted on 02/07/2010 12:57:20 AM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, John 11:25, 14:6, 1 Tim 2:5, John 3:17-18, John 20:31, 1 John 5:13, John 6:69)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RC one

No matter the down side, I am still 100 percent support both military and civilian nuclear power.


17 posted on 02/07/2010 12:58:52 AM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld ("I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution."-Dr.Werner Von Braun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RC one

If God had wanted us to have nuclear power, He would have made Uranium.


18 posted on 02/07/2010 1:01:25 AM PST by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove
I recall US sub-tenders weren't too "clean" in this regard.

:-\

I found a land-based nuclear reactor—Sellafield— along the Irish Sea with similar "easy" disposals.

http://www.corecumbria.co.uk/tour/irishsea.htm

19 posted on 02/07/2010 1:11:38 AM PST by Does so (ObamaCare...I pay for medical-marijuana claims by millions of Americans?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Does so

Sellafield has a rather notorious operational history. Its original name was Winscale. There was a huge fire in the reactor pile and it released a massive amounts of radiation in the atmosphere.The release of radiation by the Windscale fire was greatly exceeded by the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, but the fire has been described as the worst reactor accident until Three Mile Island in 1979. The British Government changed its name to Sellafield.


20 posted on 02/07/2010 1:17:12 AM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld ("I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution."-Dr.Werner Von Braun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

I support it’s use on subs and carriers. But the civillian sector? not so much. I support the research and devlopment aspect of it and I have no problem with limited reprocessing for purposes of obtaining plutonium in order to maintain the nuclear weapon stockpile but the nuclear waste issue has yet to be sufficiently resolved such that I can support its wide spread use. I’d just rather burn coal and use wind and solar to supplement that. I’m sure we’ll end up resorting to nuclear energy though but that doesn’t mean I’m going to support it. It’s just a disaster waiting to happen.


21 posted on 02/07/2010 1:20:16 AM PST by RC one (WHAT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RC one

I support all uses of atomic energy.


22 posted on 02/07/2010 1:21:11 AM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld ("I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution."-Dr.Werner Von Braun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

Right. I gathered that.


23 posted on 02/07/2010 1:21:53 AM PST by RC one (WHAT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Does so

Sick bastards.


24 posted on 02/07/2010 1:22:09 AM PST by James C. Bennett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RC one

Radiation has helped millions of people overcome various forms of cancer.


25 posted on 02/07/2010 1:25:39 AM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld ("I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution."-Dr.Wernher Von Braun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove
Drink a glass full of I129 and see if it cures what ails you. LOL We probably agree about more things than we disagree but not this one. Widespread nuclear fission without any long term environmentally safe means of dealing with the waste is an unsustainable recipee for disaster. I live in a part of the country that does just fine with coal. We don't need nuclear power and we don't need New York's or Chicago's or Detroit's nuclear waste buried in our backyards.
26 posted on 02/07/2010 1:35:28 AM PST by RC one (WHAT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RC one

Actually, I have had a Barium “shake” for a test. We have a place to store nuclear waste and its called Yucca Mountain. Nuclear power can be used to provide clean and safe water. We can take water from the ocean, and by using nuclear energy we can provide drinking water. Nuclear power can provide cheap energy for everyone to use. In France,Germany and Japan, nuclear energy provides 80 percent of their power. They have not had any complaints. The United States also needs to update and expand its nuclear weapons.


27 posted on 02/07/2010 1:40:58 AM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld ("I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution."-Dr.Wernher Von Braun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RC one

My Barium shake was quite tasty. It was strawberry flavored.


28 posted on 02/07/2010 1:44:44 AM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld ("I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution."-Dr.Wernher Von Braun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove
We can take water from the ocean, and by using nuclear energy we can provide drinking water

I didn't realize we were suffering from a shortage of drinking water.

We have a place to store nuclear waste and its called Yucca Mountain.

Yucca Mountain is just a solution to one problem that creates more problems. Yucca mountain is insufficient to deal with the already existing quantity of nuclear waste in America. It will immediately fill up to it's capacity and there will still be tens of thousands of tons of waste yet to be dealt with. Worse than that, it will just facilitate the creation of yet more nuclear waste to deal with. That all means that they'll need another site and another and another. This isn't what I call a long term sustainable environmentally conscious solution to the energy problem. It also violates the civil rights of an entire state. The Federal government is forcing an entire state to do something that they do not want to do. I'm uncomfortable with eminent domain normally but especially so when the government is telling an entire state they have to bury a bunch of poison above their water supply. Then there's the fact that the whole thing is built on two fault lines that have accounted for over 600 earth quakes in the past 20 years. Then there's the risk of transporting the waste and the fact that the site violates Indian treaties. I could go on.

In France,Germany and Japan, nuclear energy provides 80 percent of their power. They have not had any complaints.

A.)They're burying it too and B.) they have all been implicated in illegally dumping radioactive waste into the ocean. Pardon me if I seem a little too environmentally conscious for your conservative tastes, but I think dumping radioactive waste into the ocean is a bad idea... a really bad idea in fact. Furthermore, I wouldn't use the European model of anything as a guide to dealing with America's problems.

29 posted on 02/07/2010 2:54:40 AM PST by RC one (WHAT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: dr_lew
If God had wanted us to have nuclear power, He would have made Uranium.

If God had wanted us to have nuclear power, He would have created a sun.................

30 posted on 02/07/2010 4:48:41 AM PST by varon (Allegiance to the constitution, always. Allegiance to a political party, never.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RC one

Obviously you aren’t familiar with the changes in civilian nuclear power since TMI. Years ago it wasn’t unusual to read about a problem at a nuclear plant. Utilities that owned nuclear plants split into those that understood the managerial, financial and operational commitments needed to run the plants and those that either didn’t or knew they didn’t have the right stuff. Those that made the necessary commitments ended up owning and operating the nuclear plants.

That commitment is why you rarely read about a problem today. Even the federal government’s failure to honor its commitment with regard to spent fuel has been accomodated by the industry. The faster we move to more nuclear power, the faster we get off the oil tit providing electric cars emerge as viable and hopefully end the desecration that is mountain top removal.


31 posted on 02/07/2010 5:38:50 AM PST by meatloaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RC one

Use unmanned shuttles to ferry loads to a space station and then send a big barge type shipload to the SUN. Price for disposal should be deposited before commissioning of reactor or military use.

Can I have my check now please?


32 posted on 02/07/2010 5:49:38 AM PST by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

If my memory serves me correctly, the Russians would cut the reactor out of the bottom of their aging nuclear subs and deposit them in the same freezing ocean water.


33 posted on 02/07/2010 6:10:45 AM PST by WaterBoard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary

You aren’t the first person to suggest that. Problem is, it takes a lot of rocket fuel to lift a little weight into outer space. The cost of doing this would quickly make nuclear energy a highly unprofitable (economy wrecking) enterprise. Even if you solve that problem, there’s the risk of a shuttle full of nuclear waste exploding in the upper atmosphere. That doesn’t sound like a good thing, does it? Considering the tonnage of waste we’re talking about, there would be so many missions involved that the risk of a catastrophe is more of “when” isssue than a “what if” issue. Oh, and we can’t even manage to put a man on the moon again let alone put thousands of tons of nuclear waste on the surface of the sun. Long story short, no check for you.


34 posted on 02/07/2010 6:16:52 PM PST by RC one (WHAT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: RC one

That is why you develop fusion technology which is around the corner


35 posted on 02/07/2010 7:43:19 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld ("I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution."-Dr.Wernher Von Braun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: WaterBoard

They also deposited their old nuclear torpedoes and other munitions in the ocean.


36 posted on 02/07/2010 7:44:11 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld ("I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution."-Dr.Wernher Von Braun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

I wholeheartedly support fusion research and devlopment. IMO, it’s the only thing that will allow us to sustain the various exponential growth patterns that we seem pretty well locked into. Without it, some form of Malthusian crisis seems inevitable.


37 posted on 02/07/2010 7:58:48 PM PST by RC one (WHAT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RC one

IMHO, I think that scientists will have a functioning fusion reactors by 2030. There are many hurdles to overcome, but I think that technology is improving dramatically.


38 posted on 02/07/2010 8:01:13 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld ("I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution."-Dr.Wernher Von Braun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson