Hulver's site || Mind the Gap

Diaries
Everything
Who's Online?
FAQ / Help

Environmental Protester nominates himself for a Darwin Award

By rdskutter (Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 09:12:45 AM EST) (all tags)

An article in the guardian opens with the paragraph:

The death of a protester has renewed the dispute about transporting radioactive materials through France by rail, reports Amelia Gentleman

At this point I'm prepared to take the article seriously.

All sympathy for the protester; and all respect for the protests in general is lost upon reading the third paragraph:

Environmental campaigners say that the death of Sebastien Briat, 21, who had chained himself to the railway track in front of a train carrying 12 containers of radioactive waste, illustrated the dangers of this kind of transportation. Activists said the accident showed how difficult it was to guarantee the security of the cargo as it travelled along the nation's rail network.

Now the protesters claim that Sebastian's death shows that trains carrying nuclear waste are dangerous. Presumably if the train had not been carrying nuclear waste it would have left Sebastian unharmed.

Presumably the moral of the story is that these trains are relatively safe compared to other methods of transport. They only become unsafe when loonies tie themselves to the track or when suicidal drivers park across level crossings.

Link to the article.

Cheers Sebastian. Your stupidity made me laugh.

< Punctuality | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >

Login

Related Links

- Link to the article
- rdskutter's Diary

Google

Comment Controls

Environmental Protester nominates himself for a Darwin Award | 47 comments (47 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

Color me confused. by spcmanspiff (6.00 / 1) #1 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 09:31:00 AM EST

Isn't it a bad thing that an unauthorized person could so close to a train carrying nuclear waste that it ran them down?

Such as, for example, a malicious tar'rist with a big honkin' bomb?

Well by rdskutter (3.00 / 0) #2 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 09:36:29 AM EST

Can you think of safer way to transport it?

If you transport it by road then it's more likely to get involved in a road accident. If you transport it by air then you've done a pretty good job of dispersing the radioactive waste as far as possible when the plane crashes.

Trains are the safest form of transport. The only really safe option is to leave the waste where it is and build the treatment plant in the same place.

"BEEN A BIT CARELESS HAVEN'T WE" - Mr Death
[ Parent ]

Well, no. by spcmanspiff (6.00 / 1) #3 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 09:52:40 AM EST

I think the question is simply whether trains are safe enough vs. the risks of, say, potentially severe contamination of a medium-sized city? (I don't know enough to know what the real worst case scenario would be.)

That's a pretty legitimate concern, and something where finding a random peacenik environmentalist dead on the tracks is a big red flag vis-a-vis perceived security.

Anyway, your original point seemed to be that people were concerned about the safety of environmentalists on the tracks, which is a gigantic supersized strawman, with fries on the side. Yes, anti-liberal enviro-bashing is fun, but you went quite out of the way to do it.

[ Parent ]

Safe enough compared to what? by Cloaked User (3.00 / 0) #16 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 02:40:08 PM EST

If I can strap a bomb to myself and throw myself in front of a train, isn't it easier for me to strap on the bomb and throw myself in front of a lorry?

No matter how you transport the stuff, there are going to be risks. All you can do is try to reduce those risks.

--
This is not a psychotic episode. It is a cleansing moment of clarity.
[ Parent ]

Well, actually it's less easy. by spcmanspiff (3.00 / 0) #19 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 04:13:12 PM EST

Lorries can randomize their routes, make unscheduled stops, and so on. On the other hand, they're far more prone to accidents.

But that doesn't answer your question ("compared to what?"). Clearly, compared to not transporting the stuff at all! Or even creating it in the first place ...

I don't know enough to agree/disagree as to which is best, but it seems that blind faith in the trains is clearly stupid and at the very least a bit of debate is in order.

[ Parent ]

: Trains do the very same things. by ti dave (3.00 / 0) #31 Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 01:46:19 AM EST

Not as many alternate routes, but enough options to make strike plans difficult.
I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Or don't use fission reactors by DesiredUsername (3.00 / 0) #4 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 09:54:14 AM EST

Although whether that is safer than not using them in the long term is debatable.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]

How about: by CrocoStimpy (3.00 / 0) #5 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 10:36:41 AM EST

Pull all the troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and let them go to hell.
Sink every last drop of the money that would have been poured out into the sand into fusion research
Bring 70 fusion plants online by 2015
Give the House of Saud the finger as we kick them to the curb.

[ Parent ]

Bring 70 fusion plants online by 2015 by wiredog (3.00 / 0) #6 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 10:54:14 AM EST

First we have to develop a working fusion plant. Once we've done that, then we can do the rest.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

That's what by CrocoStimpy (3.00 / 0) #11 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 11:34:21 AM EST

the infusion of $100 billion dollars a year R&D money is for - roughly the amount of money that we're ~~lining defense contractor pockets with~~ wasting in Iraq and Afghanistan now.

[ Parent ]

: wasting in Iraq and Afghanistan by wiredog (6.00 / 1) #12 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 11:36:47 AM EST

Wasting in Iraq I can agree with. The US, and its allies, didn't have much choice wrt Afghanistan. The main problem in Afghanistan now is not enough money being spent, mainly due to Iraq.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

Correct me if I'm wrong by thenick (3.00 / 0) #7 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 11:01:37 AM EST

But doesn't the fusion process create radioactive waste? I remember reading that one of the ways they can tell if a fusion system is working is if it gives off radioactive isotopes, cesium if I'm remembering correctly.

----------------------------

"'Vengence is Mine', quoth Alvis. And then he shot the guy, right in the freaking face!"
[ Parent ]

It depends on what you are fusing by DesiredUsername (6.00 / 1) #9 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 11:07:27 AM EST

I don't think cesium will be there no matter what though. Way too heavy.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]

How about by CrocoStimpy (6.00 / 2) #13 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 11:50:55 AM EST

if you are fusing two Super-Saiyans? What sort of radiation would that cause?

[ Parent ]

: Stupid-rays. /nt by mrgoat (6.00 / 2) #28 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 06:43:45 PM EST

Years pass, things change, you end up living in Kansas. But the bag of dicks never leaves your side... - blixco
--top hat--
[ Parent ]

Yes and no by Cloaked User (6.00 / 1) #17 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 02:45:13 PM EST

If you get it right, then you get Helium and neutrons as the by-product, neither of which are radioactive. Unfortunately, the neutrons are absorbed by the reactor vessel, which over time becomes radioactive itself (due to isotopes being formed by the absorption of neutrons).

Eventually, you have to replace the vessel, and dispose of the waste. It's nowhere near as bad as the crap you get from fission, mind.

--
This is not a psychotic episode. It is a cleansing moment of clarity.
[ Parent ]

Think about it by theantix (3.00 / 0) #18 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 03:18:58 PM EST

If the suicidal protester knew about the existence of the train and the time it would be in a certain location, and could get access to the tracks... anyone else could too.

Say you're right, say trains are the safest way to transport it. I tend to agree with that analysis. Even then, the process is badly broken. The train should be unmarked, or rather marked to be disguised as a regular train. Most importantly, the tracks should be protected because that is rather important -- protecting the waste at every stage should be considered a legitimate cost of using fission as fuel.

I must agree, standing in front of a train to try to get it to stop is pretty fucking stupid. But despite having a lousy way to show it, he did show a danger in the system.

_{Sure, you've got the facts on your side -- but that's just your opinion.}
[ Parent ]

I don't see the danger by DesiredUsername (3.00 / 0) #24 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 05:40:52 PM EST

You can't hijack a train. You can't steal the waste and hie it away on horseback. You could blow it up, I guess--but you could blow up a regular train, too. Or a plane. Or a building. Or a school. I don't see a special danger here with people being able to get close to the train tracks.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]

The blind cannot see either by theantix (3.00 / 0) #25 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 05:57:48 PM EST

That doesn't mean there is nothing to see.

What is the difference between blowing up a train full of wheat and blowing up a train full of nuclear waste? Hint: one of the trains contains nuclear waste.

_{Sure, you've got the facts on your side -- but that's just your opinion.}
[ Parent ]

What is the difference by DesiredUsername (3.00 / 0) #26 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 06:06:44 PM EST

between blowing up a train full of nuclear waste and blowing up a train full of any other toxic substance, such as pesticides? Hint: Length of toxicity doesn't increase death toll.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]

Okay, but by theantix (3.00 / 0) #27 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 06:39:42 PM EST

Does the length of toxicity increase the length of toxicity? Because some of us care about that sort of thing. And in populated areas, any train that could cause an explosion with a high death toll ought to be protected, no?

Really, am I the crazy one here? This just seems to be a most basic form of common sense.

_{Sure, you've got the facts on your side -- but that's just your opinion.}
[ Parent ]

'Any train', right. by DesiredUsername (3.00 / 0) #29 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 07:18:48 PM EST

My point is that I don't see a special danger for these nuclear trains, over and above regular toxic substances which are already being transported all over the place in all kinds of vehicles. A huge spill of, say, some mercury-based substance would have an enormous length of toxicity too. Where's the protest against that kind of thing? Does anybody even know what's going by in all those tankers you see all the time? Is it pesticides? Nitric acid? Toxic, but non-nuclear, waste?

Nuclear waste is dangerous. But this is one of those topics where those concerned with public safety could get a lot farther if they calmed down and approached it rationally rather than just throwing the words "nuclear!!!" and "radioactive!!11" around or getting themselves run over by trains.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]

Sure by theantix (3.00 / 0) #30 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 07:43:08 PM EST

If people could identify a mercury laden train that could cause longstanding toxicity damage, I'd suggest that "something ought to be done" to secure that also. To make this clear: anything that could cause long term toxicity or cause a large explosion in an urban area ought to be protected. If protesters can identify these things, so can "the terrorists" -- and that is uncool.

But even all that being said, "nuclear" and "radioactive" should be in a special class. Those words mean something extra to protesters and the general public -- does it not stand to reason that it would also mean something extra to potential terrorists? That seems to be a high-profile target... just like there was nothing special about the WTC towers or the Pentagon except for their symbolic value.

How complicated is this? I'm wondering why we are even having this discussion, it seems so elementary.

_{Sure, you've got the facts on your side -- but that's just your opinion.}
[ Parent ]

What seems elementary? by DesiredUsername (3.00 / 0) #40 Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 05:56:52 AM EST

That the trains should be guarded? I agree. That the trains should be *especially* guarded? I disagree.

"Children" are also in a special class. And we've had an actual attack on an actual school right here in this country (and one by terrorists in Russia), unlike the total lack of attacks on nuclear-carrying trains. Where are the protestors getting run over by busses to illustrate the insecurity of the educational infrastructure?

There's a whole bunch of stuff going unguarded that probably should be in a perfect world. I still haven't seen an argument that shows that nuclear trains are an especially high danger that should prioritize it over everything else.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]

: IHBT by theantix (3.00 / 0) #43 Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 10:21:50 AM EST

It's easier to believe that than think you really believe what you say.

_{Sure, you've got the facts on your side -- but that's just your opinion.}
[ Parent ]

Tank by Rogerborg (3.00 / 0) #33 Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 03:34:21 AM EST

Big tank.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

my dad works for CP Rail by 606 (5.75 / 4) #8 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 11:05:21 AM EST

And the number one rule about trains is that they do not stop easily. They just don't. They can plow through cars, through people, through whatever. They have a ton of momentum when filled with grain. Now imagine a train filled with depleted uranium.

It doesn't really matter how far ahead the train sees you, it may take kilometres to stop. And why should it stop? You're on its tracks. Get off the goddamn tracks!

Duh.

-----
imagine dancing banana here

Is that a *literal* ton of momentum by Rogerborg (3.00 / 0) #34 Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 03:36:21 AM EST

Or are you exaggerating a little?

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

Wrong Units by anonimouse (3.00 / 0) #35 Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 03:47:23 AM EST

Momentum is measured in kg * m/s,

i.e. it has a mass and velocity component. Any other mass * velocity units will do at a pinch.

However since trains weigh several hundred tonnes, I'm sure a train has a lot of units of momentum, whatever units you use.

Girls come and go but a mortgage is for 25 years -- JtL
[ Parent ]

Really? You don't say. by Rogerborg (3.00 / 0) #36 Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 03:54:36 AM EST

How fascinating. Please do go on.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

When in hole, stop digging [nt] by anonimouse (5.00 / 1) #37 Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:04:04 AM EST

Girls come and go but a mortgage is for 25 years -- JtL
[ Parent ]

: Sir, you mistake my intent by Rogerborg (5.00 / 1) #38 Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:13:10 AM EST

You must dine with us tonight, I insist upon it. Lord and Lady Fitzhubert will find your bon mots on the subject of Mr Newton's new Natural Philosophy most stimulating, I'll warrant.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

question by MillMan (6.00 / 2) #10 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 11:26:07 AM EST

why is it easier to hate protesters than companies that dump chemicals in the river that kill everything in it and give your family cancer?
This may be the first class war in history where the victims will die laughing.

He's not hating by DesiredUsername (6.00 / 1) #14 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 12:01:51 PM EST

He's mocking. Notice that he was sympathizing with the guy until his stupidity was revealed.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]

Don't kid yourself. by spcmanspiff (3.00 / 0) #20 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 04:35:35 PM EST

The target of the mockery was not the dead guy, instead it seems to be all the people who are now concerned about the security of nuclear materiel travelling through their towns & cities.

It wasn't enough for the author o' the diary to mock the dumbass who chained himself to train tracks, no, he had to invent some ties out of thin air and mock an entire group of people for having a point of view that they don't actually have. (Invented tie: Worried about safety of trains carrying nuclear material because someone was able to get onto the tracks -> worried about the people on the tracks' safety.)

Going that far out of your way to mock a targeted stereotype seems an awful lot like hating to me.

[ Parent ]

To quote by DesiredUsername (3.00 / 0) #21 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 04:37:49 PM EST

Activists said the accident showed how difficult it was to guarantee the security of the cargo as it travelled along the nation's rail network.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]

Yes. by spcmanspiff (3.00 / 0) #22 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 05:12:46 PM EST

Are you going to mock them because they're worried and pointing out that Joe Random Stranger was put in a position where he could potentially sabotage a train carrying what amounts to a seriously nasty poison?

Or, as the diarist did, becuause they're presumably worried about the safety of said Joe Random Stranger?

Only one is the reality, and the other is mockable but, alas, not what the situation actually is.

[ Parent ]

Except that's not what they said by DesiredUsername (3.00 / 0) #23 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 05:37:22 PM EST

They didn't say "the fact he could get so close shows how insecure trains are" (and even if they did, that would be kinda pointless, since we all already know you can walk right on the tracks). They said "the accident shows trains are insecure". The accident as such shows no such thing.

You might think I'm splitting hairs or being willfully obtuse, but ask yourself: why did he chain himself to the tracks? Wouldn't planting a harmless smoke bomb illustrate insecurity a lot better? Instead, he chose to endanger himself and not the train. If the point is that the train is in danger from third parties, why did he decide to endanger himself with the train?

It is reasonable to conclude it is because he was an idiot.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]

What are you smoking? by spcmanspiff (3.00 / 0) #41 Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 10:03:32 AM EST

From the second paragraph of the article, as quoted by the diarist:

Activists said the accident showed how difficult it was to guarantee the security of the cargo...

He clearly chained himself to the tracks because he's a fruit loop. But that's equally clearly not what the "activists" are talking about.

[ Parent ]

The activists by DesiredUsername (3.00 / 0) #44 Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 11:27:17 AM EST

correctly believe that it is difficult to guarantee the security of the cargo. They incorrectly believe that the accident shows that.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]

I think perhaps you shoud read the article. by spcmanspiff (3.00 / 0) #45 Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 11:41:46 AM EST

Campaigners asked how it was that despite claims that security was high all the way along the track, no one had spotted the presence of Briat and his colleagues. Officials said hundreds of police officers had been patrolling the tracks near Avricourt, but that Briat's small group of protesters had managed to slip past them unnoticed.

I think the accident does quite a good job of showing how incompetent the security is. Especially when you read further in and realize that this single train was stopped at least two other times by protestors on the tracks.

[ Parent ]

: Yeah, I get that by DesiredUsername (3.00 / 0) #46 Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 12:39:53 PM EST

The fact that the accident was possible does show a lack of security. But the accident does not. You see the difference? Obviously the guy got himself killed and they are trying to see the "positive" side by saying "how did he even get on the track". But wouldn't it have been better if he could have shown the same thing without dying? That's why he is being mocked. For killing himself unecessarily. Not for showing that there's a security problem. See?

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]

Thanks by rdskutter (3.00 / 0) #32 Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 02:28:25 AM EST

How would I know what to do if I didn't have you to tell me what I think?

I was mocking:

The stupidity of a guy who chains himself to the rails and prays that the train will stop. The article goes on to tell us that more seasoned protesters only chain themselves to the rails after the train has stopped.
I was mocking the lack of forethought that went into this operation. I have respect for activist protesters; but these activist protesters' message is overshadowed by their stupidity.
The message of the article initially seems to be: Trains carrying nuclear waste are dangerous because they can kill people who chain themselves to the tracks.

Of course there are many valid concerns about transporting nuclear waste by rail but this is not the most effective way to highlight them because everyone that the protesters are trying to convince is too busy rolling on the floor in fits of laughter.

"BEEN A BIT CARELESS HAVEN'T WE" - Mr Death
[ Parent ]

Look, by ambrosen (6.00 / 1) #39 Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:45:28 AM EST

uranium's several times as dense as anything else carried in large quantities by train, so clearly it's more dangerous to be run over by. It's not just the radioactivity that's dangerous.

[ Parent ]

RE: point 3 by spcmanspiff (3.00 / 0) #42 Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 10:11:49 AM EST

... except that the article doesn't seem to be saying that at all. Including the parts you quoted, where activists are talking about, very explicitly, the security of the cargo.

And you followed that up by making fun of them for worrying about the security of protestors.

I'm not telling you what you think, but I'm perfectly willing to call bullshit on what you say.

[ Parent ]

: Who is the magic "them"? by rdskutter (3.00 / 0) #47 Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 03:43:20 PM EST

I don't see your point.

"BEEN A BIT CARELESS HAVEN'T WE" - Mr Death
[ Parent ]

Answer by DullTrev (6.00 / 1) #15 Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 12:03:58 PM EST

That company pays my wages. Goddamn peacenik hippy.

--
DFJ?
[ Parent ]

Environmental Protester nominates himself for a Darwin Award | 47 comments (47 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback