NZFF

by **Ian Warren** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 10:49 am

I thought New Zealand was nuclear free ? what about a nutter like David Grey getting their dirty little hands on the stuff .

Ute stolen with radioactive equipment in back
NewstalkZB | 08:14am Sat 21 Jul 2012

Christchurch police want to find radioactive equipment which is in the back of a stolen ute.

The white Ford Courier ute was stolen from New Brighton on Tuesday and was carrying a nuclear density meter in the back.

Police say the meter has two small radioactive sources and poses a potential public health and safety concern if its removed by someone who doesn't know what they're doing.

Inspector Marc Paynter says no one should attempt to operate or take the gauge apart

The ute is clearly placarded with 'Class 7 Radioactive' signs.

by **chopper_nut** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:19 pm

Ohhhhhhh noooooooo quick hide and put large pieces of jagged timber over the windows..... Lots of survey tools have small amounts of radioactive material in them. Another non event.

by **Ian Warren** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:36 pm

I was just trying to find a table to go and 'Duck and Cover'

... Yeah Yeah....everything has a certain amount off "radioactive material" so whats so wrong with bringing in a Brand new nuke carrier into our ports .. id sure as hell visit one , sure as heck a large portion of the population would ... maybe the USS Ronald Regan , he was a movie star after all

by **AlisterC** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:52 pm

The problem is Ian......
What if something went wrong with that carrier while in a NZ port? What if it went all Chernobyl on us? USA would lose a carrier, but we'd lose thousands of lives and probably all of Auckland or Wellington or wherever it is parked? We can't justify that risk in such a small country. Especially since it's not even our ship.
Also, as this rule was made in cold war times, it becomes a target to the enemy. So if the USA has a nuclear powered carrier in our port and they suddenly go to war with Russia, we inadvertently become a target. The Russians send over an ICBM nuke to take out the carrier, and NZ once again loses a major city and thousands of lives simply because we had a vessel in our port.

But even having said that, personally, I agree with you, that we should just get over it and move on. I'd sure as hell visit one too.

PS, I have three or four fire alarms in this house, they all have something radioactive in them lol

by **chopper_nut** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:09 pm

I would love the anti nuclear thing to be relaxed now, how many carriers have the US lost due to the reactor melting down? Unfortunatly, I was born after the whole thing went down so I have yet to visit a US flat top.

by **Ian Warren** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:28 pm

They sure as heck have a better record the passenger liners and cargo ships in the recent era ... Rena and Lementov in perfect conditions

....... The USS AMERICA - CV66 visited Wellington in 1966 , they had to dredge the Harbour our to get her in - 4 ft keel to the bottom , CV66 being a conventional fossile funneled , but sure as heck would have been carrying nukes on board , the US Military are good at keeping Nuclear power eggs in good condition but not required here .. she left without a hitch

, its when its given to some civies or the Russians you run into trouble , end of the day ..
Targets , contradiction is another government flip flop ... only to suit the greenies .

by **toprob** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:21 pm

I don't think that any NZ government would dare to reverse our nuclear stance -- that would be political suicide.

by **Charl** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:36 pm

Nukes... gotta love 'em

If I were in charge of the NZ nuclear power programme in the '80's, Christchurch would've had a 4-reactor unit up and running by 2010. Umm

by **Ian Warren** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:00 pm

Charl wrote:
QUOTE (Charl @ Jul 21 2012,6:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Nukes... gotta love 'em
If I were in charge of the NZ nuclear power programme in the '80's, Christchurch would've had a 4-reactor unit up and running by 2010. Umm

Nothing wrong with them .. its just the stigma of war that has created the fear .. go's to show .. recent news with pay for water from our fresh water rivers - they are more dangerous .. a well engineered based of the coast using the ocean and sea .. away from the jiggers and shakes of Wobblyville and away we go .

by **Splitpin** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:10 pm

Ian i disagree with your view "Nothing wrong with them" ....theres a lot wrong with them.
Its a force of nature we cant fully control, and the sooner we get our heads around that the better.

I know , and live with people from the only country these damm things were ever "tested" on ....people who's grandparents saw the the flash you love some much .....and dont tell me it saved thousands of lives...because it didn't.!!

What worrys me now , is the fact that this technology is in the hands of people who believe they are the are chosen ones......and they could end the world as we know it.
Without putting too a fine point on it ....my ideal map of the world is one that dates back to pre 1947 ....say no more.

Mods, delete as you see fit, but this constant glorification of Annihilation is becoming tiresome.

by **Ian Warren** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 1:20 am

Splitpin wrote:
QUOTE (Splitpin @ Jul 21 2012,10:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Ian i disagree with your view "Nothing wrong with them" ....theres a lot wrong with them.

Quite a few boomers have been decommisioned , USS Ohio the first .. not a problem , USS Enterprise still going , not sure how many core changes done with that , was every 13 years for how many trillion miles ... due for retirement ... over 50 years off use

Everyone agrees its not safe .. but properly controlled it is .. the small amount stolen can cause harm due to the thievery , we don't no the the device ... so why label it .. if its enough to make a dirty bomb , all you need to create a charge is a little dynamite and boom .

Old joke was the 'Depleted Urainium' round used with the avenger during the first Gulf War , once fired on the target (friendly to) found it was radioactive , but that is my point .. In the wrong hands YIP

by **Ian Warren** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 1:27 am

Splitpin wrote:
QUOTE (Splitpin @ Jul 21 2012,10:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Mods, delete as you see fit, but this constant glorification of Annihilation is becoming tiresome.

Marty , Why do we continue enjoy ripping around in P-51s or Vulcan's .. watch War Movies and soak it up ... we go off and learn the history, buy WWI WWII combat games BATTLE of BRITAIN example ... Its not tiresome , a regular chat in other thread about WORLD of TANKS

by **chopper_nut** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:58 am

I reckon if we spent as much time learning about and studying nuclear energy as we do covering our ears and eyes and going 'its bad' lalalalalalalala, it would be a lot safer. It is an absolutly awesome form of energy but it must be understood properly to be used. I think we should spend the time to understand it, it is after all one of the cleanest forms of energy.

by **Ian Warren** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:26 am

Another point following that safety issue is, why was the vehicle left alone , as you said Nick most of the problem is education and biggest cause by taken short cuts.

by **Charl** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:40 am

Rainy Sunday morning here...

Nuclear densometers are potentially lethal weapons.
You could theoretically beat someone to death with one.
Eating them also is not recommended, the rubber bits can lead to choking.

Like asbestos (or as TV1 likes to mouth, breathlessly and with wide eyes: "As Best Toss") these devices have a bad rap.
In Manakau City a piece of asbestos cement pipe was uncovered in a park, and they cordoned off the whole block until the Hazmobile had carefully removed it.
You have to breathe asbestos dust for about 35 years before you get lung cancer... like the ND mentioned above, eating it is also not recommended.

They are everywhere, these nuclear devices: your dentist doesn't hide behind the doorframe for nothing when he's popping an X-ray you know...
But there is a difference between a smoke detector and a 150MW nuclear pile.
Not least: the quantity of radioactive waste you have to manage for not less than 24,200 years.

If you can't make that distinction, it's probably a safer bet to declare a "Nuclear Free" country and be proud of it.

by **Bazza** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:53 am

Thanks for that Charl, some perspective from the point of sanity.

by **Ian Warren** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:06 am

Wonder what was in that ute to justify the labelling , another media ruse and blowing thing out of proportion .

I do like that Time Lapse Movie ... strange when the French were doing the Pacific (our surpose back yard) .. the Brit's were letting them go left right and center in OZ .. hang on on boys and girls .. how many people notice the smoke from Australian bush fires while you look westward on a good N/Wester .. i've many times across the Tas at 35,000 feet and the smoke was heading our direction ... so would have been a bigger threat ,

Watching that time lapse movie ... i kept thinking of that movie years ago 'Close Encounters'

by **chopper_nut** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:10 am

Thanks Charl, you made me inhale my coffee while reading your post.

I still think that with the right research and mindset, nuclear energy can be used safely. We have to enter into it properly or not at all though.

by **toprob** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 12:11 pm

Splitpin wrote:
QUOTE (Splitpin @ Jul 21 2012,9:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Mods, delete as you see fit, but this constant glorification of Annihilation is becoming tiresome.

This is an ago-old subject which will -- and should -- always be discussed, but it is a, um, complex issue. 'Tiresome' is a good word, when I was watching the video from Naki's 'WW1 Top Guns', my flatmate was kind of amused, as I normally refuse to watch any sort of historical war doco. It was just the local connection which interested me, but I can see attraction from the point of view of developing technology. I can't imagine what sort of aviation we'd have these days if it wasn't driven by war. My flatmate is an avid war doco 'fan', her father was a fighter pilot in the Pacific, killed in an accidental crash landin, so she sees things a lot differently from me.

I do believe that war is a 'natural' human drive, but it only really works if it is used properly. There has always been a 'warrior' type, but luckily they don't always hold power. Sometimes a tribe/nation will 'breed' warriors for a specific purpose, but this isn't sustainable for long -- after a few generations the warriors tend to kill themselves off, and the rest are happy to go back to the less violent ways of daily life, such as trade, diplomacy, cultural exchange and inter-breeding.

The industrial revolution kind of messed the whole system up, to the extent that these days a trained 'warrior' can sit in a bunker (or an office) in a different hemisphere than me, and still manage to threaten me. This isn't sustainable at all, and we have seen a huge shift to global peace, but it will happen at its own pace -- maybe five hundred years from the start of the industrial revolution, which hopefully puts us half way there.

Technology today puts us in a very weird position -- I can hear the views of people all over the world, which makes it difficult for me to use ignorance as an excuse for hatred. My flatmate's mother remarried after the war, her second husband fought as well, so his attitudes were completely strange to me. I've seen a map of their European holiday -- a rather convoluted itinerary designed to keep away from the evil Germans. But his attitude to Germany was nothing compared to his hatred of the Japanese. I really believe that his generation were victims of the first step towards war -- dehumanising the enemy. These days this is trickier to do, but this still happens every day -- the US has done a great job of dehumanising Muslims, for instance. Hopefully they won't get to the final stage of the process.

by **Ian Warren** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 12:35 pm

toprob wrote:
QUOTE (toprob @ Jul 22 2012,1:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Naki's 'WW1 Top Guns',

How many people can honestly put there hands up and say they have not seen 'TOPGUN' .. that was a Nuclear powered aircraft carrier and the 'Big E' , least Hollywood put part history into factual even if they went overboard , but that's Hollywood for ya ...

I do like all historical WW1 , WWII , Korean , Vietnam , the Gulf and the weapons .... just what was in that ute !

NZFF

Anti Nuclear NZ

Who is online