Slashdot Mirror
Chainsaw-wielding Robotic Submarine
merryprankster writes "New Scientist is running a story about Sawfish, a chainsaw-wielding
robotic submarine used as an underwater lumberjack. There are some 200
million trees thought to be standing on the floor of hydropower reservoirs worldwide.
Sawfish attaches airbags to, and cuts around 9 trees an hour - the trees then float
to the surface for collection. Cue the jokes about robotic high heels, suspenders
and a bra."
Sure this situation sounds like a win - win situation, but considering that most of the hydropower reservoirs are a minumum of several years old, many underwater animals have built their habitats among those submerged trees, and what will they do if we chop them down ? .. we've already made this mistake on the surface... should we do in the ocean as well ?
Up here in Vermont, some guys made news a couple of summers ago by building a homemade submarine out of welded-together propane tanks(!) with trolling motors for propulsion. They were actually making some good money by going into some of the deep ponds here, attaching cables to long-ago fallen trees and hoisting them to the surface. Since the deep water is so low in oxygen, the trees are well preserved, and after propper drying yield some excellent lumber.
... I have NO IDEA what "Cue the jokes about robotic high heels, suspenders and a bra" is supposed to mean. I feel strangely inadequate; I'm usually way ahead of the rest of you with the references to Lumberjack Crossdressing Porn.
I'm not normally an irrational zealous dickhead, but I figure "When in Rome..."
For all I know you went from 735 million acres of old-growth forest in 1920 to 749 million acres of the modern spongy fast-grown pine now.
My house (in Canada) is 75% old-growth pine. I cannot find any knots in the old stuff, and it's about as hard as granite, while the new stuff is like sponge. I've had to drill holes through the old-growth joists, and the the spade drill just about glows red by the time it's made its way through the old joists. I'm not exaggerating. The wood ends up scorched black and smoking from the ten minutes of fierce drilling that it takes to get through it.
A great example of why we need a "-1, WRONG" moderation choice.
If you read the article you will see that wood submerged in cold, anaerobic conditions does not rot. Even in relatively warm, aerobic conditions storage is possible - read about the medieval method of cutting and preparing timber for an English Yew longbow, to see just one example.
As others have said, you do not understand "old growth" at all.
Forest renewal in the absence of fire, is, depending on species, quite normal.
What Japanese? Who tried to store logs underwater? What bugs? Could those bugs live in anaerobic conditions? (you'll need to look up that big word!)
You are an ignoramus.
The usual solution is to get a large barge-mounted crane and pull them up by brute force, but that's expensive. So it tends not to get done until somebody wants to build something and can convince the city to let them. The bayfront clutter of pilings and rotted piers makes open shoreline look less attractive, which encourages "development". A cheaper way to remove that junk, even if it's slow, would be a big win.
Companies are salvaging lumber from the Great Lakes also.
from the article:
"One area in the Great Lakes where a team of horses ... went through the ice with a load of logs ... the skeletal remains of the horse are still there, harness, logs and all."
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
At my parent's lake house in Marble Falls, Texas, there is a stump in the cove that usually sits about a foot under the surface, and has caused many a boater to lose props or get holes punched in their boats. Usually someone in the area will mark it with a floater, so it's easy to avoid, but that hasn't stopped the faithful from trying to get rid of the hazard alltogether.
One weekend while up there, I had friends of mine who are Scuba divers don their gear, and try to use a large hacksaw to try and remove it. They came back with 5 chewed up hacksaw blades, and low on air.
About every few years or so, the LCRA will let the lake level down (it's a constant level lake, a dam on each end) so that homeowners can go out and clear out their lakefront property where the lake usually would be. Over the years we've seen folks try chainsaws, winches, fire, and even explosives to get rid of that hard Cypress stump, to no avail.
So, to this day, that stump remains vigilant and intact.
There are some pretty big misunderstandings there... First of all, very little of American forest is old growth, at least speaking from the perspective of someone from Indiana, where we have millions (around 4.5) of acres of forest, but only 2000 of those acres are old growth. And I know the situation is similar in most states, if not quite as bad as here. (And old growth is a misnomer anyway; it can mean different things to different people - there are several useful definitions for the term, and merely being old does not under all definitions automatically make a forest "old growth" - it has more to do with the condition of the forest and the type of trees, I think) Second of all, citing a number from 1920 doesn't really help. 1920 was within like 10 years of the minimum forestation (at least for Indiana, I am sure it is similar elsewhere) - they had in our case already ripped up the vast majority of forest in the state and almost all of the old growth forest (basically all old growth forest had been logged by 1930). Since then much land RELATIVELY had been reforested (often not intentionally, so the new forest is only due in part to that 7% "planted by man"), but the vast majority of the damage was already done, and NONE of the new forest by definition will be old growth. And in fact there was still considerable deforestation after that time, but so much forest was added that it hides alot of that. (By the way, most estimates are the Indiana used to be around 80% forest; a quick check on google gave me numbers of around 20% current forestation - which is UP from the 1920 number. And that 80% consisted of significant amounts of old growth - though note it was not exclusively what would be called "old growth" by most people - and now old growth is well less than 1%.)