USNS Hoyt S. Vandenberg To Be Sunk For a Reef 169
caffiend666 writes "On Wednesday the USNS Hoyt S. Vandenberg is to be sunk in 140 feet of water off of Key West to become the world's second largest artificial reef. (The largest was created by sinking the aircraft carrier USS Oriskany off of Pensacola, Florida, in 2006.) The Vandenberg was built in 1943 (chronology) and commissioned the USS Gen. Harry Taylor. In 1963 the Air Force took it over and recommissioned it, naming it after the Air Force general. For decades the ship served as a missile tracker and space relay. It was used in NASA's Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo projects and the Shuttle program. The Vandenberg was the set for some of the scenes in the '90s movie Virus as the Russian MIR relay station. Soon it will become one of the world's most awesome diving spots."
Re:Excuse me, (Score:4, Insightful)
It's interesting. Plus, we all like arguing over the environment and this is a perfect article for that. just wait for "how come the government is allowed to dump its old stuff in the sea and the rest of us have to pay for disposal?"
Re:What. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:17000 tons of steel gone to waste (Score:3, Insightful)
A bigger issue to me is that Steel isn't just iron and nickel, there's all kinds of other stuff in it. This is littering, plain and simple. Remember in Zodiac when they're talking about some transformers or something which were turned into a "habitat for marine life"? When you drop stuff on the bottom of the ocean, of course it will be a habitat for marine life, that's where the marine life is. But will it be a good home, or will it be like some toxic housing projects where the sidewalks and playgrounds are made with the sand used to blast radioactive paint off of ships in the Hunter's Point shipyards [berkeley.edu]?
Re:It was an auction. (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't say it's that straightforward to be fair.
It was public property, bought entirely by the tax payers yet no one asked the tax payers if they'd like it auctioned off or recycled, it's also being sunk in a public place.
If they owned the area they were sinking it in it'd be a little more straightforward of course but I believe it's dubious to simply say it's theirs so they can do what they want.
Re:Too deep... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure about feet, but I wouldn't like to be 43 metres below the surface.
40m is PADI's absolute limit - with their Advanced Open Water certification - and their tables let you stay there for a very short time.
However, you'd probably not find it unpleasant at that depth - it's easy to keep going deeper if you don't monitor your gauge. It's deep enough to risk nitrogen narcosis - that 'just' makes you euphoric and foolish, like being drunk, and clears up immediately if you just swim up a bit.
Re:Excuse me, (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting that you'd mention PADI, though.... the deepest they certify recreational divers is 40m. 130 feet. And they recommend that you never go over 100 feet. If you want to dive a wreck that's in 140 feet of water
Good points, but I have a critique. There was a Japanese sub that sank off the coast of Hawaii that people dove. It was in about 140 feet of water, but the top deck was at 110 feet. Remember, unless your suicidal or stupid (or working for the Discovery Channel), you don't actually go under or into the wreck; you just go near it and around it. For PADI, wreck dives are one of their advanced courses.
That said, too many untrained divers went to the Japanese sub and went all the way to the floor and had decompression issues. The sub was eventually raised, towed out deeper (way outside of recreation diving range), and sank again. I hope either 1) this ship is bigger (taller) or 2) they have better precautions in place.
Re:Excuse me, (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, a +1 Whoosh moderation would cut down on an awful lot of misunderstandings (and also misplaced IRONy)
That's actually a feature of language itself. Most people write like they would speak, and they forget that all the other information their voice carries is lost.
Re:Who suggested that? (Score:3, Insightful)
My point was, and continues to be, that it is funny that you take a nasty, dilapidated stripped chunk of industrial machinery that no one would want to walk aboard if it were tied to a pier, sink it in 100 feet of water and suddenly it's a cool place to visit.
While I get your cynicism, it's a pretty fair argument that everything is more interesting under water. Boulders on land are generally boring. But if you drop it into a warm part of the ocean, it suddenly attracts colorful and often unique wildlife. Within a short period of time, it's unrecognizable.
While you might be unimpressed by wreck diving, there are many out there, myself included, who are awestruck by the manner in which the sea reclaims otherwise uninteresting objects.