Sunken WW2 ships polluting the sea

Zip · 25 Feb 2006 at 20:58

I was on Google earth and i was looking at pearl harbour and the ship that got sunk there looks like its emitting an oil slick.
Would this be oil and fuel coming from parts of the ship that have rusted and now its all going into the sea?
If it can happen to one ship it can happen to a lot of ship out there and there are 100s out in the pacific and they are all around coral reefs :eek:

Can anyone else see the oil slick :eek:

Lashout_UK · 25 Feb 2006 at 21:03

That particular wreck is well documented for its loss of fuel oil, it's a vistor attractoin too (hence the dock on it!)

Trying to reclaim or remove the liquids could potentially cause a massive spill as the tanks could give way, so it is left as it is. Minimal damage is caused, I believe.

I can't remember the name of it mind

neil3k · 25 Feb 2006 at 21:44

U S S Arizona

Thats pearl harbour

Mr_L · 25 Feb 2006 at 21:50

Technically it's a war memorial not a tourist/visitor attraction.

NathanE · 25 Feb 2006 at 22:02

Mr_L said:
Technically it's a war memorial not a tourist/visitor attraction.

Ironically, America wasn't actually at "war" when said memorial was created :~/

Sleepy · 25 Feb 2006 at 22:05

Mr_L said:
Technically it's a war memorial not a tourist/visitor attraction.

But the viewing platform is a tourist attraction.[/pedant]

As the harbour is so contaminated anyway and the leak so small there isn't a great urge to cap the leak. In the long term though the tanks will have to be emptied cos there is a lot of fuel onboard. Though some nut job Veterans think that any interference with the wreck is disrespectful and that it should be left to its own devices to collapse and polute the harbour in the fullness of time. This is not a view shared by many.

Theres a similar ecological time bomb in Scapa Flow, Orkneys, except its a tanker not a warship. Its in such a bad shape nobody goes near it. Also in the Flow, the Royal Oak is monitored by the Navy for oil leaks.

Mr_L · 25 Feb 2006 at 22:07

Sleepy said:
But the viewing platform is a tourist attraction.[/pedant]

FGS, yes it's an atraction but it's a memorial first. That's all I was saying.

Riever · 25 Feb 2006 at 22:17

Up here in Orkney oil has been leaking from the ''Royal Oak'' for many years, they are now starting to drain the 1500 tons that they reckon is still inside it.
Riever

Logsi · 26 Feb 2006 at 00:06

Ive been there and its been turned into an attraction, they sit you down in a cinema and play nostalgic movies about the ambush then take you out on a boat to the dock, theres not much actually in the dock except names carved into the walls.

Stretch · 26 Feb 2006 at 01:36

If you think that’s bad, check this out.

Link

I used to live in kent when I was a kid. It used to give me nightmares.

Scania · 26 Feb 2006 at 05:48

Sleepy said:
Also in the Flow, the Royal Oak is monitored by the Navy for oil leaks.

As is the Graf Spee in Montevideo iirc.

Mickey_D · 26 Feb 2006 at 07:39

NathanE said:
Ironically, America wasn't actually at "war" when said memorial was created :~/

No, the reason for the memorial was what brought the US officially into WWII. And the memorial was built some years later. And if I remember rightly it was a survivor of the USS Arizona that designed the building.

And by the way, the oil that is leaking out is what is left AFTER the tanks have been drained. What's coming out is the stuff that seeped into the walls of the tanks while the ship was in operation, what was left in the pipes and pumps, etc. It seeps out about a teaspoon's worth a day. But because of the ability of oil to spread incredibly thin on the surface of water, it looks like a lot more than it actually is.

And to be totally pedantic, the whole thing isn't so much a tourist attraction OR a memorial. It is a sunken GRAVEYARD for almost 1,200 souls. THAT'S why it hasn't been disturbed. It is officially a military cemetary. It has nothing to do with the veterans (although they are the loudest supporters). It has to do with constitutional and military law. It also has to do with common decency and respect.

mmj_uk · 26 Feb 2006 at 08:52

Stretch said:
If you think that’s bad, check this out.

Link

I used to live in kent when I was a kid. It used to give me nightmares.

from that link said:
"It could blow up because of terrorism, somebody might target it, or it could blow up simply because of bombs moving in the tide."

nothing like giving them ideas, i hope they dont read bbc.

MadMan-JaMeS · 26 Feb 2006 at 09:49

i can't believe there is still people inside seems wierd !

fatiain · 26 Feb 2006 at 10:00

Stretch said:
If you think that’s bad, check this out.

Link

I used to live in kent when I was a kid. It used to give me nightmares.

The beeb website said:
n 1970, government tests on the site showed a blast would hurl a 1,000ft wide column of water, mud, metal and munitions almost 10,000ft into the air.

Do it, charge people to watch.

Pumpkinstew · 26 Feb 2006 at 11:25

Truk Lagoon

There are more wrecks down there than anywhere else in the world.
The local environment seems to have survived well enough that divers are allowed down there safely.

daveyj27 · 26 Feb 2006 at 11:40

MadMan-JaMeS said:
i can't believe there is still people inside seems wierd !

Where do you think the bodies go after a ship sinks then?? :confused:

MadMan-JaMeS · 26 Feb 2006 at 11:47

lol well i cnt believe there is so many body's still inside when the ship sank in a dock it shudn't of been that hard to get them out surely ?

Mic · 26 Feb 2006 at 11:47

daveyj27 said:
Where do you think the bodies go after a ship sinks then??

Id have thought a ship so close to the surface would have the bodies exumed and buried. But its military tradition. And a fine memorial.

The_Dark_Side · 26 Feb 2006 at 11:48

Mickey_D said:
No, the reason for the memorial was what brought the US officially into WWII. And the memorial was built some years later. And if I remember rightly it was a survivor of the USS Arizona that designed the building.

O/T but i've always wondered if Pearl hadn't happened then at what point would the US have entered the war in a combat role as opposed to merely supporting us in a non-combat role.