Scientists Locate Sunken, Radioactive Aircraft Carrier Off California Coast 193
HughPickens.com writes: Aaron Kinney reports in the San Jose Mercury News that scientists have captured the first clear images of the USS Independence, a radioactivity-polluted World War II aircraft carrier that rests on the ocean floor 30 miles off the coast of Half Moon Bay. The Independence saw combat at Wake Island and other decisive battles against Japan in 1944 and 1945 and was later blasted with radiation in two South Pacific nuclear tests. Assigned as a target vessel for the Operation Crossroads atomic bomb tests, she was placed within one-half-mile of ground zero and was engulfed in a fireball and heavily damaged during the 1946 nuclear weapons tests at Bikini Atoll. The veteran ship did not sink, however (though her funnels and island were crumpled by the blast), and after taking part in another explosion on 25 July, the highly radioactive hull was later taken to Pearl Harbor and San Francisco for further tests and was finally scuttled off the coast of San Francisco, California, on 29 January 1951. "This ship is an evocative artifact of the dawn of the atomic age, when we began to learn the nature of the genie we'd uncorked from the bottle," says James Delgado. "It speaks to the 'Greatest Generation' — people's fathers, grandfathers, uncles and brothers who served on these ships, who flew off those decks and what they did to turn the tide in the Pacific war."
Delgado says he doesn't know how many drums of radioactive material are buried within the ship — perhaps a few hundred. But he is doubtful that they pose any health or environmental risk. The barrels were filled with concrete and sealed in the ship's engine and boiler rooms, which were protected by thick walls of steel. The carrier itself was clearly "hot" when it went down and and it was packed full of fresh fission products and other radiological waste at the time it sank. The Independence was scuttled in what is now the Gulf of the Farallones sanctuary, a haven for wildlife, from white sharks to elephant seals and whales. Despite its history as a dumping ground Richard Charter says the radioactive waste is a relic of a dark age before the enviornmental movement took hold. "It's just one of those things that humans rather stupidly did in the past that we can't retroactively fix.""
Delgado says he doesn't know how many drums of radioactive material are buried within the ship — perhaps a few hundred. But he is doubtful that they pose any health or environmental risk. The barrels were filled with concrete and sealed in the ship's engine and boiler rooms, which were protected by thick walls of steel. The carrier itself was clearly "hot" when it went down and and it was packed full of fresh fission products and other radiological waste at the time it sank. The Independence was scuttled in what is now the Gulf of the Farallones sanctuary, a haven for wildlife, from white sharks to elephant seals and whales. Despite its history as a dumping ground Richard Charter says the radioactive waste is a relic of a dark age before the enviornmental movement took hold. "It's just one of those things that humans rather stupidly did in the past that we can't retroactively fix.""
So (Score:5, Insightful)
"It's just one of those things that humans rather stupidly did in the past that we can't retroactively fix."
You mean just like the dumb things we do now but won't realize how dumb they are until later?
Re: (Score:3)
At least we didn't sink it off the coast of Japan.
That would have been way foolish.
Re:So (Score:4, Funny)
Feeding Godzilla is always foolish
FTFY.
Re: So (Score:2)
Oh, you meant THAT Godzilla.
Re: (Score:2)
Godzilla was metaphor for the United States. Each of the monsters represented a national power.
Then for what was Mothra a metaphor?
King Ghiddrah?
The big turtle monster whose name I forget?
Seriously, I never thought about this before, but it is now blindingly obvious (faceplants).
Re:So (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd probably disagree on that. This was a time where people did things for the betterment of people as the top priority. For example the main reason why central Texas has water is because of the creation of a lake system via dams. This would be never, ever done today, either due to NIMBY, eco-whining, or the detachment of government from the people's interests.
Some of the biggest things that the US depends on now would never be made today, be it the Panama Canal, the Hoover Dam, the interstate highway system, or many other structures. There just is too much resistance and disinterest in building anything except perhaps more prisons.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You only see the projects that were completed; there were plenty of others that were never started for various reasons. But even today there are may Megaprojects [wikipedia.org] planned or in work. Granted, many of these are outside the US but not all of them.
That said, your comment is off topic. Sinking an obsolete aircraft carrier after blowing the crap out of it with a couple of atomic bombs hardly qualifies as something that was done "for the betterment of people".
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
In an EARTHQUAKE ZONE? Are you CRAZY? Do you really WANT to reenact all those crappy 1970s Irwin Allen disaster films?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course not. At the time suspension bridges were the cheapest way to safely build such a bridge. These days we know of much cheaper ways to build bridges. Suspension bridges, unsurprisingly, are not as cost effective as they once were.
Anyhow, the new Oakland span of the Bay Bridge is the worlds longest self-anchored suspension span. It's not as iconic as the Golden Gate, but that's has nothing to do with our willingness to push the envelope from an engineering perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hate that sort of attitude. The engineers knew it could be done and they had rigorous enough math to convince very conservative people to give them the money to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not. At the time suspension bridges were the cheapest way to safely build such a bridge.
It's not the size, it's the scale. Back then things were built with future in mind. These days it's about solving today's problem and screw tomorrow because we don't want to be seen spending more than we need.
Famously the Sydney harbour bridge in the 30s was built with 8 lanes, 2 trains, and a dedicated cycle track and pedestrian track. These days we solve congestion problems by spending millions to widen a road by one lane, only to have to start the project again when we're finished because in the 5 years
Re: (Score:2)
You imply it's Fate's Will and/or a "good thing" that we heavily populate arid land.
I suppose you could argue "we do it because we can", but then don't whine when Blow Back hits.
Re: (Score:3)
The origin of both of those projects was over a decade-and-a-half ago. And the LHC was built by Europeans, where the anti-government rhetoric hasn't reached the AM-Radio fever pitch that it has here in the US. You see a lot less of the "Get government out of my Medicare" sentiment in Europe than in the U S of A, where a gun for every person is the reason there is zero cri
Re: (Score:2)
Get government out of my medicare? Fuck, if you as much as suggested something like that in Europe you'd share the fate of the late FDP. Who admittedly didn't lose its voters over that issue (alone).
As a European it really took me by surprise how vehemently people in the US (and here especially those that would benefit greatly from something like that) opposed the idea of mandatory health insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's just one of those things that humans rather stupidly did in the past that we can't retroactively fix."
You mean just like the dumb things we do now but won't realize how dumb they are until later?
There are all kinds of shipwrecks down there, why do we need to fix this one?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Polyester leisure suits. Paul Williams. "Song of the South". Asbestos. Smoking. Thalidomide. As it has always been, and as it will always be.
What's wrong with Song of the South? Are you one of this lilly livered liberals who like to ignore and whitewash the past so that nobody can learn from it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There it is. The contingent from Stormfront heard from.
It's Friday at Slashdot, when 8chan empties out and rises to smite all those SJWs who don't appreciate the educational value of racial slurs.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine. Then "Sound of Music". Better?
Re:So (Score:4, Insightful)
It's just a simple tale of how slavery wasn't as bad as all that and how well the white landowners got along with their help.
The movie is racist enough that Disney stopped listing it in their film catalog, in 1980. If folks during the Reagan administration thought it was a little over-the-edge, I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that the Song of the South minstrel show was probably kinda racist.
Re:So (Score:4)
1. Reagan opposed all civil right legislation.
2. Reagan vetoed and anti-apartheid bill.
Ronald Reagan was one of the most racist presidents we had in the post-WWII period. He and Nixon are 1a and 1b on that list.
http://mic.com/articles/85379/... [mic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No, but at least they can claim "but we fought in the war". What's the Boomer's excuse for their insane sense of entitlement?
Think walls of steel... (Score:3)
"which were protected by thick walls of steel" Iron eating bacteria are working on that right now.
Re: (Score:3)
Is there a good reason to think that it will pose a risk to future generations ?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see... average life time of a steel barrel vs. average half life time of the radioactive shit contained...
Re:Think walls of steel... (Score:5, Informative)
Do you happen to know what type of radioactive material is in those barrels?
According to the article, it's a variety of materials, and they name Pu-239 as one of the more dangerous ones, because of its 24000 year half life.
Generally, products with short half lives are not a big risk because they'll be gone quickly, before the contamination reaches us. Products with extremely long half-lives are also not a big risk because they don't emit much radiation. Pu-239 has an intermediate half life, which makes it radiate fairly high levels, for quite a bit of time. However, Pu-239 is an alpha emitter, and alpha radiation doesn't penetrate very far, especially not in the water. The only way that Pu-239 poses a risk is by ingestion, and really only if the amount is high enough. Since the crap is heavy, and covered by 2600 feet of water, I don't think there's a risk of it washing ashore in grains big enough to pose a danger.
Re: (Score:3)
I will also point out that Caffeine is far more toxic than Plutonium
I'd be interested in hearing why you think that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I will also point out that Caffeine is far more toxic than Plutonium
I'd be interested in hearing why you think that.
You start eating pure caffeine and I'll start eating pure plutonium and we'll see who dies first
Re: (Score:2)
Age for one. It's been down there for over 60 years now, so a lot of it has decayed.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone above pointed out, the half-life Pu-239 is 24000 years. I don't think you can say that a "lot of it" has decayed in 60 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, consider yourself lucky. I'm having flashbacks to the time I took three hits of yellow double-dome and thought I was Doctor Octopus. When I finally came down, I was naked under a railway crossing and covered in a substance that was eerily similar to sweet and sour sauce.
But enough about the good old days.
Lost? (Score:5, Insightful)
The title suggest the ship was lost. Is this now news when something was found right where you left it?
Re: (Score:2)
They should have used the term "explore"
and I wish there were more photos from the dive in the article, it's fascinating
Re:Lost? (Score:4, Informative)
The title suggest the ship was lost. Is this now news when something was found right where you left it?
They also seem to suggest this is some kind of environmental disaster, but really don't quantify it in any way, basically saying "there's bad radioactive stuff down there". In reality, any negative impact of the radioactivity from the wreck is likely immeasurable and unobservable. We are doing much worse things to the ocean on a daily basis today, so its a quite comical (or maybe better described as ignorant) to point to this as an example of the environmental atrocities of the past. There certainly have been great environmental mistakes in the past, including many by the DOD and some even radiological, but this is not even remotely comparable.
Re: (Score:3)
The ship also isn't radioactive any more yet that is in the title too.
Ocean water currents for 50 years removed and moved around the radioactive particles. This rendering the ship as safe as any metal structure under water for 50 years.
I don't understand why we don't bury radioactive waste in sealed drums in the marina a trench. It is a safe non accessible location.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Only because it is a long term commitment with the stuff and who knows what will be recoverable by the "bad guys" in 2 thousand years...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In 2000 years the drums might get sucked down 100 meters or so. It would be better to drop them into the mud in the middle of the abyssal plain. Personally, I think we should keep them more available; they might be useful someday.
Re: (Score:2)
"why we don't bury radioactive waste in sealed drums in the marina a trench"
For me, a reason would be to respect whatever life is down there in that trench.
That placing it there does not cause humans direct problems does not mean that there are no issues whatsoever.
"Lost" is a nautical term (Score:2)
This second case is also somewhat of a nautical term. The Captain of a ship and its Chief Engineering can be standing on the bridge of the ship and the Chief Engineer may report the ship to be "lost", meaning uncontrollable sinking.
Also when a ship is sunk you only have the po
Not lost, location was classified (Score:2)
The Navy withheld the location of the wreck for decades, but the U.S. Geological Survey found its likely resting place while mapping the sea floor
But I know reading past the headline is too much bother.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, technically, every time I find something that I misplaced, it is quite logically where I left it...
Just staggering... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the cost of reclaiming the steel is really high. Like, more than the value of the steel.
Re: (Score:2)
Making steel requires a huge amount of energy, a range of materials and very large and expensive plant - melting down scrap is light industry.
Re:Just staggering... (Score:5, Informative)
Canada likely wouldn't want it. We had an aircraft carrier but we scrapped it because it was too expensive for a country of our size to maintain.
Fool me once... (Score:3)
Also Canada has been burned in the past using this practice. Be bought a few used subs off the British and had them retrofitted. From what I have heard they have been nothing but trouble. They have been under repairs longer than actual service. Had multiple issues when actually in service, in that they leak, which is kind of a bad thing for a sub. They cost billions. There is a reason they have a shelf life and why the parent country no longer wants anything to do with anymore. Buyer beware.
Re: (Score:2)
You realise that recycling these beats is a massive massive undertaking, and costs billions of dollars anyway - they are full of nasty stuff which needs specialist handling and removal well before you get to the saleable steel and recyclables.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You realise that recycling these beats is a massive massive undertaking, and costs billions of dollars anyway - they are full of nasty stuff which needs specialist handling and removal well before you get to the saleable steel and recyclables.
What gives you that impression?
Proper asbestos removal is not as hard as you appear to think and the protective gear isn't very expensive. Training isn't hard either - "keep your stuff on or you are fucked" covers 99% of it.
When it's not done properly (there are idiots in the world) asbestos sparkles in a pretty way in the sunlight as it blows in the breeze. Like all dust a lot of water keeps it down for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Asbestos is safe as long as you don't disturb it when it is dry, so yes, sinking nasty stuff works great for a lot of it.
Re: (Score:2)
I know that you see your allies just as the place where you can dump your outdated military hardware and even get paid for it, but I think this might be a wee bit transparent to even them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just staggering... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent analogy.
Re: (Score:2)
The materials aren't worth the labor to extract them
Thousands of meth addicts will disagree.
Re: (Score:2)
The metal remains after the fire is out -- they used to burn extreme clipper ships after a few years in service to get the fittings back, as the hull was too stressed for the wood to be usable.
This is more like what they did with the ship in the original article. They destroyed it in a fashion that got them data on how these ships would be destroyable (or not) in future combat, then sunk them too deep to be recoverable.
Re: (Score:2)
Recombining them is more of a burden, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually quite the opposite. As far as I know, this planet here is the only one in the existing universe that produced chlorophyll. Quite seriously, if aliens ever came to Earth, I wouldn't expect them to mutilate our cattle but rather steal our trees.
Re: (Score:2)
The amount of money we waste scuttling U.S. Naval vessels is shocking. We sink multi-billion dollar aircraft carriers as part of "live fire testing." Here's the USS America (CV-66) sunk off the East Coast [slashdot.org] after only 40 years of service. Why? The Navy chose to install diesel engines on it even after nuclear powered CVs had been launched. So, they decided the cost to replace the USS America's power plant with a nuclear reactor was just too expensive. Should be recycle thousands of tons of steel? Nah. There goes another $4.5 billion in taxpayer money.
Well the point of this particular test was to see how an aircraft carrier could withstand a nuclear bomb detonation, and was not just because we had nothing better to do with the ship.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just staggering... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, actually USS America had been decommissioned after 30 years of service, and been mothballed for the ten years previous to her sinking.
Note that the reason it was decommissioned early was DoD budget cuts - it costs a lot to keep a carrier plus its airgroup operational, even ignoring the required escorts. And America was the most expendable carrier, since it was the only non-nuclear carrier left - fuel oil isn't cheap.
Oh, and note also that it did NOT have diesel engines. Old-fashioned steam turbines on that one...
Re: (Score:2)
"ex-Kennedy and ex-Kitty Hawk are currently in long term storage"
How exactly does one do "long term storage" on something the size of an aircraft carrier
Serious question, it's not like you can just park it in the garage/barn and cover it with a tarp.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd personally rather they sink them as artificial reefs. Climate change may very well wipe out coral and unless we replace the reefs with something fish stocks will go down dramatically.
Re: (Score:2)
Scuttled naval vessels sometimes become artificial reefs that greatly support the food chain for local fisheries. This can have a positive economic effect. A long term one at that.
As for live fire testing. Laboratory testing and mockups are one thing, but how a missile performs against an actual ship is something else. What is the cost of an anti-ship weapon system that turns out to be ineffective against modern ships? Sadly real ships are a necessity for such
Re: (Score:2)
And that cannot be combined? Why not test the anti-ship rocket where you'd like the artificial reef to be? I bet the fishes won't mind a hole in the hull.
Re:Just staggering... (Score:5, Interesting)
Able was an air burst, and for the most part the ships survived, partly because it missed its target, the Battleship Nevada, though it was judged based on the data that the Nevada would have been a floating coffin from the radiation. So the ships got hosed down and the second test, Baker, was conducted, with a nuke detonated some 90 feet below the water, which not only sunk multiple ships, but sprayed the radioactive byproducts pretty much everywhere, and it got into everything on all the ships, to the point that they had to cancel the third test because it was judged impossible to clean them up at that point.
So in short, they intended to clean up the surviving ships and recycle them, but the nature of the test served to make that impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, they were not diesel engines, they were oil fueled steam turbines. Just like the Missouri and unlike the African Queen or your local 40 foot sailboat. Also unlike Liberty ships, which used an older steam plant because turbines were too difficult to produce in the number required.
Re: (Score:2)
One point on this....
The navy does learn a lot about how to construct subsequent ships by sinking current ships in live fire exercises.
This is what happened to the USS America.
A minor point, the CV-66 was steam powered, not diesel.
Re: (Score:2)
And rightly so, it likely would have cost more than what they could get for them to wipe them... With 600K hams out there, if you dumped millions of radios onto the market, I can only guess what the price would fall too... I know I can only use one radio at a time, even if I have 4 or 5...
Sometimes junk is just junk, even if it is mil-standard junk...
73's
Re: (Score:2)
And that would be bad why? Oh, right, we let having our population have access to affordable goods (that they already paid for with their tax money anyway) get into the way of profit. I forgot, sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't recycle America's arsenal like it was a bag of soda cans.
Why not?
Re: (Score:2)
Because the carrier doesn't fit into the recycling container.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I put an old frigate out on the curb for recycling last year and they wouldn't take it. The guy left a nasty note about it being over 35 kg.
Godzirra!!! (Score:3, Funny)
That is what will happen to San Francisco... not Tokyo. San Francisco.
Re:Godzirra!!! (Score:5, Funny)
You mean Gayzilla [snicker snort giggle]
Radioactivity bogeyman (Score:2, Insightful)
Better tell the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to flee their homes. Those locations were also exposed to fresh fission products and other radiological waste just like this carrier.
Mutant Great Whites... (Score:2)
...with laser beams! Radical!
Shades of a bad science fiction novel. Or even several bad science fiction novels.
Next up on the news at 9 -- replete from eating Fukashima, Godzilla shows up from the trenches off of Japan to eat the Independence before marching on San Francisco, plates a-glowing...
Zombie carrier apocalypse (Score:2)
Not a bad place for it (Score:4, Informative)
Admitedly, the fish don't know to stay away.
Humans (Score:4)
Does anyone else notice that in every article where there is someone lecturing us in a denigrating fashion for something "bad" we do or have done, they have to refer to people in the third person as "humans". They never say "we", or even "humanity", no. It's always "humans", like the person doing the lecturing is above the level of us filthy "humans".
Is it nanny-talk 101 to speak of us in such a manner, or are the people doing this of another species?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh the humanity!
If California Ever Gets A Godzilla ... (Score:2)
We'll know where it came from :-)
Re: (Score:2)
It's very easy for an arrogant scientist to say that it was stupid, but what was a better option? In our more enlightened era, we don't dispose of them at all, instead we keep shuttling them around. I'd argue that the waste is much better disposed of there than it isn't now.
Making an observation of an incontrovertible fact is not, in any way, "arrogant". And to suggest that no one had any idea that just sinking a shipload of incredibly toxic shit was a bad idea at the time is also "stupid". "They" knew. Most of those impacted did not, so "they" knew that they'd get away with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I only lived 5 or 10 years, I wouldn't either. Cancer is only really a problem if you plan your lifetime in decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks nuke industry. That stuff will be poisoning the ocean for ten thousand years.
That's anti-nuke ignorance for ya.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Never attribute to malice what can sufficiently be explained with bureaucracy.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the one glowing blue?
Re: (Score:2)
No, the one trying to steal the high-tech we carelessly forgot on the ocean floor.
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, we learn from our mistakes. We do different stupid things now than we did back then, there's plenty left to be done!