Aaron Kinney writes 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 environmental movement took hold. "It's just one of those things that humans rather stupidly did in the past that we can't retroactively fix."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @11:16PM
When I saw this headline in the queue, I thought it was referring to a part of the current Pacific Fleet.
USS Ronald Reagan [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [dissidentvoice.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @12:27AM
Do you have anything from a more impartial source? When I see a URL containing "dissidentvoice", it makes me think that just maybe it is a biased source.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Saturday April 18 2015, @12:39AM
Yes, unlike the unbiased, impartial and agenda-free Washington Post or New York Times.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @12:48AM
I never said that they're perfect. But at least they don't go using the term "dissident" in their name. "Dissident" is a term often used by angry left-wing radicals.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Saturday April 18 2015, @01:03AM
Bullshit. It is applied to people as varied as those opposing officialdom in Iran, Russia, Syria, Columbia, India, Greece - or dare I say - the United States.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Saturday April 18 2015, @02:29AM
So fucking what? North Korea uses the term "democratic" in its name.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @12:52AM
Yes, but when you put them on opposite sides of a scale, the Post and Times come out WAY ahead as sources.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Saturday April 18 2015, @01:01AM
If by "source" you mean "stenographic reproduction of government officialdom and corporate public relations."
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @02:47AM
My, my, my. So much delusion.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @03:53AM
Hmmm. Let's see what Fairness and Accuracy has to say about that.
Google search results for
Dissident Voice [google.com] 8 results (All are references; none are critical)
Washington Post [google.com] About 4,100 results (All I'm seeing are critical remarks)
New York Times' [google.com] About 5,210 results (All I'm seeing are critical remarks)
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Sunday April 19 2015, @09:35AM
Wait for it ..........
I think the very name of "Dissident Voice" shows bias.
Just wait till the Googlebot picks that up.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Saturday April 18 2015, @10:29PM
"The New York Times “basically rewrites whatever the Kiev authorities say"
Stephen F. Cohen on the U.S./Russia/Ukraine history the media won’t tell you [salon.com]
It’s one hand clapping in our major newspapers and in our broadcast networks. So that’s where we are.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 25 2015, @02:05AM
The Washington Post Should Tell You When Its Columnists Are Paid to Disinform You [commondreams.org]
(Once again from Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting.)
Hmmm. I screwed up the threading on the previous comment.
-- gewg_
(Score: 4, Informative) by SlimmPickens on Saturday April 18 2015, @01:15AM
Do you have anything from a more impartial source?
Did you read it? The half of it that I read looks pretty impartial to me.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday April 18 2015, @01:32AM
So should the aircraft carrier be taken up and be chopped or melted and sent to Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository?
I suspect those nuclear subs and nukes that various countries has left to rust on the bottom of the sea presents a larger danger to the environment. If Kursk could be retrieved these other seafloor objects shouldn't be a big problem?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Reziac on Saturday April 18 2015, @02:38AM
My thought was that more often than not you're as well to leave shit alone rather than trying to move it, since chopping it into manageable pieces is far more likely to release ungoodies than is just leaving it to be covered with ocean debris.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday April 18 2015, @11:22AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by deadstick on Saturday April 18 2015, @02:05PM
First, it's impossible to scuttle a ship on a beach. Scuttling means deliberately sinking; those ships are beached.
Second, you're probably referring to the ship-breakers' yards in India or Bangladesh. Those ships aren't "dumped": they've been sold to a ship breaker and delivered to a beach where thousands of poverty-wage workers take them apart under appallingly toxic and dangerous conditions...the steel eventually winds up in new ships.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday April 18 2015, @02:09PM
They should raise the Independence and properly dispose of her and the radioactive waste. Obviously, this is also an appallingly toxic and dangerous job, which is why I volunteer the US Congress for the job. Let's throw the Supreme Court justices in there too, since they also haven't done any decent work in a long time.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Sunday April 19 2015, @09:45AM
thousands of poverty-wage workers ... under appallingly toxic and dangerous conditions
WTF have working conditions in India got to do with this topic?
the steel eventually winds up in new ships
More likely your next car.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @02:21AM
"It's just one of those things that humans rather stupidly did in the past that we can't retroactively fix," [Richard Charter] said.
Bullshit. Seems like it was the smart thing to do since the radioactive materials have not since harmed any humans and there is no evidence of any harm to sea life. What evidence was collected suggests it's not a problem:
The submarine that mapped the Independence got within 200 feet of the wreck, he said. Scientists tested the vehicle and the water on its instruments for radioactive isotopes and found only normal background radiation levels, he said.
Kai Vetter, a UC Berkeley nuclear engineering professor who assisted the survey, said [...] "The risk here to have a public health impact is extremely small."
(Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Saturday April 18 2015, @02:36AM
So it doesn't pose a threat right now. What about 50 years from now, or 100? The nasty stuff is encased in steel and concrete. I know that steel doesn't last very long in salt water. And concrete can last anywhere from 2000 years to 2 years, depending on how it was made.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @04:19AM
Ever hear of it? Not the game, the physics. 50 years from now it will be 120 years since contamination; the majority of the nasty stuff will be well past it's half-life. Much of the really nasty stuff already is now at 70 years.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Saturday April 18 2015, @05:42AM
Its low grade nuclear waste, mostly from fallout, plus any radiation that was absorbed into the steel itself.
The Independence didn't have a reactor on board.
Steel lasts a lot longer time in salt water, than you might think The ship appears to be in roughly the same shape in the fotos as it was when it was anchored in San Francisco after the blast. Its already been there 50 years. The Titanic, 102 years. I also suspect the Navy knew a thing or two about concrete even in those days. Also, the number and content of the barrels is still in dispute is the wiki article hints.
I wouldn't be surprised that most of the fallout that landed on the ship has washed away long ago in the Ocean.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Sunday April 19 2015, @09:44AM
Steel lasts a lot longer time in salt water
Longer in salt water compared to what? Though even without an answer, I can say that it contradicts what (little) I was taught growing up on a tidal slough attached to San Francisco Bay and being fascinated with our poppy-colored bridge growing up. :-)
Here's a bit from the official FAQ [goldengatebridge.org] for the Golden Gate Bridge, which opened in 1937:
Painting the Golden Gate Bridge is an ongoing task [that] protects the Bridge from the high salt content in the air which rusts and corrodes the steel components.
...
In 1965, advancing corrosion sparked a program to [replace] the original lead-based paint...with an inorganic zinc silicate primer and acrylic emulsion topcoat. In the 1980s, this paint system was replaced by a water-borne inorganic zinc primer and an acrylic topcoat. The Bridge will continue to require routine touch up painting on an on-going basis.
...
Currently, a revered and rugged group of of 13 ironworkers and 3 pusher ironworkers along with 28 painters, 5 painter laborers, and a chief bridge painter battle wind, sea air and fog, often suspended high above the Gate, to repair corroding steel. Ironworkers replace corroding steel and rivets with high-strength steel [galvanized ASTM A-325] bolts, make small fabrications for use on the Bridge, and assist painters with their rigging. ... Painters prepare all Bridge surfaces and repaint all corroded areas.
Based on what various websites on the matter say, it looks like a generic corrosion rate for "seawater" upon steel that has a protective coating is approximately 0.4mm/year, though certain bacteria can boost that as high as 10-25mm/year.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday April 19 2015, @06:41PM
Longer than what? Longer in salt water compared to the GP's expectations.
Had you bothered to quote the next 4 additional words, your question would have answered.
Again, I point out that Titanic (as well as many much older wrecks) still lie on the seafloor relatively intact. Rust has not caused much in the way of structural collapse.
Below the water line Titanic used at least 1 inch thick steel plate, thicker in some places. Above the water line it was mostly half inch plate. Above deck super structure was thinner yet. The steel used in constructing the Titanic was probably the best plain carbon ship plate available in the period of 1909 to 1911, but it would not be acceptable at the present time for any construction purposes and particularly not for ship construction.
Independence was a warship, designed to endure heavy damage. It used much better steel than Titanic. She was built on Cleveland Class lite Cruiser hulls, starting in 1941, and as such they were pretty fast durable ships, (31 knots). Its hull and deck were both thicker than Titanic's thickest plate.
It survived not one, but two nuclear blasts. Its still largely intact where it sits.
If it was rusting away at your highest proposed rate the upper decks (51mm thick) would be totally gone by now. At your lowest rate, the superstructure should last 127 years. This assumes there were no zinks on the ship.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Informative) by mtrycz on Saturday April 18 2015, @08:03AM
Here in Italy, industries from around Europe pay "waste-experts", that are actually just mafia, to dispose of their waste. Then the "experts" will put it on an old ship, and make it sink off the coast. That way they get paid both by the industry *and* get their insurance.
In the US, it's the government.
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday April 18 2015, @08:38AM
Of course, we knew it was hot when we scuttled it. However, the irony of scuttling the USS Independence only slightly escapes me. The shipyard it was sent to, before being scuttled, is still hot as well! We have recently had some posts on the "abandoned sites" thing. This is one where you want to bring geiger counter or wear a dosimeter, whether you are walking around the shipyard or diving on the wreck. Greatest Generation was kind of stupid, when it came to glowing in the dark and better living through chemistry. Not their fault, they were stupid. and drafted.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday April 18 2015, @10:16AM
Ah, you mean the reckless generation? ;-)
Everything new must be good! :D
When one doesn't know. One has to find out before acting. Assumption is the mother of many fuckups.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday April 18 2015, @11:25AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves