1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sunken WW2 ships polluting the sea

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Zip, 25 Feb 2006.

  1. Zip


    Joined: 26 Jun 2005

    Posts: 20,224

    Location: Australia

    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:

  2. Lashout_UK


    Joined: 2 Mar 2004

    Posts: 11,838

    Location: SE England

    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 :(
  3. neil3k


    Joined: 13 Aug 2004

    Posts: 6,769

    Location: Bedford

    U S S Arizona

    Thats pearl harbour
  4. Mr_L


    Joined: 28 Jan 2005

    Posts: 3,732

    Location: Worcester

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


    Joined: 21 Oct 2002

    Posts: 18,022

    Location: London & Singapore

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


    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 7,394

    Location: Leicestershire

    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.
  7. Mr_L


    Joined: 28 Jan 2005

    Posts: 3,732

    Location: Worcester

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


    Joined: 28 Oct 2002

    Posts: 494

    Location: Cumbria

    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.
  9. Logsi


    Joined: 19 Oct 2005

    Posts: 10,400

    Location: Kernow

    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.
  10. Stretch


    Joined: 14 Feb 2004

    Posts: 12,970

    Location: Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge

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


    I used to live in kent when I was a kid. It used to give me nightmares. :o
  11. Scania


    Joined: 25 Nov 2004

    Posts: 24,638

    Location: On the road....

    As is the Graf Spee in Montevideo iirc.
  12. Mickey_D


    Joined: 9 Dec 2003

    Posts: 6,204

    Location: Gone......

    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.
  13. mmj_uk


    Joined: 26 Dec 2003

    Posts: 24,914

    nothing like giving them ideas, i hope they dont read bbc. :p
  14. MadMan-JaMeS


    Joined: 15 Mar 2004

    Posts: 3,069

    Location: Oxford

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


    Joined: 16 Oct 2004

    Posts: 7,655

    Location: Pratislava, Berk-shire

    Do it, charge people to watch.
  16. Pumpkinstew


    Joined: 19 Jan 2005

    Posts: 2,727

    Location: Oxford/Bristol

    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.
  17. daveyj27

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 1,231

    Location: NH USA (Brit Expat)

    Where do you think the bodies go after a ship sinks then?? :confused:
  18. MadMan-JaMeS


    Joined: 15 Mar 2004

    Posts: 3,069

    Location: Oxford

    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 ?
  19. Mic


    Joined: 4 Aug 2005

    Posts: 3,869

    Location: Ireland

    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.
  20. The_Dark_Side


    Joined: 21 Oct 2003

    Posts: 13,608

    Location: Back with a Vengeance.

    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.