Large Radioactive Container - what is it?

reply to post by weemadmental


That's some pretty intense crash testing!

I'm not sure whether the containers we saw could survive some of that, but they did look quite strong and heavy.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


My wife just said there were additional escorts with each that looked like SUV's. I hadn't noticed them because I was driving in heavy traffic.

I'm pretty sure that's an industrial waste container. It's used to move very lightly radioactive material like contaminated soil, clothing, tools or equipment. This was probably from a power plant or is going to be installed in one.

The casks used to move more radioactive material like nuclear fuel or waste are always shielded cylinders.

I recently watched the preview for the movie "Super 8", and it reminds me of the container that the creepy creature was being transported in. Don't be suprised if some big radioactive ogre starts attacking people.

It probably was just an industrial radioactive waste container (with a LOT of waste inside), but the idea that a big radioactive ogre might have jumped out is pretty amusing!

I'm just glad to see a thread with an original picture from the OP. I'm always the dork reposting a news article so it's fun for me to see something real. Original content makes my day!

Originally posted by weemadmental
reply to post by ikonoklast

 

nuclear casks come in a variety of shapes depending on load and material, i wouldnt worry to much about the load they are normally low yield and are not weapon (explosive) type materials, the casks are tested to destruction and back again so no worries there to, if you go to you tube and search there for nuclear cask testing you will see just how tough these containers are, and example

Wee Mad

Train crash flask test 1984 below in the UK

Originally posted by Shuzitzu

The task was to move a transformer and reactor from a rail yard in Berryville, VA. to a power plant substation in Purcellville, VA.

Source...

I believe what you saw here was the reactor itself being transported to the new power plant.

A reactor for a new power plant would not have hazmat signs on it as it would not be radioactive till its been used

l can barely make that out. Can u please email me that photo. My email adress is [email protected]. Remember capital P. Ill observe it much better that way.

Unfortunately, that is the full resolution of the digital photo. The cell phone used was set to a lower resolution by default. I also wish it was higher resolution.

I would prefer not to email it out of the country. My paranoid mind tells me that would likely trigger something somewhere (and perhaps should), even though the photo is innocent enough. But you can right click the photo and save it to your PC and it will be the same size exactly as the original: 815x611 pixels, 96,429 bytes.

Originally posted by crazydaisy
I am a photographer and unless the
laws have been changed, citizens have
a right to take photos in any public place.
The roads are public, right? So no worry
there, Also I highly doubt you were the
only people that saw it and were curious.

Yes, you also have the right to have a private conversation on your cell phone...except for when you don't, which is legally whenever they decide you don't.

reply to post by ikonoklast
Ahhh... Well the escorts have never been with waste that I have seen before. I have seen them on high value or high security transport though, as I'd said. So, with multiple escorts and the radioactive placard, I'm going to guess this was source material for medical or similar applications. The actual rods or block of material to power the diagnostic equipment. The weight doesn't really tell much because that cask is probably close to a solid block of concrete and shielding.

Some of this is guessing because I have not hauled Radioactive material myself. I hauled almost every other kind of Hazmat in my career, but never the hot stuff. I will still state, without question, this was no danger to the public though. First, the video here was great in showing how close to indestructible these actually are by design. More importantly though, I knew guys who ran for the company pulling this trailer and they didn't do disposable runs that I ever heard of. There are some loads which require the entire trailer be dumped WITH what is inside it...but never carried in open air like that.

Hope that helps!

Originally posted by pot8er
I,d say the trailer is shaped like it is so that the weight is distributed evenly over a huge number of tyres. I think its far more likely to be the way it is for weight, far more than it is for radioactivity I would imagine.

edit: That bad boy looks like its running on 50 tyres !!

edit on 23-10-2011 by pot8er because: added sentance

The number of tyres is one thing, but a more important aspect would be the height. Take a good look at the picture, it looks like a 3 section truck, no wheels on the section the load is on, but it's the lower one of the 3.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by ikonoklast

 

... There are some loads which require the entire trailer be dumped WITH what is inside it...but never carried in open air like that.

Hope that helps!

Yes, that's actually fairly reassuring, thanks. I was not aware that there are some loads so hot that they actually have to dump the trailer afterwards too!

Originally posted by daniel_g

The number of tyres is one thing, but a more important aspect would be the height. Take a good look at the picture, it looks like a 3 section truck, no wheels on the section the load is on, but it's the lower one of the 3.

Yes, that's correct. It was a 3-section truck with no wheels under the load section. The load section was suspended between the other 2 sections on huge steel arms/beams with the bed of the load section lower than the beds of the other 2 sections.

I'm not sure what you mean by the more important aspect being the height? Do you mean that the load section was lower to distribute the heavy weight better? Or to keep the total height down so it could fit under bridges?

Based on some posts here, I'm guessing that the design might be that way to more evenly distribute the weight along the length of the steel beams which each appeared to stretch the length of the front and back sections of the truck.

But even though it must have been extremely heavy, it's hard to imagine that it was heavier than full loads of steel I've seen on more conventional flat bed trailers with. So I suppose the load bed could have been lower to make sure the load wasn't too tall to go under bridges.

Or maybe my original more paranoid thought could be correct, that it was to keep the radiation source further away from the driver due to any radiation that might make it through the shielding. Wish we would have had a Geiger counter...