Apparently ship breaking is one of the most dangerous professionals with a lot of casualties. Is it not just a reverse process? Is it laxed H&S in less fortunate countries?
In: 10
When they put ships together, they build big modules and stitch them together via welding. They also do it with tons of ship specific jigs and frames so things don’t move out of alignment. Then they stuff the insides with all the delicate stuff that the heat of welding would melt and connect it all together.
After a ship gets old and broken down, it gets sent to the breakers. The owners want to do things as cheap as possible so they send it to other less fortunate countries so it’s no longer their problem^™ anymore.
The lack of heavy equipment, the limited knowledge of the ship was put together, and not wanting to spend good money for jigs that will just get used for scrap means lots of manual labor with nasty materials, and corresponding injuries.
Building new ships requires skilled labourers, tight tolerances, substantial planning, and money. Good safety measures produce new ships as cheaply as possible.
Ship breaking is like a junkyard. Every effort is made to maximize value from collected scrap, including which means not wasting money on safety measures which protect their unskilled labourers.
When they put ships together, they build big modules and stitch them together via welding. They also do it with tons of ship specific jigs and frames so things don’t move out of alignment. Then they stuff the insides with all the delicate stuff that the heat of welding would melt and connect it all together.
After a ship gets old and broken down, it gets sent to the breakers. The owners want to do things as cheap as possible so they send it to other less fortunate countries so it’s no longer their problem^™ anymore.
The lack of heavy equipment, the limited knowledge of the ship was put together, and not wanting to spend good money for jigs that will just get used for scrap means lots of manual labor with nasty materials, and corresponding injuries.
When they put ships together, they build big modules and stitch them together via welding. They also do it with tons of ship specific jigs and frames so things don’t move out of alignment. Then they stuff the insides with all the delicate stuff that the heat of welding would melt and connect it all together.
After a ship gets old and broken down, it gets sent to the breakers. The owners want to do things as cheap as possible so they send it to other less fortunate countries so it’s no longer their problem^™ anymore.
The lack of heavy equipment, the limited knowledge of the ship was put together, and not wanting to spend good money for jigs that will just get used for scrap means lots of manual labor with nasty materials, and corresponding injuries.
Building new ships requires skilled labourers, tight tolerances, substantial planning, and money. Good safety measures produce new ships as cheaply as possible.
Ship breaking is like a junkyard. Every effort is made to maximize value from collected scrap, including which means not wasting money on safety measures which protect their unskilled labourers.
Building new ships requires skilled labourers, tight tolerances, substantial planning, and money. Good safety measures produce new ships as cheaply as possible.
Ship breaking is like a junkyard. Every effort is made to maximize value from collected scrap, including which means not wasting money on safety measures which protect their unskilled labourers.
It’s unsafe because there’s no safety?
It’s unsafe because there’s no safety?
It’s unsafe because there’s no safety?
The other issue is that old ships are also inherently less safe then new ones. What I mean is that the ships reflect the building practices of the time they were built. 1950s ships are filled with asbestos and lead paint. Those stopped being a hazard on new ships 30 years ago. But they will be a hazard in ship breaking for as long as the oldest ship is in service.
Latest Answers