Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The ticking time-bomb at the bottom of the Baltic Sea

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 100 posts

Re: The ticking time-bomb at the bottom of the Baltic Sea

#31

Post by alister »

65,000 tonnes of chemical sounds humongous, but picturing the volume makes it look a lot smaller (not trying to diminish the potential gravity of the problem).

Assume the chemicals have a density of 1 g/cm^3, the same as water, which seems reasonable for organic liquids and such. Then a cubic meter weighs a metric tonne. So 65,000 tonnes is the same as a cube that is 40 meters on a side.

Another visualization: 1/5 of the volume of oil that can be carried by a Very Large Crude Carrier supertanker according to Wolfram Alpha:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=65000+m^3

EDIT: Without diminishing the potential gravity of the problem, but trying to visualize what 65,000 tonnes looks like, I'm surprised it doesn't look as big as I thought it would.

Re: The ticking time-bomb at the bottom of the Baltic Sea

#32

Post by mabbo »

alister wrote: post #31

65,000 tonnes of chemical sounds humongous, but picturing the volume makes it look a lot smaller (not trying to diminish the potential gravity of the problem). Assume the chemicals have a density of 1 g/cm^3, the same as water, which seems reasonable for organic liquids and such. Then a cubic meter weighs a metric tonne. So 65,000 tonnes is the same as a cube that is 40 meters on a side. Another visualization: 1/5 of…

If we're talking about chemical weapons, that sounds like a lot of chemical weapons to me.

Re: The ticking time-bomb at the bottom of the Baltic Sea

#33

Post by coldtea »

alister wrote: post #31

65,000 tonnes of chemical sounds humongous, but picturing the volume makes it look a lot smaller (not trying to diminish the potential gravity of the problem). Assume the chemicals have a density of 1 g/cm^3, the same as water, which seems reasonable for organic liquids and such. Then a cubic meter weighs a metric tonne. So 65,000 tonnes is the same as a cube that is 40 meters on a side. Another visualization: 1/5 of…

>65,000 tonnes of chemical sounds humongous, but picturing the volume makes it look a lot smaller

Well, the volume of chemical weapons it takes to take down an entire city of millions is much much smaller than this.

Re: The ticking time-bomb at the bottom of the Baltic Sea

#34

Post by dingaling »

jmpe wrote: post #18
TeMPOraL wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read an article about it years ago. According to it, the Allies were supposed to dump those weapons into the ocean, but they didn't care to go so far, so they dropped them into the Baltic instead.

I remember reading somewhere that this practice still exists today. That jets dump their payload in the sea before landing. As I recall it was a landing area in/around Italy during the Iraq conflict. Makes sense if you think about it, takeoff and landing are risky. Anyone care to chime in with some knowledge?

I know of two situations when ordnance is ejected prior to landing

1. Hang-ups, where the release command was given over target but the ordnance didn't separate. Usually this requires the entire weapon rack ( such as a BDU ) to be ejected using the emergency explosive charges.

2. Trap-weight limits; the old-gen F/A-18s were crippled by this problem, wherein they couldn't recover to ship carrying the ordnance with which they launched. Particularly if they topped-up from a tanker on the return leg this could necessitate dumping unused ordnance.

I think #2 is much less of a problem now with the Super Hornets.

In general, after several decades of toting 2,000 lb Mk 84 bombs, ordnance is returning to smaller sizes due to the concentration of effect possible with precision guidance. 500 lb bombs are commonplace now, and sometimes even smaller. So this should also reduce the frequency of dumping.

Re: The ticking time-bomb at the bottom of the Baltic Sea

#35

Post by NAFV_P »

frik wrote: post #14

Don't forget the atomic bombs and H-bombs: * Dozens of Atomic Warheads Lost In Sea by Superpowers, Study Says: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/07/us/dozens-of-atomic-warhea... * Missing for 50 years - US nuclear bomb: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8107908.stm

The first link you posted mentions the USS Iowa Gun Turret explosion, another shocking tale of negligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion

Re: The ticking time-bomb at the bottom of the Baltic Sea

#36

Post by [deleted] »

alister wrote: post #31

65,000 tonnes of chemical sounds humongous, but picturing the volume makes it look a lot smaller (not trying to diminish the potential gravity of the problem). Assume the chemicals have a density of 1 g/cm^3, the same as water, which seems reasonable for organic liquids and such. Then a cubic meter weighs a metric tonne. So 65,000 tonnes is the same as a cube that is 40 meters on a side. Another visualization: 1/5 of…

[deleted]

Re: The ticking time-bomb at the bottom of the Baltic Sea

#38

Post by abailin »

zokier wrote: post #27
danohuiginn wrote: post #13

The shelf life of most chemical weapons is fairly short -- and tends to be shorter the nastier they are. We're mainly talking mustard gas. Germany did use nerve gases tabun, sarin, and soman [1]. But nerve gases degrade after a period of a few weeks to a few years. I'm not sure what they degrade into, admittedly, and I doubt it's nice. Mustard gas lasts longer, but is also much less potent. Military use is about 1 to…

> Mustard gas lasts longer, but is also much less potent Maybe much less potent in killing instantly (ie in combat use), but what about long-term low-dosage exposure? > possibly going up the food chain (does that happen?) Bio-accumulation in general is very real thing, and imho the most worrisome aspect of this situation.

Highly recommended book that touches on bio-accumulation: Zodiac by Neal Stephenson (http://www.amazon.com/Zodiac-Neal-Stephenson/dp/0802143156)

Re: The ticking time-bomb at the bottom of the Baltic Sea

#39

Post by maxerickson »

zokier wrote: post #27
danohuiginn wrote: post #13

The shelf life of most chemical weapons is fairly short -- and tends to be shorter the nastier they are. We're mainly talking mustard gas. Germany did use nerve gases tabun, sarin, and soman [1]. But nerve gases degrade after a period of a few weeks to a few years. I'm not sure what they degrade into, admittedly, and I doubt it's nice. Mustard gas lasts longer, but is also much less potent. Military use is about 1 to…

> Mustard gas lasts longer, but is also much less potent Maybe much less potent in killing instantly (ie in combat use), but what about long-term low-dosage exposure? > possibly going up the food chain (does that happen?) Bio-accumulation in general is very real thing, and imho the most worrisome aspect of this situation.

I think danohuiginn's question is more whether the bio-accumulation happens faster than whatever degradation.

This abstract suggests that bacteria are utilizing the thiodiglycol that the mustard gas ends up releasing into the water:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19481794

This one suggests that the thiodiglycol is still harmful:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16393936

But that it isn't nearly as harmful as the mustard gas.

Re: The ticking time-bomb at the bottom of the Baltic Sea

#40

Post by shubb »

Shivetya wrote: post #28
danohuiginn wrote: post #13

The shelf life of most chemical weapons is fairly short -- and tends to be shorter the nastier they are. We're mainly talking mustard gas. Germany did use nerve gases tabun, sarin, and soman [1]. But nerve gases degrade after a period of a few weeks to a few years. I'm not sure what they degrade into, admittedly, and I doubt it's nice. Mustard gas lasts longer, but is also much less potent. Military use is about 1 to…

Gulf of Mexico is a big dumping ground too http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/28/14141378-world-wa... thirty plus million pounds of assorted weaponary

My favourite is the sunken ship packed with explosives in the Thames estuary. As it rusts, it could explode at any time, sending a small tidal wave up the river and into London.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Richard_Montgomery

Post reply on HN