What are these radioactive cylinders?
June 26, 2011 6:16 PM Subscribe
Can you identify what this truck is carrying? A truck towing two trailers, each with 4 cylinders. Marked radioactive. (photo inside)
Please see photo at http://dl.dropbox.com/u/76069/dynamic/2011/06/radioactive.jpg
I'm trying to figure out what the cylinders might contain. They were landed at the container port in Prince Rupert, BC. The only regular container ships that visit Prince Rupert regularly come from China.
The containers were landed, and within 20-30 minutes, they were loaded onto this truck (with Saskatchewan plates), and driven through downtown Prince Rupert on their way down the Yellowhead Highway (route 16 in Northern BC).
Some have suggested that they are uranium fuel rods, heading to an American destination. Discussion on local Prince Rupert forum.
Anyone have any insight on this kind of thing? Do those cylinders look familiar to any mefites?
Please see photo at http://dl.dropbox.com/u/76069/dynamic/2011/06/radioactive.jpg
I'm trying to figure out what the cylinders might contain. They were landed at the container port in Prince Rupert, BC. The only regular container ships that visit Prince Rupert regularly come from China.
The containers were landed, and within 20-30 minutes, they were loaded onto this truck (with Saskatchewan plates), and driven through downtown Prince Rupert on their way down the Yellowhead Highway (route 16 in Northern BC).
Some have suggested that they are uranium fuel rods, heading to an American destination. Discussion on local Prince Rupert forum.
Anyone have any insight on this kind of thing? Do those cylinders look familiar to any mefites?
Best answer: They might be uranium hexafluoride containers (example photos 1, 2, 3).
posted by gubo at 6:52 PM on June 26, 2011
posted by gubo at 6:52 PM on June 26, 2011
Those are definitely dry cask storage containers (see image here), but there's no way they contain radioactive waste being transported like that... one would hope!
posted by letitrain at 6:52 PM on June 26, 2011
posted by letitrain at 6:52 PM on June 26, 2011
The closest operating nuclear power plant is Columbia Generating Station, almost 1000 miles away by road, and there are many ports much closer to it. I think they look like UF6 containers like gubo points out.
posted by BeerFilter at 6:56 PM on June 26, 2011
posted by BeerFilter at 6:56 PM on June 26, 2011
Response by poster: Ok some follow-up from a local news source claims they are uranium fuel rods for a plant in South Carolina. Which seems crazy to me, that nuclear fuel would be transported all the way across the continent this way.
They look almost identical to the third photo you posted, gubo. Is uranium hexafluoride used in nuclear power plants?
posted by MiG at 7:08 PM on June 26, 2011
They look almost identical to the third photo you posted, gubo. Is uranium hexafluoride used in nuclear power plants?
posted by MiG at 7:08 PM on June 26, 2011
Response by poster: Could these just be 'empties' with nothing inside of them?
posted by MiG at 7:22 PM on June 26, 2011
posted by MiG at 7:22 PM on June 26, 2011
Could these just be 'empties' with nothing inside of them?
I've seen plenty of these trucks on the roads near Los Alamos -- the ones you see going up the hill to the National Lab (carrying containers which are (presumably) empty) don't have the radioactive warning on the back, but the ones coming back down (which are (presumably) full of waste bound for WIPP) always do.
Based on that, I'm guessing they're not empties... guess they could be, but I doubt they'd label the trucks radioactive if they didn't contain radioactive material.
posted by vorfeed at 8:05 PM on June 26, 2011
I've seen plenty of these trucks on the roads near Los Alamos -- the ones you see going up the hill to the National Lab (carrying containers which are (presumably) empty) don't have the radioactive warning on the back, but the ones coming back down (which are (presumably) full of waste bound for WIPP) always do.
Based on that, I'm guessing they're not empties... guess they could be, but I doubt they'd label the trucks radioactive if they didn't contain radioactive material.
posted by vorfeed at 8:05 PM on June 26, 2011
Even if there isn't a power plant in BC, there are still nuclear research facilities (I know of TRIUMF for example). I don't think TRIUMF would normally deal with truckloads of UF6 or anything like that (they just run a cyclotron), but IANAparticlephysicist, and there are probably other facilities here and there.
posted by hattifattener at 10:25 PM on June 26, 2011
posted by hattifattener at 10:25 PM on June 26, 2011
It's illegal to placard the truck radioactive if there's nothing inside.
posted by ctmf at 10:51 PM on June 26, 2011
posted by ctmf at 10:51 PM on June 26, 2011
there's no way they contain radioactive waste being transported like that
Beg to differ.
* About twenty million consignments of all sizes containing radioactive materials are routinely transported worldwide annually on public roads, railways and ships.
* These use robust and secure containers. At sea, they are generally carried in purpose-built ships.
* Since 1971 there have been more than 20 000 shipments of used fuel and high-level wastes (over 80 000 tonnes) over many million kilometres.
* There has never been any accident in which a container with highly radioactive material has been breached, or has leaked.
Video of cask crash tests.
Based on this news blog post, these are uranium oxide pellets which will be brought to Pennsylvania, where Westinghouse will process them into rod form. According to the third chart here, while US uranium purchases from China have recently been zero, other countries that may use a China-based port and shipper are Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. But it could also be Australian, as Chinese shippers dominate the Pacific market in any event.
posted by dhartung at 10:57 PM on June 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
Beg to differ.
* About twenty million consignments of all sizes containing radioactive materials are routinely transported worldwide annually on public roads, railways and ships.
* These use robust and secure containers. At sea, they are generally carried in purpose-built ships.
* Since 1971 there have been more than 20 000 shipments of used fuel and high-level wastes (over 80 000 tonnes) over many million kilometres.
* There has never been any accident in which a container with highly radioactive material has been breached, or has leaked.
Video of cask crash tests.
Based on this news blog post, these are uranium oxide pellets which will be brought to Pennsylvania, where Westinghouse will process them into rod form. According to the third chart here, while US uranium purchases from China have recently been zero, other countries that may use a China-based port and shipper are Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. But it could also be Australian, as Chinese shippers dominate the Pacific market in any event.
posted by dhartung at 10:57 PM on June 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
Interesting. In the UK, we lived on a central London railway line. Very, very late at night, a very, very slow train used to crawl by transporting radioactive material from Sizewell B. The train was notable mostly for the proliferation of armed military personnel hanging off it. My husband was previously with CND and told me basically what dhatung said - of all the things in the world to worry about, this was probably not one of them.
posted by DarlingBri at 2:21 AM on June 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by DarlingBri at 2:21 AM on June 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
If you have a clear view of the warning labels I could look up the dangerous goods classification for you.
posted by Vindaloo at 7:24 AM on June 27, 2011
posted by Vindaloo at 7:24 AM on June 27, 2011
Along the lines of Vondaloo's comment, you can look up the UN/NA/CAS codes of the containers, provided you can see them and jot them down.
http://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/search/simple
posted by k5.user at 8:51 AM on June 27, 2011
http://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/search/simple
posted by k5.user at 8:51 AM on June 27, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by zippy at 6:43 PM on June 26, 2011