ghost ships

[molly]

It seems ludricrous a huge country like America is unable, or unwilling to dismantle her own ships safely, but is happy to dispose of them in a tiny overcrowded country like ours. I'll bet the people of Hartlepool were never asked. Does anyone agree?

[rja211077]

whilst I would agree that we don't want to become a dumping ground for the world's hazardous waste (and America is doubtless capable of dismantling these ships), remember that this will be a very lucrative contract for the company/ies involved. lots of people in hartlepool will be delighted as it will safeguard their jobs for some time. providing the materials on board are handled correctly I don't see a major problem, environmentally. Though I have to admit I have not really heard FoE's (and the other protestors) side of the story. The people of Hartlepool will get their chance ot have their say at the legal hearing in December, I would suggest. I would say, however, that given the uncertainty over the legality of the shipments and the licensing status of Able UK, these ships should never have set sail and thus are left in no-man's land pending the outcome of the hearing which could take months and months, thus increasing the risk of an environmental accident for no benefit. yet another cock up by somebody.

[treaclefight]

problems as i understand them is that the uk half of this mess stood to make substantial profits from carrying out this service and contracted themselves to do a job that they didnt have the equipment for. theoretically they had time to remedy this, but it hasnt happened. this means that the breach of contract is with the uk companies, the us companies therefore have nothing to lose (in terms of liability) by setting sail and dumping the problem on the uk companies. this is all compounded by the facts that the atlantic will be too dangerous to cross again (for these particular boats) until well into next year and that the tugs that are bringing them here are contracted to do another job immediately afterwards so cannot take them back in any case. the department of the environment ( i think that's who'se preventing them coming into uk waters) are within their legal rights to refuse to allow the boats to come here because no-one has the facilities to deal with them, but the companies involved cannot refuse them because they have put themselves in the position of being legally obligated to deal with the problem. it is very complex, no-one is refusing to deal with the problem, but the circumstances have resulted in a strange stalemate, it isnt a question of the usa being bully boys and is not about us being overcrowded. it was a completely legitimate and mutually beneficial contract and it's all gone pear shaped. :-)

[molly]

Good answers both of you. I agree with all you have said. In the end, as with everything, it all comes down to money and who can make a quick buck. I hope the people of Hartlepool will in fact benefit, and I suppose we should have the capacity to dispose of the wastes more safely than some other countries with less ridged laws.I just can't help feeling there is something intrinsically wrong in us disposing of other people's waste.

[cardinal]

I think if you read into it that Able UK were supposed to dismantle the ships in a dry dock, which would have been enviromently safe. They can't do that now and dismantling would have taken place in a wet dock which would be more dangerous for the enviroment(leaks etc).