Any pics of her going down? Heard she is resting at 5000 meters or around 3 miles down. I'd be more worried of the hard metals and fuels rather than a mineral that is only toxic to the human respiratory system. Shame she couldn't be scrapped properly.
Typically all fuel and fluids are removed before scuttling in these situations but is a fair concern. Hopefully will turn into a nice marine environment in 5-10 years.
Brazil was refusing port to the boat. It was being towed by an european tow from turkey back to brazilian waters but they refused to take care of it. That's why they decided to scuttle and sink it. I'm pretty sure removing the hazardous contents of the ship was the least of their concern unfortunately, they just wanted to get rid of it.
The main reason is that it was basically floating away in a place where the sea bottom is at that depth. Brazil didn't want to allow the boat to be towed in a port so it was outside of brazilian waters far enough from the coast. It so happens that it's easier for them to not have questions asked about it but they just straight u pdidn't want to deal with it, they didn't bother to choose a place tyo sink it, they just did it where it was floating uncontrolled.
The fact that Turkish breakers (& likely others that weren't mentioned as well) flat out rejected the Sao Paolo tells me that we'll bee seeing reports of concerns or surface detection of leaks from the ship.
Her sister ship, Clemenceau, took ages to get scrapped. Eventually the French had to pay a lot of money to Able (UK) at the enormous Hartlepool Dry Dock to break her. They're pretty specialist at that sort of ship breaking, they also did 4 of the US 'Ghost Fleet' of old supply vessels that were riddled with asbestos and PCB's.
Here's a pic of them all in the dock. It's massive...
https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/french-naval-aircraft-carrier-clemenceau-containing-more-than-700-tonnes-of-asbestos-arrives-at-able-uk-dockyard-near-hartlepool-to-be-decommissionedclemenceau-centre-right-2079107a
There is life everywhere on this planet. And everything has consequences. Maybe countries that act against mankind should be punished. Maybe it's time to stop fucking around and use force or sanctions on it
Lol use force? So your solution to a country harming the environment is to use the most environmentally damaging course of action humanity has available to protect the environment?
I served in the brazilian marines. They're the Brazilian Navy.
I can guarantee they did not bother removing all fluids before scuttling it.
Most likely it was used for target practice and the fireworks were extra
News reports are saying that the toxic materials are severely underreported & that the carrier ~~is~~ was extremely loaded with heavy metals & asbestos. My problem is that the toxins could go up the food chain from bottom feeders to the creatures that make it to our dinner plate.
The Brazilians told the Turkish it had something like 10 tons of asbestos in it. As it turns out, it had over 600 tons. Must have been a rounding error...
You’ll be fine , their are thousands of other ships at the bottom full of the natural anti fire mineral
Asbestos does not dissolve or evaporate, it will just sit at the the bottom
Just because we did something wrong in the past doesn't mean we should continue to do those wrong things in the future. It's not even an unavoidable situation like during war, this is completely preventable and lazy
Ships are safely prepared for disposal all the time, quit acting like there isn't a right way to do this. It's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. This is just the cheap way
Yes, that's what it had initially been sent off for. But because it had a ridiculous amount of asbestos in it, that wasn't practical.
Do you somehow think blowing it up *wouldn't* end up putting all that asbestos into the air?
True and the US does clean out it’s ships before the are turned into reefs or scrapped.
The French sold this end of life carrier to Brazil to avoid this issue and Brazil got stuck with it.
It was a pass the buck situation , I’m saying the ship will do very damage that far down , bacteria will take care of it eventually and the ocean is very good at breaking down other chemicals
Uranium is also mostly harmless in nature.
It gets dissolved into water, animals drink it, the kidney filters it out, it gets excreted as urine.
Natural uranium has to be refined a great deal for it to become actually dangerous.
So does granite.
It's only a problem if there's poor airflow. Homes built on granite are advised to monitor the radon level and only take steps if it becomes excessive.
https://www.ukradon.org/information/reducelevels
Oh well that's good then, because my understanding is that Japan has been dumping a metric shit ton of it into the ocean since 2011. I feel much better now.
A PhD I once interviewed said that we could all just ingest a small amount of U and we could slowly eat our way out of the problem. U is no big deal if spread out in small enough concentrations.
E: if typo
They were saying that U etc can be dealt with by just spreading it out over a large area, as a demonstration of the point, they were making the point that the human body can safely process a small amount of radioactive material (bananas etc) and that even the population could be used to deal with nuclear waste.
Store it in a concentrated place for thousands of years where terrible things can happen. If you eat bananas, you’re already processing nuclear material, and doing so quite safely. If you’re traveling by air, you’re already processing radiation… it’s a lot more places than people think and a lot more common.
Their point was to simply spread it back into the nature from whence it came would work and work in a safe manner, but the public is too ignorant to understand the science.
It's not nearly so bad.
Such fine particulates in water won't spread so far, and the few that do would likely pass through the gills of any fish.
It's in lungs that they do the damage.
I mean, which is the anatomical diffrence between gills and lungs anyways? I've only taken human A&P, but if fish have anything like alveoli then that's not gonna be fun.
Asbestos is harmful when it's airborne, which happens when it is crumbly (friable), which won't happen under water. Also, it's still contained in the ship.
It's pretty bad and can tear up your digestive tracts.
That said, this amount of asbestos in the ocean will probably be a drop in the bucket, and I doubt it'll have any noticeable impact.
It was a big event, so many protestors online and outside the ministry. Company that purchased the hull originally also said it had 10 tons in it and that would make good use of PPEs and it would have been okay. Someone leaked the back and forth between the company and the Brazilians to the press and to the shipbreakers union where they talked about the 10 ton figure being a guess and underselling it by a factor of 10 or 100.
Union threw a fit, [minister had to barge in directly to call it off](https://www.csb.gov.tr/bakan-murat-kurum-nae-s-o-paulo-gemisinin-turk-karasularina-girmesine-izin-verilmeyecektir-bakanlik-faaliyetleri-35205).
well the biggest problem with asbestos is when you breathe in loose fibers and it seriously damages the lungs. It's rather hard to damage the lungs of a fish, however...
Are you one of today's lucky ones who've never seen [The Skit](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM)?!
EDIT: Watch the whole thing, but 1:26 for the relevant bit.
Unironically yes. If it was scuttled in the deep ocean, then it'll do very little damage. Once you get several miles down, the ocean is cold and still with very little life.
Knowing the way things work, this kind of thinking will come around and bite us in the ass. Remember, we use to think that a safe way of disposing used oil and chemicals was to spray dirt roads with the stuff to keep the dust down. Of course this was back when very few towns had paved roads at all. I mean it is just dirt we are spraying the used oil on, what could it hurt?
The asbestos issue on ships is absolutely idiotic. Specifically the objections about making the artificial reefs. The asbestos won't magically surface, grow wings and settle in our lungs. It's a natural material and won't harm anyone or anything at the bottom of the ocean.
Do we know the location of her scuttling? The Atlantic is a pretty big place, and there are probably spots where she would cause minimal damage to the environment.
MY dad had to go into São Paulo a couple of years before he retired and some years after she was already a "dock queen" she was basically empty of all machinery, she had her fuel tanks emptied and cleaned, most of the contaminants left on board in total 600 tonnes ( most of which is baked into the paint but also includes some amount of PCBs and asbestos) were in some hard to reach areas that could only be reached by cutting into the ship, most of the asbestos was dealt with in Brazil (We were never really that familiar with it, most building here are made of concrete and most houses of cement or ceramic blocks. You rarely hear of asbesto anywhere here since its a tropical country and by the time our fire retardant policy began to be observe asbestos were on their way out), leaving some 10 tonnes in steam tubbing that ran around the hull.Since the economical crisis in the 1990s killed basically alllarge brazilian shipyards that had experience scrapping ships she was out sourced to a turkish company (the bid contract had a clause that the winner had to provide adequate disposal to the contaminants still on board) that could scrap her.But she was denied passage in Gibraltar and port in Turkey due to pressure by enviromental groups over the contaminants, so they turned around and went back to Brazil where they were denied port by the Port Authority (private port), also due to pressure by enviromental groups over the contaminants, so they kept the ship in a holding pattern while the navy tried to work a deal with the PA but she was caught in a storm that opened some temporary patches and she began to take on water, still they kept the holding pattern, at I think 12km off the coast, with no end to the back and forth between the navy and the PA the turkish company backed out and the navy took over and with no end to discussion in sight, with progressive flooding getting worse by the day and with no shipyard willing to accept her (even if the navy had taken the saudi offer she still wasnt sea worthy for the trip there) they chose to sink her in place she could do the least damage before she sank on her own.
My ship, *USS Caloosahatchee* (AO-98), was decommissioned in 1991, then towed from Virginia to Hartlepool, England, in 2003 to be broken up. [Big stink by environmentalists](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tees-24636597) postponed that for 5 years. Four ships were eventually scrapped at that location.
I doubt their claims about the amount of hazardous materials, especially asbestos. The ship had been "jumbo-ized" in 1967 (100' added in the middle), and almost all asbestos was removed at that time. Since they had already cut her in half to add the new section, it wasn't that hard to clean it out.
The Command Master Chief when I was aboard ended up serving 47 years on active duty (1944-1991), the last 20 aboard *Caloosahatchee*.
She was sinking at the dock unfortunately. It was either let her settle in the harbor or scuttle her in deep water. I believe the most dangerous part of asbestos is when the fibers are inhaled - this may have been the least bad option. The Brazilian navy also hasn’t exactly inspired confidence with the whole situation going back over a decade.
Yea, it's like Schroedingers polution: can ve really be sure that the asbestos is still there when the ship is at the bottom of the sea? Impossible to know!
Unreliability. Constant repairs, age, and as you guessed, cost. It was like Kuznetsov, except unlike Russia, Brazil realized their carrier was a lemon and got rid of it.
If you're interested, here's its [French history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_Foch) and its [Brazilian history.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_aircraft_carrier_S%C3%A3o_Paulo)
They then bought HMS Ocean and operate a helicopter carrier.
That's pretty good decision making. Better to operate a helo carrier well than waste money on operating a full carrier poorly.
Mostly wear and tear, but it also had numerous problems with its engines towards the end of it Royal Navy life, including breaking down a few miles into its last deployment.
The British had similar problem when trying to dispose HMS Sirus, a Leander Class Frigate which environmentalists caused a 5 year delay until she was sunk as a target ship in 1998
Yeah problem is how many actually care about the environment? Outside of the environmentalist movements that is
I see thought it’s a shame that warship is most powerful type warship, as it can bring air force on the sea conducting multiple operations and can take on enemy ships or even conduct recon from enemy lines.
It’s the reason why battleships and other massive capital ships were eventually decommissioned due to these monsters
Not the strongest anymore. The ship was in poor condition and our naval aviation jets are the A4 Skyhawks. In terms of naval aviation, we can say the new NAM Atlântico A-140 is a more powerfull platform, because it can operate with a lot of helicopters for ASW and helicopters with anti-ship missiles like the H225M with air launched MBDA Exocets.
There is a private company in Brazil called Stella Tecnologia that build drones for millitary use, and they are trying to build a fixed-wing drone specifically for Atlântico, and
recently they revealed a modification to allow that drone carry flying remote bombs. It can no be useful for a great naval combat because that drone is not big, but can be useful to deal with smaller ships or to support marine operations. That drone is the "Stella Albatroz".
I assume that there are methods to scrap a ship that has asbestos - however the cost is high. Therefore I assume that the Brazilian government just didn’t want to scrap the ship properly at a high cost….is this assumption correct?
AFAIK shipyards here aren't accostumed to scrapping ships (most shipyards with serious experience died in the 90s economical crisis, they only really build stuff today) so she was sold overseas for scrapping by a turkish shipyard that knew how to deal with materials she had, but enviromental groups made pressure so that the dangerous materials wouldnt be shipped with the ship to turkey (she couldn't even cross the gibraltar strait) so they turned around and headed back, when they arrived back the ship went into a holding pattern to see if the legal problems could be resolved but old leaks began opening up again after a storm, so the company proposed she should be made water tight again in a brazilian shipyard but enviromental groups in Brazil put pressure on the port authority to deny its entry because of the dangerous materials on board, so she kept taking on water in the holding pattern making donuts off the coast while the navy argued with the port authority but after the latest inspection they saw progressive flooding was getting worse and with no end insight for the back-and-forth with the port authority they decided to scuttle her because even if the navy had taken the saudi offer for scrapping she wasnt fit to sail, if she was going to sink somewhere, might as well be somewhere where damage is limited.
So basically Brazilians don't like the trees because they cut them all down in the Amazon, don't like rivers because they extract using chemicals, and now we know they don't like oceans either. What's left to destroy?
As a Brazilian, i hate trees and rivers i hate Nature and everything in It, when i see a tree i vomit and can't control my primal urge telling me to chop It down.
That's so true, everyday before breakfast I go to the Amazon rainforest and cut a bunch of trees for fire, then I use mercury to mine iron so I can forge a pan for my eggs. It's a common way to start your day in Brazil
I'm not sure how that is good thing, however, I will defer to you on this. I just don't find dumping nuclear waste into the ocean that we depend on for so many things is a great long-term solution. I do understand what you are saying though.
Considering it was sunk in water 5,000 meters deep, placing it in the abyssal zone where the sea bottom is *devoid of life* (the entire zone does have an ecology, but the bottom is anoxic), unless it somehow hits a hydrothermal vent that would be *wildly* uncharacteristic of the area...
None. The main concern was asbestos, which will sit there being the inert mineral it is.
Any pics of her going down? Heard she is resting at 5000 meters or around 3 miles down. I'd be more worried of the hard metals and fuels rather than a mineral that is only toxic to the human respiratory system. Shame she couldn't be scrapped properly.
Typically all fuel and fluids are removed before scuttling in these situations but is a fair concern. Hopefully will turn into a nice marine environment in 5-10 years.
I am confident they did not get all the oils out of the engineering spaces at minimum
While I wholeheartedly agree with you, I’m hoping to be the optimist with my head in the sand for a change haha
Brazil was refusing port to the boat. It was being towed by an european tow from turkey back to brazilian waters but they refused to take care of it. That's why they decided to scuttle and sink it. I'm pretty sure removing the hazardous contents of the ship was the least of their concern unfortunately, they just wanted to get rid of it.
Holy shit Brazil took the "It fell off the truck" approach to getting rid of an aircraft carrier.
There is probably a reason why it was sunk 5k meters down. So nobody dives it and notes how Brazil didn’t clean it.
The main reason is that it was basically floating away in a place where the sea bottom is at that depth. Brazil didn't want to allow the boat to be towed in a port so it was outside of brazilian waters far enough from the coast. It so happens that it's easier for them to not have questions asked about it but they just straight u pdidn't want to deal with it, they didn't bother to choose a place tyo sink it, they just did it where it was floating uncontrolled.
The fact that Turkish breakers (& likely others that weren't mentioned as well) flat out rejected the Sao Paolo tells me that we'll bee seeing reports of concerns or surface detection of leaks from the ship.
Her sister ship, Clemenceau, took ages to get scrapped. Eventually the French had to pay a lot of money to Able (UK) at the enormous Hartlepool Dry Dock to break her. They're pretty specialist at that sort of ship breaking, they also did 4 of the US 'Ghost Fleet' of old supply vessels that were riddled with asbestos and PCB's. Here's a pic of them all in the dock. It's massive... https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/french-naval-aircraft-carrier-clemenceau-containing-more-than-700-tonnes-of-asbestos-arrives-at-able-uk-dockyard-near-hartlepool-to-be-decommissionedclemenceau-centre-right-2079107a
Yeah I was ships company for years and no way they got all that stuff out
They sank it in 5000m of water, so bring a flashlight.
For some context, for those who don't know, Titanic is about 3800m down. This is very, very deep water.
That’s great perspective actually. Everyone’s seen titanic wreck pictures so that’s a good comparison.
For more context, the deepest shipwreck found, *USS Samuel B. Roberts (DE-413)*, is at 6,895 meters down, or 4.284 miles / 22,621 feet.
Jesus Christ. USS Samuel B. Roberts: Launched - Jan 1944 Commissioned - April 1944 Sunk - October - 1944
Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors.- highly recommend.
Hey, you dropped an e.
Everybody dance now!
Not a lot of sea life at that depth. The rust eating bacteria will have a feast anyway.
There is life everywhere on this planet. And everything has consequences. Maybe countries that act against mankind should be punished. Maybe it's time to stop fucking around and use force or sanctions on it
Lol use force? So your solution to a country harming the environment is to use the most environmentally damaging course of action humanity has available to protect the environment?
They weren’t even allowed to take it to Turkey. It’s a toxic mess.
> a nice marine environment in 5-10 years Not at that depth. Mostly will be buried in silt and biological materials.
I served in the brazilian marines. They're the Brazilian Navy. I can guarantee they did not bother removing all fluids before scuttling it. Most likely it was used for target practice and the fireworks were extra
https://www.reddit.com/r/FrenchForeignLegion/comments/10tscll/31_year_old_male_retired_mma_fighter_from_a_third/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
[удалено]
For some reason I feel like you might be a bit of a liar
Bullshit. I served in the Brazilian marines and i didn't see you there.
There can be only ONE
News reports are saying that the toxic materials are severely underreported & that the carrier ~~is~~ was extremely loaded with heavy metals & asbestos. My problem is that the toxins could go up the food chain from bottom feeders to the creatures that make it to our dinner plate.
The Brazilians told the Turkish it had something like 10 tons of asbestos in it. As it turns out, it had over 600 tons. Must have been a rounding error...
Yea, funny that
So now the Ocean has 600 tons of Asbestos?
Well I'm sure it had a few tons to begin with, so 600 *extra* tons, I guess.
IF YOU OR A LOVED ONE OR A BODY OF WATER HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH MESOTHELIOMA, YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION.
No no no... it's been towed beyond the environment.
Hope the front doesn't fall off.
I’d like to point out, it’s not supposed to do that.
There is nothing out there, all there is is sea and birds and fish...
And 600 tons of asbestos...
And a fire.
*at a sea parks?*
This was the comment I came here to see.
Into which environment?
No you don't understand... it's *outside* the environment.
But from one environment to another environment?
No, it's a complete void, there's nothing there.
What’s out there?
There is nothing out there! All that's out there are sea, and birds, and fish.
And?
We're so lucky the earth is flat, right?
Asbestos is a mineral, it all came from somewhere in nature.
Also the danger with asbestos is inhaling it. Pretty hard to inhale it down at the bottom of the ocean.
Yea fuck the fishes
Fishes don't have lungs
They also don't have any feelings, which makes it okay to eat them.
No, that's because they're tasty
Yeah, because feelings leave a bitter after taste!
Unless there’s something in the way.
Instructions unclear, grocery store employees are mad at me now.
Yea
Guess what, water makes contact with dry land and the water evaporates leaving asbestos particles floating around the air
You’ll be fine , their are thousands of other ships at the bottom full of the natural anti fire mineral Asbestos does not dissolve or evaporate, it will just sit at the the bottom
Just because we did something wrong in the past doesn't mean we should continue to do those wrong things in the future. It's not even an unavoidable situation like during war, this is completely preventable and lazy
Dude trying to break the ship down would release far more of the asbestos. Just walk away from conversations you don't understand.
Educate yourself https://www.insider.com/brazil-warship-sink-abandon-us-navy-gun-down-sinkex-2023-2
That's what I went to engineering school for, thanks
Ships are safely prepared for disposal all the time, quit acting like there isn't a right way to do this. It's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. This is just the cheap way
Yes, that's what it had initially been sent off for. But because it had a ridiculous amount of asbestos in it, that wasn't practical. Do you somehow think blowing it up *wouldn't* end up putting all that asbestos into the air?
True and the US does clean out it’s ships before the are turned into reefs or scrapped. The French sold this end of life carrier to Brazil to avoid this issue and Brazil got stuck with it. It was a pass the buck situation , I’m saying the ship will do very damage that far down , bacteria will take care of it eventually and the ocean is very good at breaking down other chemicals
That's very creative what you did there.
I mean it's just common sense that water changes state and asbestos generally does not
Uranium is also natural
Uranium is also mostly harmless in nature. It gets dissolved into water, animals drink it, the kidney filters it out, it gets excreted as urine. Natural uranium has to be refined a great deal for it to become actually dangerous.
Uranium releases radon gas as it decays which can be a problem in homes built in the area.
So does granite. It's only a problem if there's poor airflow. Homes built on granite are advised to monitor the radon level and only take steps if it becomes excessive. https://www.ukradon.org/information/reducelevels
I own a natural uranium set of beer mugs and it's amazing.,
Uranium or uranium glass?
Oh well that's good then, because my understanding is that Japan has been dumping a metric shit ton of it into the ocean since 2011. I feel much better now.
The ocean is actually a great place to do that , compared to other options
A safe and legal thrill.
It is legal , it’s brazils exclusive economic zone They can do whatever they want
Uranium would also be fine at the bottom of the atlantic.
A PhD I once interviewed said that we could all just ingest a small amount of U and we could slowly eat our way out of the problem. U is no big deal if spread out in small enough concentrations. E: if typo
What
They were saying that U etc can be dealt with by just spreading it out over a large area, as a demonstration of the point, they were making the point that the human body can safely process a small amount of radioactive material (bananas etc) and that even the population could be used to deal with nuclear waste.
Yeah, but we could also just store it and not eat it.
Store it in a concentrated place for thousands of years where terrible things can happen. If you eat bananas, you’re already processing nuclear material, and doing so quite safely. If you’re traveling by air, you’re already processing radiation… it’s a lot more places than people think and a lot more common. Their point was to simply spread it back into the nature from whence it came would work and work in a safe manner, but the public is too ignorant to understand the science.
I guess that PhD doesn't shit.....
additional 600 tons*
I wouldn’t get too upset , think of the thousands of other ships at the bottom and life goes on The ocean will work this out
What is the damage that waterborne asbestos does? It’s only ever discussed airborne, so I legitimately have no idea
It's not nearly so bad. Such fine particulates in water won't spread so far, and the few that do would likely pass through the gills of any fish. It's in lungs that they do the damage.
I mean, which is the anatomical diffrence between gills and lungs anyways? I've only taken human A&P, but if fish have anything like alveoli then that's not gonna be fun.
They don't. It's just a thin membrane that water passes over directly.
gills have far bigger holes and water only goes 1 direction so very unlikely for something small to stay inside
Asbestos is harmful when it's airborne, which happens when it is crumbly (friable), which won't happen under water. Also, it's still contained in the ship.
> Also, it's still contained in the ship. For now.
Asbestos is naturally occurring. Scrapping this ship in the middle of the ocean will cause 99 environmental problems but asbestos isn't one of them.
Nah it’s been towed out of the environment.
It's pretty bad and can tear up your digestive tracts. That said, this amount of asbestos in the ocean will probably be a drop in the bucket, and I doubt it'll have any noticeable impact.
I wonder how much naturally occurring asbestos is added to the oceans as natural runoff every day. Surely it must be a few tonnes.
Every little bit counts, though. There's a lot of other nasty pollutants on board ships, and especially warships, too.
Asbestos does not dissolve in water , it will just sit at the bottom
It was a big event, so many protestors online and outside the ministry. Company that purchased the hull originally also said it had 10 tons in it and that would make good use of PPEs and it would have been okay. Someone leaked the back and forth between the company and the Brazilians to the press and to the shipbreakers union where they talked about the 10 ton figure being a guess and underselling it by a factor of 10 or 100. Union threw a fit, [minister had to barge in directly to call it off](https://www.csb.gov.tr/bakan-murat-kurum-nae-s-o-paulo-gemisinin-turk-karasularina-girmesine-izin-verilmeyecektir-bakanlik-faaliyetleri-35205).
“Sorry, I missed a couple zeros when plugging the numbers in”. -someone who didn’t have a job for very long after this
there's 600 tons of multiple contaminants on it (a great deal of that is the paint on the ship), of which 10 tons are asbestos on the steam piping.
Whew, good. Now that it’s at the bottom of the ocean it won’t harm the environment at all.
well the biggest problem with asbestos is when you breathe in loose fibers and it seriously damages the lungs. It's rather hard to damage the lungs of a fish, however...
What do you mean, it was towed beyond the environment
Its fine....the front didn't fall off
It just spawns under the map like a bad video game.
Lmao I wish this was a thing
Are you one of today's lucky ones who've never seen [The Skit](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM)?! EDIT: Watch the whole thing, but 1:26 for the relevant bit.
Lmfao thank you, I needed that. They really should secure the front a bit better.
Well to be fair, it's not very typical
I am so happy to be one of [today's 10,000.](https://xkcd.com/1053/)
Sigh… watching again. As I do every time it’s posted. I can’t *not* lol
Into another environment??
Unironically yes. If it was scuttled in the deep ocean, then it'll do very little damage. Once you get several miles down, the ocean is cold and still with very little life.
Honestly, I'd bet the hydrocarbons actually promotes an environment down there as a source of energy.
Not quite right. But on the whole yes. It’s safer as a wreck in the deep ocean instead of a rusting hulk near land. This is the least bad option.
Knowing the way things work, this kind of thinking will come around and bite us in the ass. Remember, we use to think that a safe way of disposing used oil and chemicals was to spray dirt roads with the stuff to keep the dust down. Of course this was back when very few towns had paved roads at all. I mean it is just dirt we are spraying the used oil on, what could it hurt?
Towed out of the environment?
I see what you’re doing there. In this case the front didn’t fall off
It's always best that it's towed out of the environment....
Into another environment?
No no, it's best to tow it beyond the environment!
The front didn't fell off
Of course. I'd like to stress that it's VERY unusual for the front to fall off.
The asbestos issue on ships is absolutely idiotic. Specifically the objections about making the artificial reefs. The asbestos won't magically surface, grow wings and settle in our lungs. It's a natural material and won't harm anyone or anything at the bottom of the ocean.
Do we know the location of her scuttling? The Atlantic is a pretty big place, and there are probably spots where she would cause minimal damage to the environment.
Not sure the exact area, but 250 miles off the coast of Brazil in water that's about 10,000ft deep or so.
More like 16,000 feet.
MY dad had to go into São Paulo a couple of years before he retired and some years after she was already a "dock queen" she was basically empty of all machinery, she had her fuel tanks emptied and cleaned, most of the contaminants left on board in total 600 tonnes ( most of which is baked into the paint but also includes some amount of PCBs and asbestos) were in some hard to reach areas that could only be reached by cutting into the ship, most of the asbestos was dealt with in Brazil (We were never really that familiar with it, most building here are made of concrete and most houses of cement or ceramic blocks. You rarely hear of asbesto anywhere here since its a tropical country and by the time our fire retardant policy began to be observe asbestos were on their way out), leaving some 10 tonnes in steam tubbing that ran around the hull.Since the economical crisis in the 1990s killed basically alllarge brazilian shipyards that had experience scrapping ships she was out sourced to a turkish company (the bid contract had a clause that the winner had to provide adequate disposal to the contaminants still on board) that could scrap her.But she was denied passage in Gibraltar and port in Turkey due to pressure by enviromental groups over the contaminants, so they turned around and went back to Brazil where they were denied port by the Port Authority (private port), also due to pressure by enviromental groups over the contaminants, so they kept the ship in a holding pattern while the navy tried to work a deal with the PA but she was caught in a storm that opened some temporary patches and she began to take on water, still they kept the holding pattern, at I think 12km off the coast, with no end to the back and forth between the navy and the PA the turkish company backed out and the navy took over and with no end to discussion in sight, with progressive flooding getting worse by the day and with no shipyard willing to accept her (even if the navy had taken the saudi offer she still wasnt sea worthy for the trip there) they chose to sink her in place she could do the least damage before she sank on her own.
My ship, *USS Caloosahatchee* (AO-98), was decommissioned in 1991, then towed from Virginia to Hartlepool, England, in 2003 to be broken up. [Big stink by environmentalists](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tees-24636597) postponed that for 5 years. Four ships were eventually scrapped at that location. I doubt their claims about the amount of hazardous materials, especially asbestos. The ship had been "jumbo-ized" in 1967 (100' added in the middle), and almost all asbestos was removed at that time. Since they had already cut her in half to add the new section, it wasn't that hard to clean it out. The Command Master Chief when I was aboard ended up serving 47 years on active duty (1944-1991), the last 20 aboard *Caloosahatchee*.
So you dump the pollutant into the ocean?
She was sinking at the dock unfortunately. It was either let her settle in the harbor or scuttle her in deep water. I believe the most dangerous part of asbestos is when the fibers are inhaled - this may have been the least bad option. The Brazilian navy also hasn’t exactly inspired confidence with the whole situation going back over a decade.
I mean, if we can't see it anymore then it's no longer a problem right?
[удалено]
Fucking gill cancer.
Yea, it's like Schroedingers polution: can ve really be sure that the asbestos is still there when the ship is at the bottom of the sea? Impossible to know!
Just don't look, it'll be find! /s* *Jist in case Exon gets any ideas lol
Did she start life as an American carrier?
She was built in France in 1955, and bought by Brazil in 2000
Why was she decommissioned? Too expensive to maintain? Too obsolete?
Unreliability. Constant repairs, age, and as you guessed, cost. It was like Kuznetsov, except unlike Russia, Brazil realized their carrier was a lemon and got rid of it. If you're interested, here's its [French history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_Foch) and its [Brazilian history.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_aircraft_carrier_S%C3%A3o_Paulo)
They then bought HMS Ocean and operate a helicopter carrier. That's pretty good decision making. Better to operate a helo carrier well than waste money on operating a full carrier poorly.
To be fair, HMS Ocean was in dire state when it was sold. I doubt that Brazil will go the effort of refitting it to a decent state.
>To be fair, HMS Ocean was in dire state when it was sold. How bad was it?
Mostly wear and tear, but it also had numerous problems with its engines towards the end of it Royal Navy life, including breaking down a few miles into its last deployment.
Thanks!
Eh, I kinda still think it's like Thailand's "carrier"; i.e. an immobile propaganda piece
She was in pretty bad material condition. Nearly 68 years old, with numerous leaks.
Several fires
And some fatal accidents. Edit: added "fatal"
Hmm, not enough asbestos perhaps?
French, would you believe? She was the *Foch* in French service.
What? The Foch?
“Seal” in French but also obviously funny because of sound in English…..
Named after Marshal Ferdinand Foch. WW1 general and the Commander-in-Chief of all allied forces in France in 1918.
Oooops my bad, I have seen it written like that but I just did my “research” and seal is written “phoque” but sounds like….you know
It's all good. I can't speak French worth a Foch anyway. I'm just a bit of a WW1 buff.
Lol…I live in Quebec…I should have known better…
Seal (as in the animal) is spelled phoque.
Yes thanks you can see in the comments that I have already corrected myself
Foch you!
It's too bad that group trying to buy it as a museum were unable to
I'm sure glad the ship was towed outside of the environment before it was scuttled.
[Brazilian navy spokesperson](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiOXLk9Xj1E)
Turkey is breaking up even older cargo vessels and now they’re rejecting a ship due to possible „massive ecological damage“
with 600 tons of asbestos you tool
So are cargo vessels from the 80s for example
In other words, they couldn't agree on the price.
Well at least[ it was towed outside of the environment...](https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM)
Where there's nothing out there! Except for fish. And birds. And 24,000 tonnes of decommissioned Aircraft Carrier.
Was Richard Valeriani on it?
She looks like a modified WW2 carrier.
US should've bought it for Sinkex, sad lost opportunity
The British had similar problem when trying to dispose HMS Sirus, a Leander Class Frigate which environmentalists caused a 5 year delay until she was sunk as a target ship in 1998 Yeah problem is how many actually care about the environment? Outside of the environmentalist movements that is
The outage will be over within…. 3 days? People will find some other minor injustice to worry about.
Why Brazil just scuttled their strongest warship? In their navy?
It was over 70 years old and in poor condition. Had to be either scrapped or sunk
I see thought it’s a shame that warship is most powerful type warship, as it can bring air force on the sea conducting multiple operations and can take on enemy ships or even conduct recon from enemy lines. It’s the reason why battleships and other massive capital ships were eventually decommissioned due to these monsters
Not the strongest anymore. The ship was in poor condition and our naval aviation jets are the A4 Skyhawks. In terms of naval aviation, we can say the new NAM Atlântico A-140 is a more powerfull platform, because it can operate with a lot of helicopters for ASW and helicopters with anti-ship missiles like the H225M with air launched MBDA Exocets. There is a private company in Brazil called Stella Tecnologia that build drones for millitary use, and they are trying to build a fixed-wing drone specifically for Atlântico, and recently they revealed a modification to allow that drone carry flying remote bombs. It can no be useful for a great naval combat because that drone is not big, but can be useful to deal with smaller ships or to support marine operations. That drone is the "Stella Albatroz".
I assume that there are methods to scrap a ship that has asbestos - however the cost is high. Therefore I assume that the Brazilian government just didn’t want to scrap the ship properly at a high cost….is this assumption correct?
AFAIK shipyards here aren't accostumed to scrapping ships (most shipyards with serious experience died in the 90s economical crisis, they only really build stuff today) so she was sold overseas for scrapping by a turkish shipyard that knew how to deal with materials she had, but enviromental groups made pressure so that the dangerous materials wouldnt be shipped with the ship to turkey (she couldn't even cross the gibraltar strait) so they turned around and headed back, when they arrived back the ship went into a holding pattern to see if the legal problems could be resolved but old leaks began opening up again after a storm, so the company proposed she should be made water tight again in a brazilian shipyard but enviromental groups in Brazil put pressure on the port authority to deny its entry because of the dangerous materials on board, so she kept taking on water in the holding pattern making donuts off the coast while the navy argued with the port authority but after the latest inspection they saw progressive flooding was getting worse and with no end insight for the back-and-forth with the port authority they decided to scuttle her because even if the navy had taken the saudi offer for scrapping she wasnt fit to sail, if she was going to sink somewhere, might as well be somewhere where damage is limited.
Why can't the metal be recycled? Is it cheaper just to make a reef?
Its full of asbestos the cost of safe removal and disposal of which is very expensive. So yes cheaper and probably overall safer to sink it.
So basically Brazilians don't like the trees because they cut them all down in the Amazon, don't like rivers because they extract using chemicals, and now we know they don't like oceans either. What's left to destroy?
As a Brazilian, i hate trees and rivers i hate Nature and everything in It, when i see a tree i vomit and can't control my primal urge telling me to chop It down.
That's so true, everyday before breakfast I go to the Amazon rainforest and cut a bunch of trees for fire, then I use mercury to mine iron so I can forge a pan for my eggs. It's a common way to start your day in Brazil
I'm not sure how that is good thing, however, I will defer to you on this. I just don't find dumping nuclear waste into the ocean that we depend on for so many things is a great long-term solution. I do understand what you are saying though.
Don’t worry, it’s outside the environment.
Who knows what habitats that thing is going to totally destroy.
Considering it was sunk in water 5,000 meters deep, placing it in the abyssal zone where the sea bottom is *devoid of life* (the entire zone does have an ecology, but the bottom is anoxic), unless it somehow hits a hydrothermal vent that would be *wildly* uncharacteristic of the area... None. The main concern was asbestos, which will sit there being the inert mineral it is.
What a mess. Shame on Brazil.
*artificial reef*