Oriskany, Ice Princess and the environment

[chrisch]

I read today that the Oriskany (a USN carrier sunk like our own Syclla as a reef) is declared a success.
Divernet | International News | Oriskany reef a shining example

Projects like this have been put forward for Lyme Bay and Scapa in the last year or so but I have yet to see anything definitive.

The recent sinking of the Ice Princess and its wood cargo has given us another dive opportunity and there are a group of people on here getting ready to go as soon as it becomes possible. I hope they will tell us all how much fuel is leaking and if the wreck is already attracting life.

So. My question is this. Are we being too fussy about what is deliberately sunk? Is the inevitable leaching out of dioxins and other hazards overstated? Or is it simply that ex-military ships have all this shite on them and cargo boats do not?

I for one think it is a good thing if we can sink some more boats to make artificial reefs and dive attractions. The costs of these projects are telephone number high. At the same time the marine ecosystem is being hammered by commercial fishing to the point there soon will be no fish left. Are we too worried about a small risk of pollution at the expense of the bigger picture of the need to urgently save fish stocks?

What do you all think?

Chris

[MattS]

Originally Posted by chrisch

So. My question is this. Are we being too fussy about what is deliberately sunk? Is the inevitable leaching out of dioxins and other hazards overstated? Or is it simply that ex-military ships have all this shite on them and cargo boats do not?

As far as I know Chris, the cargo boats also have all that shite on them too. The question has a slight ethical twist to it. A ship that sinks does so after every effort has been made to stop her sinking (apart from the insurance frauds). Despite the best attempts the pollution is not avoided. Aproving of old ships being deliberately sunk without cleaning them is like approving of the dumping industrial waste at sea.

Are we too worried about a small risk of pollution at the expense of the bigger picture of the need to urgently save fish stocks?

Sure I personally would like to see more artificial reefs - the Oriskany was very cool by the way. But how would you differentiate a worthy cause from exploitation. Dirty ships get scuttled for the greater good and the next thing you know BNFL will produce a survey proving that piling toxic waste barrels on the seabed is beneficial to the marine environment - or something like that.

[scuba130864]

Originally Posted by chrisch

So. My question is this. Are we being too fussy about what is deliberately sunk? Is the inevitable leaching out of dioxins and other hazards overstated? Chris

I think we probably are. I saw a TV program recently on the Oriskany and was amazed at how much work was being done to a large piece of scrap metal before sending it to the bottom of the sea.

It made me wonder how the German U-boats got away with sinking dozens of ships (cargo-and-all) off the east coast in WW1 without causing a major environmental disaster.

[BJ]

Originally Posted by scuba130864

It made me wonder how the German U-boats got away with sinking dozens of ships (cargo-and-all) off the east coast in WW1 without causing a major environmental disaster.

Both WW1 and WW2 was an environmental, humanitarian and economic disaster!

The Treaty Of Versailles after WW1 was meant to make the Germans make reparations for starting it but it became a root cause of WW2.

[scuba130864]

Originally Posted by BJ

Both WW1 and WW2 was an environmental, humanitarian and economic disaster!

Do you think we should tell the fishes?

[chrisch]

Originally Posted by MattS

As far as I know Chris, the cargo boats also have all that shite on them too. ...

Could be. Its just I remember that "Horizon" or whatever it was on the tele about the guy in Middlesboro decommissioning old US warships. The dioxin was in the wiring looms. Surely the military have more of that item to control the guns and other nonsense these kiddies like to play with?

That was why I asked anyway.

Oh and you're more cynical than even I am young man... BNFL reefs indeed

Chris

[JasonP]

Originally Posted by scuba130864

Do you think we should tell the fishes?

The fishes did rather well out of it. During WWII, North Sea fish stocks recovered having previously been heavily hit by the introduction of steam powered trawlers.

Jason

[RonProwse]

Chris check out this one SinkOne4Seaford

[chrisch]

Originally Posted by RonProwse

Chris check out this one SinkOne4Seaford

With backing from such influential organisations as the Centenary Pipe School (Pipers Available - Weddings, Funerals.) this project cannot fail

Chris

[BJ]

Originally Posted by scuba130864

Do you think we should tell the fishes?

The seas around Bikini Atoll (60 atmospheric nuclear tests) make a good advertisement for nuclear war. No-one lives there though (apart from those that can survive on and pay for imported food).