Slashdot Mirror


British Town Worried About WWII Ammo Ship Wreck

Radical Rad writes "For 60 years, 1.4 kilotons of unstable world war II bombs have lain in the rusting wreck of a US cargo ship half-submerged on a sandbank in the river Thames. If it explodes it will be one of the biggest non-nuclear explosions ever with predictions of a 3 kilometre high wall of mud, water, and metal fragments causing devastation to the nearby town of Sheerness in Kent." The BBC has more.

471 comments

  1. Phew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Glad I still had time to change the vacation plans!

    1. Re:Phew! by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Largest ever non-nuclear blast has already occured. It happend in 1947 in Texas City Texas. Read about it here: http://www.local1259iaff.org/disaster.html

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    2. Re:Phew! by strictfoo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Largest ever non-nuclear blast has already occured.

      Does that sentence make anyone elses head hurt? Of course it has occured. That may have been a big explosion, but this would then suplant that as being the largest. The thing about being the biggest/largest/tallest/longest etc of something, is that you only keep the title as long as nothing else comes along and surpasses you.

      I thought that the explosion along the Siberian pipeline was the largest non-nuclear anyways.

      --
      I've just signed legislation that'll outlaw Russia forever. We'll begin bombing in five minutes.
    3. Re:Phew! by ir8monkey · · Score: 2, Funny

      ya you see..this one will be bigger.

    4. Re:Phew! by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 4, Funny

      > The thing about being the biggest/largest/tallest/longest etc of something, is that you only keep the title as long as nothing else comes along and surpasses you.

      Not in Texas...

    5. Re:Phew! by grozzie2 · · Score: 4, Informative
      I thought that the explosion along the Siberian pipeline was the largest non-nuclear anyways

      The destruction of ripple rock to clear a safe passage for shipping holds that title. 1375 tons of explosives going off about 10 feet underwater. It rattled windows 65 miles away. There's an article here .

    6. Re:Phew! by uloveus · · Score: 1

      Perhaps this isn't as stupid as it sounds.

      I think parent might be pointing out that it states the largest 'ever' as opposed to 'yet'.

      The statement is correct either way.

    7. Re:Phew! by stephanruby · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "Largest ever non-nuclear blast has already occured."

      Yeah, it was a volcano eruption.

      Next time, be sure to say it's the largest man-made non-nuclear that-has-yet-to-occur type of explosion.

      In any case, shouldn't those explosive materials start to decay after some time. I'm not saying that they can't explode, but at least I would expect the explosion to be a fraction of what it might have been fifty years ago.

    8. Re:Phew! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      "Largest ever non-nuclear blast has already occured."

      Yeah, it was a volcano eruption.

      Actually, the meteor that is claimed to have killed the dinosaurs was a lot bigger. Furthermore, I have also heard a theory that the Moon was separated from the Earth by a huge explosion - if true, that explosion would also be a lot bigger.

      If we go outside of Earth, then there's at least supernova explosions (not nuclear, but caused by sudden release of potential gravitational energy) and quasars (the same, and visible from the other side of the universe - a volcano doesn't even begin to compare - on the other hand, these are stable nonnuclear energy radiators, not really explosions).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    9. Re:Phew! by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      "I thought that the explosion along the Siberian pipeline was the largest non-nuclear anyways."

      Largest ever artificial non-nuclear blast on Earth maybe...

    10. Re:Phew! by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 1

      Are there non-nuclear explosions that do not occur on the Earth?

      Ok, now my head hurts more.

    11. Re:Phew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is widely accepted that the world's largest non-nuclear explosion was the Halifax Explosion (1917) which was caused by 2300 tons of wet and dry picric acid, 200 tons of TNT, 10 tons of gun cotton, and 35 tons of benzol all exploding at the same time.

      http://www.cbc.ca/halifaxexplosion/

    12. Re:Phew! by RoTNCoRE · · Score: 2, Informative

      My guess for the current title is Halifax (Canada, during WWI) when an ammo ship collided with another ship in the harbour, and levelled much of the city. I remember reading about a piece of the anchor being found several kilometres (yeah that's right - metric) away. Here's a link http://www.cbc.ca/halifaxexplosion/

    13. Re:Phew! by pgpckt · · Score: 1

      >> The thing about being the biggest/largest/tallest/longest etc of something, is that you only keep the title as long as nothing else comes along and surpasses you.

      >Not in Texas...

      Um, how about Alaska?

      --
      Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
    14. Re:Phew! by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Funny

      I've always been in agreement that we should make Alaska into two states, which would drop Texas to number 3 on the list.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    15. Re:Phew! by criordan · · Score: 1

      "Yeah, it was a volcano eruption"

      No, it wasn't a volcano eruption. It was the Big Bang.

      Next time, be sure to say it's the largest man-made non-nuclear that-has-yet-to-occur type of explosion on Earth.

      --
      http://www.aaplblog.com/ - News about Apple Inc.
    16. Re:Phew! by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      Uhm... informative? right.

    17. Re:Phew! by ReciprocityProject · · Score: 2, Funny

      Does that sentence make anyone elses head hurt?

      Yes, it did. Literally, I felt the pain. Maybe it was coincidence, but owwww. Why did you have to show it to me again?

    18. Re:Phew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed it was.

    19. Re:Phew! by flyneye · · Score: 2, Funny

      It'd be like pulling a rotten tooth out of an englishman.one good pull and it'll all be over.
      no more pain and a hole where it used to be.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    20. Re:Phew! by lonesome+phreak · · Score: 1

      Why is this a troll? I read the page and it's actually pretty interesting, with pictures and everything. It's on topic...it should be +5 interesting, not a troll. Stupid moderators.

      --
      Maybe we DID take the blue pill. You wouldn't remember anyway.
    21. Re:Phew! by Lee164 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Largest I don't know but there have been others.

      In 1917 on December 6th the freighters Mont-Blanc (France in-bound) and the IMO (Norway out-bound) collided in the Halifax harbor. The Mount-Blanc was carrying ordance and the explosion took out the harbor.

      The ship Gandcamp was on fire in Texas City with a cargo of ammonium nitrate on April 16 1947 when it blew up- very messy to say the least.

      It would looklike it's not a good idea to have a ship full of high explosives go off, 60 years old or not. They have a VERY big problem!

      God bless who ever has to work on clearing that ship out.

    22. Re:Phew! by n00b_101 · · Score: 1

      If I'm not mistaken, the Big Bang could be Considered a type of nuclear explosion.

    23. Re:Phew! by Rasta+Prefect · · Score: 1
      Why is this a troll? I read the page and it's actually pretty interesting, with pictures and everything.

      I believe the "troll" moderation has something to do with the stupidity of the statement that "The largest non-nuclear blast has already happened".

      --
      Why?
    24. Re:Phew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worse yet was the overrated mod, I wish Taco would remove the Overrated and Underrated mods, It's like saying "I'm modding you down/up, just because." and it's not open to meta-moderation

    25. Re:Phew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      experts estimate the resultant explosion will cause flooding and cover the whole of the south of England in 30 feet of water.

      So whats the bad news?

    26. Re:Phew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was this one:

      http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9805/06/space.expl os ion/

    27. Re:Phew! by goatan · · Score: 1
      In any case, shouldn't those explosive materials start to decay after some time. I'm not saying that they can't explode, but at least I would expect the explosion to be a fraction of what it might have been fifty years ago.

      Depends on the type of explosive but as they degrade they often get more volatile, had a disturbing example whilst on an adventure holiday with the school we did a walk through an army training area we had been given the standard talk about not picking up or kicking things on the floor, anyway after the walk we got back to the house where we are given another talk by the guide specifically about explosives and that if we picked anything up we should hand it in for our own safety at this point someone pulls out a red stick and places it on the table. The look on the guys face was pure terror. To cut a long story short we spent along time outside waiting for the Army to deal with it, what caused his terror was the explosive had started to "sweat" and beads of nitro-glycerine (I think) where just sitting on the surface you only need to a little bit of force to make the beads and as a result the rest of the explosive explode.

      --
      Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.

  2. What are the odds? by lecithin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    After all this time that something is going to happen? Would some of the explosives now be inert?

    --
    It could be worse, it could be Monday.
    1. Re:What are the odds? by jrockway · · Score: 5, Funny

      Let's go set them off and see! Waiting is no fun!

      --
      My other car is first.
    2. Re:What are the odds? by boisepunk · · Score: 4, Informative

      no, just unstable... which would be scarier than stable explosives

      --
      main(0)
    3. Re:What are the odds? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Would some of the explosives now be inert?

      Unstable is the word you're looking for.

    4. Re:What are the odds? by CaptKilljoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      >After all this time that something is going to happen? Would some of the explosives now be inert?

      Apparently, many types of explosives become unstable as they age, meaning that an explosion becomes more likely over time.

      http://safety.utoledo.edu/explosives.asp
      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q= explosives+unstable+age

    5. Re:What are the odds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Another article I read elsewhere said that some of the fuses could be triggered by contact with water (too unmotivated to find the link). The bomb casings have (presumably) started to rust and decay.. if only one bomb casing springs a leak.. it could blow - and set off the rest of the explosives. And if the explosives are water-tight, it means that they aren't decaying...

      Personally I think the town should be evacuated, all the windows boarded up, shipping traffic diverted - and a torpedo lobbed at it from a couple of miles away to set the entire thing off and ensure it's made safe. I wouldn't want to ask anyone to go down there to try and defuse anything - it seems far too risky.

    6. Re:What are the odds? by Amiga+Lover · · Score: 1

      Some would be, yes. However throughout europe, especially parts of france, the odd unexploded WWII bomb still goes off after being buried more than 50 years in a field, by a road, under housing etc.

    7. Re:What are the odds? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      About ten years ago, someone told me that every once in a while people are still killed by unexploded Civil War ordinance. I have no idea if this is true or not, but if it is, it says something about how long these things can remain active.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    8. Re:What are the odds? by BCW2 · · Score: 1, Informative

      What happens when explosives are stored improperly (and I can't imagine anything more improper) is the material separates. This leaves the inert material and nitroglycerine. Thats about as unstable as it gets. Nitro is bad news.

      In dynamite they use fullers earth, a uniformly porus sand, to evenly distriute the nitro. When dynamite sweats, run, thats nitro. In WWII nitro-celulose was used in many explosives, the same thing can happen.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    9. Re:What are the odds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And if the explosives are water-tight, it means that they aren't decaying...

      Informative?! The above statement is a rather large and scarry assumption. Maybe insightful, but certainly not informative. STOP SMOKING CRACK MODS!

    10. Re:What are the odds? by Scud · · Score: 1

      ...and a torpedo lobbed at it from a couple of miles away...

      Lobbed? Torpedo?

      Ummm, errr, I'm not sure that's how these things work.

      John

      --
      I dream in binary.
    11. Re:What are the odds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Lobbed? Torpedo?" Just attach a (large) hydrogen ballon/blimp to the torpedo and rupture or shoot it when it is over the wreck.

      You people make things so difficult! Easy as pi.

    12. Re:What are the odds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he meant so say "If they are water-tight, it means that they are probably still quite active". And yeah, I'd guess that were the case.

      In other words, that water will probably destroy the munitions, if it got into them. Especially if it were TNT. But since it hasn't, they're not.

    13. Re:What are the odds? by Phanatic1a · · Score: 5, Informative

      What happens when explosives are stored improperly (and I can't imagine anything more improper) is the material separates. This leaves the inert material and nitroglycerine. Thats about as unstable as it gets. Nitro is bad news.

      That's, of course, only the case for explosives which use nitroglycerine.

      As this is WWII ordnance, we're probably not looking at any of those. Could be straight TNT, which is extremely stable, but various alkali compounds of the sort found in seawater can react with it to form a variety of compounds that are unstable to heat and impact. Could be Composition B, which is a mixture of TNT and RDX, so the same thing applies, or Comp A, which is straight RDX and a plasticizer, not so stable as Comp B. Ammonium picrate was used as a bursting charge, and is incredibly stable to shock and friction, but, again, seawater. Could also be Torpex, another popular one, and another RDX/TNT mixture. Problem with all of these is primarily the seawater environment reacting with the TNT to produce unstable products.

      Nitrocellulose wasn't used in any of the common WWII high-explosives, nor was nitroglycerin; most high explosives of the day were varying mixtures of TNT, RDX, and sometimes PETN or Tetryl. Nitrocellulose isn't a high explosive at all; it doesn't detonate, it deflagrates, and the propagation of the chemical reaction through the material is below the speed of sound. What it was for, up until and probably throughout WWII, was a propellant, a replacement for gunpowder. It only explodes at all when confined; flash paper is basically straight nitrocellulose, and you can light that stuff off while holding it in your hand.

    14. Re:What are the odds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative



      'Even experienced miners hesitate to handle old explosives. They realize that the ingredients in explosives will deteriorate with age and can detonate at the slightest touch. Many abandoned mines contain old explosives left behind when the operations closed down. Innocent looking sticks and blasting caps are potential killers. The best advice around explosives is do not touch or go near. If you find explosives, call the local sherrif's office or the Arizona State Mine Inspector. They will arrange for the safe disposal of the explosives.'

      http://www.asmi.state.az.us/stayout.html

    15. Re:What are the odds? by rebel_cdn · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, in the case of an ASROC (anti-submarine rocket), that's exactly how it works. It's basically a missile with a torpedo attached to it.

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

    16. Re:What are the odds? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, some of them will be pretty much useless after all of the time, but others will be more unstable.

      Something called "Composition A" is RDX mixed with melted wax. That stuff will keep for a LONG time, since no water is going to penetrate the wax.

      RDX has been used as an explosive since the 1920s. It's some powerful stuff.

      Remember Saving Private Ryan? Remember the "sticky bombs"? That was Composition A. You can blow the treads off of a tank with a sock full of the stuff. Imagine what a boatload of it will do.

      We're not talking small quantities of these explosives either, we're talking about a military transport ship.

      That could be dangerous, but nothing compared to the Lost Hydrogen Bomb that is sitting in the atlantic just off the coast of the US.

      War is nasty business.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    17. Re:What are the odds? by djdavetrouble · · Score: 1

      said:
      Lobbed? Torpedo?
      Ummm, errr, I'm not sure that's how these things work.


      i think what he meant
      was just circle strafe that biznatch with the rocket launcher !
      works against everything but BFG

      --
      music lover since 1969
    18. Re:What are the odds? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Did you read about the 3kilometer wave of water and mud??

      There would be no town left and boarded windows would not suffice.

    19. Re:What are the odds? by AlaskanUnderachiever · · Score: 3, Informative
      Not minding the spelling, yes it happens. I've never heard of a DEATH from it but I did know a fellow in Camden, SC that managed to put a backhoe shovel through a Parrot (parott?) and took off a nice chunk of the business end with it. I'd hate to imagine what would happen if you managed to do that with a smaller machine like a heavy tined rototiller

      --
      Find out about my new childrens book: SS Death Camp Criminal Batallion Go To Monte Carlo For The Massacre
    20. Re:What are the odds? by holmengraa · · Score: 1

      Ignition of the munitions is not unlikely. I live 1km from an area used as a ammo dump in the cleanup after wwii, norwegian mine divers clean there annually. The forrested area is to this day off limits for recreation. Forrest firest also errupt every summer from munitions going off, although there havent been any big explosions in the last years.

    21. Re:What are the odds? by PhillC · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Firstly, I'd just like to mention that I've seen this wreck. I was sailing on the Medway and out into the Thames estuary. At low tide the towers and wheel house of this vessel are clearly visible above the water. While there is a buoy marked exclusion area around the ship you can still get pretty close, which is perhaps a worry.

      Anyway, when I got back from my sailing weekend I did a little research on SS Richard Montgomery. The history is that the ship ran aground at neap tide. Troops were busy unloading the ordnance when the ship started breaking up. Further unloading deemed too dangerous. Incidently in later years an oil refinery was built nearby on the Isle of Grain, probably closer than the town Sheerness.

      To quote from one of the articles I found in my research -

      Of the three and a half thousand tons of explosives left, most contain TNT and are impervious to seawater. It is highly probable that their fuses have long since deteriorated and would therefore need something else to set them off. Unfortunately on the deck above these are approximately one hundred and seventy five tons of fragmentation cluster bombs fully armed and ready to go. These are considered to be the main danger, because if the decking collapses these bombs could fall on top of the others and set the whole thing off.

      So it doesn't seem like the fuses are the problem, but the cluster bombs could possibly set off the TNT.

      --
      Brought to you by the author of such childrens' classics as "Some Kittens can Fly!" and "All Dogs go to Hell."
    22. Re:What are the odds? by Pinkfud · · Score: 1

      The explosives would not be inert, even if water has leaked into the casings. Most American-made ordinance of that era used TNT or TNT-boosted Amatol. Both are pretty stable to aging and TNT is immune to water. If anything, TNT tends to become more shock-sensitive due to slow recrystallization. So the boosters, at least, are very dangerous. What I can't understand is why it took so long to recognize the problem! God's sakes, it would have been much easier to deal with it decades ago before corrosion made things worse. Someone wasn't doing any rocket-scientist thinking!

      --
      The world is my oyster. That's why it's always in a stew.
    23. Re:What are the odds? by Stephen+H-B · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      he said NOT unlikely, a confusing double negative but still consistent

      --
      Sick of WoW? Try the thinking man's MMORPG: EVE Online
    24. Re:What are the odds? by stefanvt · · Score: 1

      In the Ypres (South West Belgium) region (the scene of the first ever gas attack) every year several hundred unexploded shells of every kind are dug up by farmers.

      This is 90 years after the start of WWI and still they are as dangerous as when they were fired. It's been a while since someone was killed but still

    25. Re:What are the odds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      People have known about this, well, since the ship went down.

      The question is, what the hell do you DO about it?

      Any operation to attempt to raise the bombs significantly increases the risk of detonation. Actually exploding the bombs on purpose still does damage to the power stations, oil refinaries etc. nearby.

      Just leaving them there ends up being the best bet - unless you can find a way to inert the weapons, or control the effect of the explosion.

    26. Re:What are the odds? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      There were no such things as "cluster bombs" in WWII. Typical journalism. If it was the BBC reporting, I wouldn't be surprised in the least.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    27. Re:What are the odds? by Scud · · Score: 1

      Actually, in the case of an ASROC (anti-submarine rocket), that's exactly how it works. It's basically a missile with a torpedo attached to it.

      Yeah, I know -- seen it in some old movie I can't remember the name of.

      And of course using a torpedo would be your first choice as you stealthily make your way up the Thames in your Trafalgar class submarine (or I suppose your Sheffield Class destroyer. Not that either of these carry ASROC's to my *limited* knowledge)

      Hey, maybe a Nimrod will fly over and drop one :)

      John

      --
      I dream in binary.
    28. Re:What are the odds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While there is a buoy marked exclusion area around the ship you can still get pretty close, which is perhaps a worry.

      Yes, even quite large ships get very close. I used to travel on the ferry that sailed between Vlissingen (The Netherlands) and Sheerness and it always passed quite close to that ship. My guess is that the shipping lane is very near that ship. Fun.

    29. Re:What are the odds? by mrhartwig · · Score: 1

      I heard a story several years ago on NPR about a special group in France that gets called whenever someone (typically farmers) find unexploded ordnance. They get called several times a year, and find stuff from both World Wars as well as, occasionally, the Franco-Prussian War. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War

    30. Re:What are the odds? by TravisWatkins · · Score: 2, Informative

      That was the easiest registration to bypass. Article text:

      Story on lost hydrogen bomb presents no threat to national security
      BY ELSA MCDOWELL
      Public Editor

      In 1958, a damaged U.S. Air Force bomber dropped a hydrogen bomb in a sound about 20 miles from downtown Savannah after the bomber collided with a fighter plane.

      The Air Force searched for the unexploded bomb for a few months and declared it lost.

      Now, two men believe they have located the bomb under the mud in shallow waters near Tybee Island and are anxious lest terrorists might also find it, also. They have raised the question of whether the government should try to retrieve the bomb.

      Reporter Tony Bartelme told the nuclear mystery story in a front-page feature last Sunday. Two readers criticized The Post and Courier for publishing a story that they feared could lead terrorists to a ready stash of weapons-grade uranium or worse.

      One reader said, "I would think this would be a very secretive matter -- if not for CIA, certainly for Homeland Security."

      "That's one point of doing the story," Bartelme said. As did the reader, the story raised the question about whether and how the government should be involved in this situation -- a situation that is not a secret at all. Bartelme reported on the scholarly debate about whether the bomb offers a threat of a nuclear explosion. He reported that the Air Force says it is safe and that others question why, if it is safe, it is not dug up.

      He quoted some who want the bomb retrieved and others who want it left alone. The reason Bartelme decided to write about the bomb was that it was a good tale which had been reported locally but not very well. Some recent stories in national publications were a disappointment to him.

      Over the course of about three weeks, Bartelme checked public records; interviewed respected investigators who had researched the Tybee Island bomb; tracked down the pilots who were involved in the incident back in 1958; sought out the perspective of the Air Force; and questioned scientists.

      Bartelme said he was careful not to sensationalize the story and he is confident that his story did not compromise national security.

      First, all the information he found was available to anyone who asked for it, he said. He did not get information from classified sources. A terrorist would be able to find the same information he did -- much of it on-line.

      Second, it is highly unlikely that a terrorist could conduct a search and retrieve uranium from the bomb without being detected. The alleged site is very close to the beach. People are watching the area. Bartelme also said that, as with the search for the Hunley off the coast of Sullivan's Island, searchers have to expect to spend lots of time. Finding it requires the researchers be exactly on it -- not even 10 feet away.

      The story only reported the facts. The course of action is really up to the Air Force. If the bomb is a dud, there would be no need to worry about it being retrieved by terrorists. If the Air Force has doubts about whether it is a dud, it is up to the government to proceed with keeping it out of the hands of terrorists.

      --

      "But I'm still right here, giving blood and keeping faith. And I'm still right here."
    31. Re:What are the odds? by BCW2 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Most WWII bombs used nitro based explosives. It was cheap, simple and effective. No one knew that the leftovers would be stored for use later. There was no planning for something like this or for the thousands of duds that still get found throughout Europe. TNT is nitro based and when exposed to temprature extremes (improperly stored) it becomes as unstable as any other nitro product.

      As for Nitrocellulose only exploding when confined. What do you think a bomb casing is, if not confinement?

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    32. Re:What are the odds? by hazzey · · Score: 1

      "one hundred and seventy five tons of fragmentation cluster bombs fully armed and ready to go" Wouldn't that be a very unsafe way of transporting bombs? Especially if they were in the process of unloading the ship when it broke up.

    33. Re:What are the odds? by Gilk180 · · Score: 1

      Excellent comment.

      It seems that the point needs to be made for some of us who think we know more than we do.

      Dynamite == TNT == Nitroglycerin in Fuller's earth. Invented by Nobel (Think the prize). Highly explosive. Sweats nitroglycerin.

    34. Re:What are the odds? by Euler · · Score: 1

      Here is a bit of trivia you'll be able to answer then... what does TNT stand for? I'll give you a hint, it doesn't stand for Tri-Nitro Dynamite.

    35. Re:What are the odds? by Phanatic1a · · Score: 4, Informative

      TNT is most definitely not nitroglycerin. Where the hell do you people come up with this stuff?

      TNT is trinitrotoluene, otherwise known as C6H2(NO2)3CH3, or 2,4,6-trinitromethylbenzene.

      Nitroglycerine is otherwise known as C3H5N3O9, or 1,2,3-Tris-nitrooxy-propane.

      Nitroglycerine is prepared by nitrating glycerine. TNT is prepared by nitrating toluene. They are two very different molecules, with very different properties.

      I fucking love when people repeat as truth completely inaccurate information, without even the merest thought they might be spouting bullshit. I swear, some days I'm not sure whether I'm reading Slashdot or Fark.

    36. Re:What are the odds? by Holi · · Score: 1
      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    37. Re:What are the odds? by Cecil · · Score: 1

      Actually, nuclear bombs in general, and hydrogen bombs in particular, are not much of a risk for accidental detonation. In most known configurations they require a truly ridiculous amount of precision in the detonation sequence that uses the conventional explosives to fire the nuclear materials together into something that will detonate.

      Which isn't to say they wouldn't be dangerous from a molten radioactive metal standpoint if the conventional triggers started going off randomly. But the risk of actual nuclear explosion is very very low.

    38. Re:What are the odds? by Phanatic1a · · Score: 4, Informative

      Most WWII bombs used nitro based explosives.

      Only in the sense that most high explosives are nitrogen compounds. Most WWII bombs did not, in fact, use nitroglycerin, or explosives based upon nitroglycerin. Go look it up, I'll wait.

      Torpex is RDX, TNT, and powdered aluminum. Tetrytol is Tetryl and TNT. Picratol is picric acid and TNT. Pentolite is PETN and TNT. Octol is HMX and TNT. Minol is TNT, ammonium nitrate, and aluminum. Amitol is TNT and ammonion nitrate. Comp A is RDX and a plasticizer. Comb B is TNT, RDX, and wax. Baronol is TNT, barium nitrate, and aluminum powder. The PTX family is RDX, tetryl or PETN, and TNT.

      Those are the major explosives used during WWII. Not a single one has nitoglycerin in it.

      As for Nitrocellulose only exploding when confined. What do you think a bomb casing is, if not confinement?

      There is a tremendous difference between an explosive and a high explosive. Even black powder will explode when confined, but black powder never, ever detonates. You can make a pipe bomb out of match heads, but nobody who knows anything would describe matches as a high explosive. High explosives detonate, meaning that the reaction front propagates through the material supersonically. Low-order explosives don't do that, they simply deflagrate, burn rapidly. Nobody in their right mind would use a low-order explosive like nitrocellulose in a bomb, not when anything more suitable was available.

      I repeat: neither nitroglycerin nor nitrocellulose were routinely used as bomb fill in WWII. I won't rule out some Yugoslavian partisan group maybe mixing up some guncotton and using it in makeshift mortars, but that's about all it would have been used for.

    39. Re:What are the odds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, inert is the word. In this contex it would mean 'no longer explosive'

    40. Re:What are the odds? by qtone42 · · Score: 1

      worse than the fact that things are unstable:
      what are the chances that the cleanup effort will CAUSE the most-feared explosion.

      Also, is took these tards 60 years to think that this might be a problem?

      Apathetic bloody planet... I have no sympathy.

      -Qtone

    41. Re:What are the odds? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's probably because people think that dynamite is TNT from watching all those warner bros. cartoons. Dynamite is something absorbent (like sawdust) soaked in nitroglycerin, and when it gets old it becomes unstable because not all the nitroglycerin stays in it. Or, so I understand. I'm willing to be corrected.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    42. Re:What are the odds? by qtone42 · · Score: 1

      Remember Saving Private Ryan? Remember the "sticky bombs"? That was Composition A. You can blow the treads off of a tank with a sock full of the stuff. Imagine what a boatload of it will do.

      I'm sorry in advance, but to quote Lo Wang:
      "Sticky Bomb like you!"

      --QTone

    43. Re:What are the odds? by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      You are correct. That is my mistake.
      But the bottom line is that any of those explosives improperly stored will get very dangerous. Everything on that ship is in that condition. I suspect that any attempt to move any part will cause a very large boom. Does anyone have a clue how to blow it in place, without leveling the town?

      Which fool left that sitting there all this time? That is the root problem.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    44. Re:What are the odds? by Edie+O'Teditor · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think they should refloat it and tow it to France.

      --
      If X is the new Y, and Y is "X is the new Y", solve for X.
    45. Re:What are the odds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I saw on TV that there's a special unit of the Belgian army that deals with old chemical shells, and even if they don't find any more it will be 30 years before they neutralise the ones they've already found.

      IIRC, it was on the news because they'd found a bunker full of them. 40 years, then...

    46. Re:What are the odds? by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Nitrocellulose was still a component of gun powder, however.

    47. Re:What are the odds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's, of course, only the case for explosives which use nitroglycerine.

      As this is WWII ordnance, we're probably not looking at any of those. Could be straight TNT,


      Uhm, that's what he said.

    48. Re:What are the odds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My father was a gunner's mate in the US Navy, tasked to manning the guns on a Merchant Marines boat in the Pacific during WWII. All I know is what he's told me about his training with explosives and weaponry, required for his position -- most of it, after some minor look-ups on the internet and in the local libraries, is mainly accurate accounts.

      According to him, the majority of bombs used in the Pacific were kegs of Amitol with mechanical fuses that operated by gyroscopic motion -- a flywheel stays stationary while the ordinance rotates (watch archive footage of planes making carpet bombing runs, you'll see the bombs spinning slowly while they fall towards the ground). Once the flywheel reaches the end of the long screw it rides upon, the fuse is activated and depending on the setup, the bomb would either detonate immediately or upon forceful impact with the target (ground, building, etc).

      From what he also tells me, the 5" 38 cal. gun he operated used shells with similar explosives and fuses, though propelled by 2 bags of "smokeless powder" and a bag of regular gunpowder. No clue what "smokeless powder" is, but it's listed in various other places on the internet in similar WW2 armaments.

    49. Re:What are the odds? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Actually, nuclear bombs in general, and hydrogen bombs in particular, are not much of a risk for accidental detonation.

      What if Muhammad Atta or Tim McVeigh had been able to locate this bomb. Accidental detonation is of the least concern. We have the potential for Uranium and Plutonium to find their way into the water just a few miles from the coast.

      I'm no greenie, but I'd prefer not to have to check the catch of the day with a geiger counter before I eat it.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    50. Re:What are the odds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Did you read about the 3kilometer wave of water and mud?

      Don't believe everything you read. 3 km wave? Think about it. . .

    51. Re:What are the odds? by goatan · · Score: 1
      I repeat: neither nitroglycerin nor nitrocellulose were routinely used as bomb fill in WWII

      There was one use for Nitroglycerine the original sticky bomb (not the one they make in private ryan that's technicaly a gamon bomb)

      The N 74 Grenade (Sticky Bomb) was designed as an anti-tank grenade and was disliked by everybody who ever came across it.

      The grenade consisted of a glass ball on the end of a bakelite (plastic) handle. Inside the glass ball was an explosive filling whilst on the outside was a very sticky adhesive covering. Until used, this adhesive covering was encased in a metal outer casing.

      Due to the use of glass in this grenade, they were fragile and travelled badly. Quite often the glass would crack in transit, causing the explosive to start leaking out. This explosive which leaked out was not very sensitive to friction but was very sensitive to impact and detonation could occur if the exposed explosive received a blow due to careless handling.

      To use the grenade, you remove the case release pin (not the pin marked 'DANGER'). This allows the metal protective casing to fall free, exposing the adhesive coating. You then grip the handle and safety lever and remove the safety pin (marked 'DANGER'). The grenade is now ready to either throw or attach to the target.

      This is where the sticky bomb is most dangerous! Whilst attempting to throw it, the grenade could stick to the wearers' clothing!

      If the thrower has not let go of the safety lever, he has to try and remove the item of clothing without letting go of the lever. If the thrower has let go of the lever, he has 5 second to remove the item of clothing and get a safe distance away from the bomb. When this happened, it tended to end up stuck to the throwers' trousers - with the uniform which was worn at the time, to remove his trousers (which were held up by braces) the thrower would have to remove any equipment (belt, ammunition pouches, etc.) followed by his Battle Dress blouse (jacket). He would then have to try and take his trousers off over his boots - all in less than 5 seconds! You may ask why the thrower could not just pull the grenade off of his clothing. They could try this but the adhesive coating was designed to allow the grenade, which weighed 2¼ lbs (1 Kg), to stick to the side of a tank.

      Extract from training manual: This grenade has been introduced for use against light A.F.Vs. It is designed to stick to a suitable target, thus ensuring that the high explosive has its maximum effect. The grenade will NOT stick should the surface be wet or muddy.

      The grenade is suitable for use at road blocks, positions of ambush, or for dropping from upstairs windows on to tanks.

      Although the effect of the explosion is localised, the thrower must take cover owing to the blast.

      For night raids on tank parts, the grenade is an ideal weapon. It can be regarded as a portable demolition charge and planted by hand instead of thrown, so long as the operator retreats in such a direction that he is protected from the explosion. With practice and training, the grenade can be thrown up to about 20 yds.

      --
      Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.

  3. Please gove more precise details by el_gibler · · Score: 5, Funny

    Your Friend, O bin Laden.

    1. Re:Please gove more precise details by Scud · · Score: 3, Funny

      Forget bin Laden, has anyone informed the IRA?

      And from the wiki:

      Named after Richard Montgomery, a celebrated Irish-American soldier of the 18th Century, who was born in Dublin in 1738, elected to congress and later fought against the British in Canada, only to be killed in the assault on Quebec in 1775.

      He'll get his revenge yet... :)

      John

      --
      I dream in binary.
    2. Re:Please gove more precise details by Pinkfud · · Score: 1

      In point of fact, terrorists could recover and use explosives from such wrecks, many of which are in well known positions and in shallow water. Probably someone should be doing something about it. Like clean up your fooking mess, dudes!

      --
      The world is my oyster. That's why it's always in a stew.
    3. Re:Please gove more precise details by Tongo · · Score: 1

      On the up side, hopefully any terrorist trying to dive on this, or any other wrek, will blow himself to kingdom come.

  4. Idea... by odano · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lets nuke it and sell the video on PPV.

    1. Re:Idea... by telstar · · Score: 1

      I think FOX has a job opening waiting for you....

    2. Re:Idea... by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Or send it here.

    3. Re:Idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Lets nuke it and sell the video on PPV."

      You'd lose the "largest non-nuclear" title if you did that...

      (and probably most of Washington DC, from the british nuclear submarines when they heard about it... admittedly many people still aren't seeing a down-side...)

    4. Re:Idea... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 4, Funny

      Isn't there a Nuke lying somewhere of the coast of America?

      If I remember rightly, they have also left it there rather than disturb it and possibly set it off.

      The thought of a huge mud flinging explosion is also somewhat reminiscant of the rotting whale carcass left on the beach.
      They decided to use 1/2 a tonne of dynamite, and in the reports words:
      "the blast blasted blubber beyond all believable bounds."

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    5. Re:Idea... by winwar · · Score: 1

      "If I remember rightly, they have also left it there rather than disturb it and possibly set it off."

      No, it was left there because it couldn't be FOUND.

      I guess Ooops would be an understatement....

    6. Re:Idea... by Captain+DaFt · · Score: 1

      Actually yes, if you count inland as being offshore.
      http://www.ibiblio.org/bomb/lead.html

      What I've heard that's different from the story at the web site:

      Broken neck? Probably the least of the worries since an eye witness (Who was on the search team) told me that they found the body after finding his rib cage in another tree.

      And what I've heard from other sources only parts of ONE bomb was ever located, the other one was simply to deeply buried to be detected with the resources avaiable then. (And since, they've actually lost track of the exact location, due to the shifting of the river and redevelopement that's occured over the years.)

      The parts of the bomb that was recovered showed that two of it's three failsafes had failed, and no one really knows what condition the other one is in.
      BTW, Seymour Johnson AFB, and Goldsboro are Only 15 miles from Faro, and the population of the area is about 10 times what it was then.

      --
      The U.S. really needs an English to Wisdom dictionary.
    7. Re:Idea... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      The original story I linked to mentions that the one described is only one of 11 broken arrows.

      Its absolutely shocking to think that these things can be left. Its bad enough they exist in the first place, but for them to be outside strict military control is the worst part of it.

      I realise its "ecenomically unfeasible" to recover everything, but placing a dollar (or pound since I'm from England) value on life is just wrong.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    8. Re:Idea... by Captain+DaFt · · Score: 1

      I think the most unforgivable part of the whole mess is that most of the bombs lost in the US were done using LIVE bombs for practice flights! Geez, a mock-up or even a ballast weight wouldn't have worked as well?

      --
      The U.S. really needs an English to Wisdom dictionary.
  5. quality engineering by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 5, Funny

    i cant think of too many things designed these days that would survive 60+ years of being exposed to the elements, especially buried in a sand bank underwater... and then would still work close to specifications...

    yep, they just dont build things the way they used to

    1. Re: quality engineering by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny


      > i cant think of too many things designed these days that would survive 60+ years of being exposed to the elements, especially buried in a sand bank underwater... and then would still work close to specifications...

      FWIW, about a decade ago a fishing boat offshore from my home town drew up a honking big WWII bomb. The Coast Guard decided that popping it was the safest solution, which they did in an empty praire reachable by an inland waterway. Everyone for miles around felt their windows rattle, and no one knew what it was until the news carried the story later.

      A friend says when he was a kid a fisherman / WWII vet had another big bomb hanging in his garage across the street from where he lived, right in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Never figured out whether it was live or not...

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:quality engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont see the humor. Maybe (+0 Insightful-Redundant) instead of (+4 Funny). But I've not the mod points, for now.

    3. Re:quality engineering by Chaostrophy · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't, but the big lump of TNT should work just fine. Farmers still die from WW1 ordinance in France.

      --
      Plato seems wrong to me today
    4. Re:quality engineering by putaro · · Score: 1

      They don't. Modern explosives (I'll include this stuff from WW II in that category), when working according to spec, don't explode unless you use a proper detonator. Staring at them wrong, hitting them with a hammer, etc. will not cause them to explode. However, leave them in a rusty ship for 60 years and you'd better not fart too loudly around them.

    5. Re:quality engineering by polymath69 · · Score: 3, Funny
      i cant think of too many things designed these days that would survive 60+ years of being exposed to the elements... and then would still work close to specifications...

      True, but do remember that a bomb basically has one thing to do and only has to do it once. It's not as though it has lots of moving parts constantly wearing and requiring service...

      Want something more impressive? 50,000-year-old paleolithic stone hammers that still work like the day they were new. Now that's quality construction.

      --

      --
      I don't want to rule the world... I just want to be in charge of mayonnaise.
    6. Re:quality engineering by Xilman · · Score: 1
      Want something more impressive? 50,000-year-old paleolithic stone hammers that still work like the day they were new. Now that's quality construction.

      Agreed, though hammers are relatively simple technology.

      I have a flint hand axe which is still in perfect working condition, the edge as good as new. It fits nicely in my right hand and the guy who made it chose his materials well. The flint is not only the right size but the part that fits in the palm is nicely rounded and there is a groove for the thumb in exactly the right place. Those features were formed naturally on one side of the original flint. The other side was removed to leave a nice smooth plane and the cutting edge created afterwards. All in all a very nice piece of workmanship and still fully functional.

      It's amazing what can be found in the debris of a building site.

      Paul

      --
      Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate
    7. Re:quality engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nowadays, they just don't sink.

    8. Re:quality engineering by PSC · · Score: 4, Informative

      yep, they just dont build things the way they used to

      The Liberty ships were designed with one goal in mind: build ships faster than the German Uboat force could sink them. And they succeeded! The Liberty ships were assembled (from pre-manufractured components) by mostly unskilled labour on the shipyards of Henry J. Kaiser within only 80 hours! On these shipyards, 140 Liberty ships per month would be completed.

      The Liberty ships were never built to last. Their quality was rather poor. Definately not up to todays standards in shipbuilding.

      --
      --- The light at the end of the tunnel is probably a burning truck.
    9. Re:quality engineering by theycallmeB · · Score: 1

      Actually, very old bombs (and other explosives) will tend to greatly exceed their original specifications after being left to sit for a very long time. This is because whatever was added to the explosives to make the mixture stable enough to be transported safely will tend to separate out. As a result, the bomb becomes very unstable, sometimes to the point where moving it to abuprtly will cause it to go off.

    10. Re:quality engineering by kriston · · Score: 2, Informative

      And, in fact, the original design would split in half without warning. The remedy was to install a steel collar around the entire ship. So much for quality. Very few people talk about quality, or lack thereof, in the Liberty Ships, but as the other poster noted the quality was not necessary to achieve the ships' intended purpose.

      Kris

      --

      Kriston

    11. Re:quality engineering by hashwolf · · Score: 1

      "yep, they just dont build things the way they used to"

      --
      - "They misunderestimated me."
    12. Re:quality engineering by scupper · · Score: 1

      Definately not up to todays standards in shipbuilding.

      Nor were they up to the standards of the time.

    13. Re:quality engineering by sootman · · Score: 1

      There was a really good show about the boats on the History Channel (or one of them) just last week. since it was expected that many would be blown to bits on their maiden voyage, they weren't even built up to the standards of the day. It was known *at the time* that rivets were better for ships than welds (since they allowed the ship to flex in rough seas, while welds were rigid and would snap) but welds were faster and it's better to get 10 welded ships onto the water and heading towards the enemy than one properly-riveted ship. "quantity has a quality all its own"--and that goes double during wartime.

      despite this, many ships survived (only about 10% were sunk, compared to over predictions of over 50%) and quite a few were used for decades.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  6. Re:How is this news for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny


    Exploding things are cool. Every geek knows that.

  7. Am I the only one? by thegoofeedude · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Am I the only one who thinks it would too cool just to see that eplosion? Not that I would want to harm anyone or their property. 16ft high wave? That is just way to neat.

    1. Re:Am I the only one? by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 1

      From the BBC link: In 1970, government tests on the site showed a blast would hurl a 1,000ft wide column of water, mud, metal and munitions almost 10,000ft into the air.

      --
      That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
    2. Re:Am I the only one? by gilrain · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Try 10,000 feet. Yeah, in a controlled environment that would be awesome!

    3. Re:Am I the only one? by BashDot · · Score: 0, Troll

      "If it explodes it will be one of the biggest non-nuclear explosions ever with predictions of a 3 kilometre high wall of mud, water, and metal..." A bit taller than 16 feet, my friend. Just a bit.

    4. Re:Am I the only one? by Malc · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah, it would be so cool. Just like it would have been cool to see the Halifax explosion!

      What a dumbass comment. Now go and get your mother to change your diapers.

    5. Re:Am I the only one? by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      That might be 16 feet for water far downstream - but a bit higher at ground zero

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    6. Re:Am I the only one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it would be cool. Just like the natural gas pipeline disaster in Mexico, and just like Bhopal, and, and, and..... UHHHH FIRE FIRE FIRE FIRE!!! UUHUUHHHHUH *snort* UHHH...

    7. Re:Am I the only one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess, you never bothered to read the fucking article, did you? The column of shit thrown up by the explosion would be 10,000 feet (3km) high and 1,000 feet wide. The wave in the river produced by it (what the parent is referring to) would be 16ft high.

    8. Re:Am I the only one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Waves get bigger as they approach land. The 3km figure however is not the size of the wave, which is actually projected to be 5m (16 foot) high. 3km is the height to which pieces of debris would be thrown.

    9. Re:Am I the only one? by imsabbel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes. It would have been cool to see it.
      Also the Trinity test was massivly cool to watch.
      Same goes to the explosion of of mt.St. Helens.
      I would give a part of my life to witness the santorini explosion or the Tsungaska event.
      Or how the Gibraltar Barrier broke and the Mediterrean filled again...

      Yes. People died on some of the events. But that doesnt make it any less impressive.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    10. Re:Am I the only one? by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

      Brought to you by the same people who did the exploding whale movie!

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
  8. Lets Hear it for Procrastination!! by BlueCup · · Score: 5, Informative

    hmmm "The government has been advised that doing nothing isn't really a sensible option any more."

    She said the last examination, in 2003, showed the site to be no more dangerous than in the past.

    Alright, according to the article the bombs could detonate at any point spontaneously, but the risk hasn't changed from the past, ... with something having a continuous risk, no matter how small, the chance of it exploding approaches one over time... it seems like something should have been done immediately... certainly not 60 years later. The only excuse I can think of is the hope that the technology would improve enough to find a safer way to safeguard the town, but surely no one thought this would happen quick enough to be worth the risk... this sounds like a bunch of people not willing to take a risk and just waiting for the next person to take on the responsibility... pah.

    --
    WANNAWIKI Wannawiki WannaWiki WANNAWIKI!
    1. Re:Lets Hear it for Procrastination!! by scupper · · Score: 2, Funny
      this sounds like a bunch of people not willing to take a risk and just waiting for the next person to take on the responsibility..
      You've just summed up the last 130+ yrs. of the Commonwealth.
    2. Re:Lets Hear it for Procrastination!! by chgros · · Score: 4, Informative

      with something having a continuous risk, no matter how small, the chance of it exploding approaches one over time...
      Nope. If you know it hasn't blown up yet, then the probability of it happening now (or in the next T time) hasn't increased. However the probability of it happening in the next T time tends to 1 when T grows.

    3. Re:Lets Hear it for Procrastination!! by jwdb · · Score: 1

      It does if the bombs start rusting through and the fuses become damaged...

      Not sure how they're actually set off, but say you have just one bomb in there with a failsafe switch - you know, the kind that, in the case that the mechanism is disabled/destroyed, automatically detonates... (I'm making this up, but who knows)

      Jw

    4. Re:Lets Hear it for Procrastination!! by Simple-Simmian · · Score: 1

      These old iron bombs never had Fuzes installed. They only got installed just before they would be put on planes dropping them. So these are just metal containers full of TNT. Very old TNT, very unstable and very nasty.

      --
      If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
      Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
    5. Re:Lets Hear it for Procrastination!! by syousef · · Score: 1

      I think you've missed the point. The chances that it will explode before the next election are too low for any politician to give a damn.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    6. Re:Lets Hear it for Procrastination!! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      except that material is deteriating, so the probability of an incident is always going up.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  9. Re:How is this news for nerds? by proj_2501 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are history nerds, too.

  10. gross negligence by HBI · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Who allowed this to happen? I mean, okay, the ship sank there, but why wasn't it cleaned up along with the millions of tons of other war junk from WWII that was disposed of?

    This is a perfect example of the insurance dictum that 'claims do not go away'. You need to settle them (ie, fix the problem).

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:gross negligence by c0dedude · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh, this is one of those lovely times when one city planner looks at the other and says
      "Well, do you want to take charge of cleaning up the destroyer and risking great loss of life and a good bit of London?"
      "I thought you were going to do it!"
      "Well, if you're not doing it, and I'm not doing it, and it's not like it's going to happen tommorow, what say we let it go for a bit?"
      "Jolly good."
      The sad thing is this conversation probably occured in
      for(year=1945;year=CurrentYear;year++)
      dontfi x(destroyer);

      --
      Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
    2. Re:gross negligence by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

      According to the article, at the time it was deemed too risky to clean up. One has to wonder what sort of logic goes into that decision. What were they thinking ???

      "Maybe it will blow up on its own and no one will blame us."

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    3. Re:gross negligence by moonbender · · Score: 1

      They were in the middle of a World War and probably didn't want to spend any resources on stuff like this. And when you've got V2 rockets going off daily this probably loses some of its apparent threat.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    4. Re:gross negligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sad thing is this conversation probably occured in
      for(year=1945;year=CurrentYear;year++)
      dontfi x(destroyer);


      Why increment the counter at all? Unless you meant CurrentYear++.

    5. Re:gross negligence by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 3, Funny
      I think the WWII cleanup effort was somewhat less comprehensive than you seem to believe it was. In fact, French farmers are still finding unexploded WWI(!) shells numbering in the tons every year. War cleanup basically consists of the following steps:
      • Kill remaining bad guys from losing regime.
      • Redraw map, divide spoils.
      • Put out things actually currently on fire.
      • Feed starving masses.
      • Rattle sabres about map/spoils.
      • Rebuild railroads, road systems, power, and plumbing.
      • If some major internal industry is of economic interest to the victors, rebuild that, too.
      The short and direct answer to your question is because we couldn't tow it to Bikini.

      (Which step we are on in Iraq is left as an exercise for the reader)

    6. Re:gross negligence by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      for(year=1945;year=CurrentYear;year++)
      dontfix(destroyer);


      I know what you're trying to say, but I'm not sure what it actually says, and I'm pretty sure it contains at least one serious mistake.

      '=' is the assignment operator in all the languages I've seen that use that form of for-loop. Can we assume that CurrentYear is volatile or modified by another thread (this assumes that you meant '==' instead of '=' in the condition test)?

      Or is CurrentYear this year? Or... ah, sod it.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    7. Re:gross negligence by c0dedude · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know. I put less than or equal to but the carrot got chopped off because it's html. A prime I-D-ten-t error.

      --
      Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
    8. Re:gross negligence by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      BTW, the 'less than' ASCII symbol isn't a caret... *this* is a caret...

      ^

      As for 'carrots', you'll have to ask Bugs Bunny about them.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  11. science to the rescue by ArchieBunker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well they have a clusterfuck of a problem and are looking for solutions. Sounds like nerd business to me.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  12. Re:How is this news for nerds? by iamdrscience · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why did this get modded up? Obviously it involves modern technology because that's how this problem will (hopefully) be solved. This article easily could lead into some great posts about the various ways they might be able to learn whether these explosives are still a danger, and if they are, how they might be defused.

  13. Re:How is this news for nerds? by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "How does this involve modern technology?"

    uhm, how about that the problems of the past will require greater technology to resolve than it took to create them. (believe it was an einstein idea, not quoted verbatim, and dont care to look it up)

    or more specifically, this bunch of bombs will require 2004 technology (or more) to safely remove items designed, built, and deployed between 1937 and 1941.

  14. Re:BOOOM!!!!!!! by FluffyWhiteBunny · · Score: 1

    It's not a matter of saving money, it's a matter of safety. Would you want to go into a sunken vessel full of high explosives and start pulling stuff out?

  15. Paraphrasing by Rexz · · Score: 5, Informative
    I wish people who are unable to paraphrase effectively would just quote the article directly.

    According to the linked BBC piece, the wave caused by a potential explosion would not be 3km high, it would be 16ft high. The New Scientist makes mention of a 3000m column of debris: that is material would reach a maximum height of 3km. This is entirely different from a tsunami-like wave baselessly alluded to by the Slashdot blurb.

    1. Re:Paraphrasing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      im surprised no one else mentioned this. a 3km high wave is what got me to read more. then i realised that was completely insane. has there ever been a wave that high? are you people retarded?

    2. Re:Paraphrasing by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 3, Funny

      > has there ever been a wave that high? are you people retarded?

      First is a probable yes.. second a definite yes.

    3. Re:Paraphrasing by anothy · · Score: 4, Funny

      well damn, that's just not worth it then. okay, guys, plan's off.

      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
    4. Re:Paraphrasing by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 0

      a 16ft wave will wreck london.....

      london has a LOT of underground tunnels, etc.. that sort of thing will be devastating..

      And yes.. i know we have the thames barrier.., but that is only good if the rise is known in advance..

      --
      Have a nice day!
    5. Re:Paraphrasing by Jo_2521 · · Score: 1

      A tsunami reaches highs of about 30 meters (according to wikipedia).

      The idea of a wave that is 3km high is... well, breathtaking: Seeing a wave almost 10 000ft high could only be topped by seeing the apocalyptic riders surfing on top of it ;)

    6. Re:Paraphrasing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > a 16ft wave will wreck london.....

      The wave caused by an underwater HE detonation would be very localized.

      It would not reach London! Or if it did, would probably only be in the order of a millimeter.

      Suggest you get some grasp of elementary mechanics.

      God! Slashdot idiots!

  16. Largest free world non-nuke was 4.8 KTons ANFO by xmas2003 · · Score: 5, Informative
    The largest non-nuclear explosion in the free world was the 4,800 tons of ANFO (Ammunion Nitrate/Fuel Oil - ala Oklahoma City) for the Minor Scale event that simulated an 8 KTon Nuke from a blast perspective - why 4.8 HE is equal to 8 Nuke is left as an exercise for /.'ers ...

    As a participent/observer, I can attest that (ignoring some misc. issues), it blow'ed up real good! ;-)

    --
    Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
    1. Re:Largest free world non-nuke was 4.8 KTons ANFO by arose · · Score: 1
      why 4.8 HE is equal to 8 Nuke is left as an exercise for /.'ers
      Because it's not TNT they were blowing up?
      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    2. Re:Largest free world non-nuke was 4.8 KTons ANFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Look up the halifax explosion

    3. Re:Largest free world non-nuke was 4.8 KTons ANFO by c0dedude · · Score: 3, Funny

      Were they actually testing anything, or was this a thinly-veiled excuse to blow shit up?

      --
      Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
    4. Re:Largest free world non-nuke was 4.8 KTons ANFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      15 kTon Daisy Cutter?

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/grap hi cs/attack/response_14.html

      I'm sure there must have been ones larger than this too at some point

    5. Re:Largest free world non-nuke was 4.8 KTons ANFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The largest non-nuclear explosion in the free world was the 4,800 tons of ANFO (Ammunion Nitrate/Fuel Oil - ala Oklahoma City)

      Not to burst your bubble, but that explosion was equivalent to 5,000 pounds of TNT (approximately equivalent to a 0.0025 KTon nuke). There is no way you could carry 4,800 tons on a Ryder truck.

      Contrast the 0.0025KTon explosion at Oklahoma City with a 1.4KTon explosion from the U.S.S. Richard Montgomery and you may understand why people are a bit concerned. It is 560 times as powerful.

    6. Re:Largest free world non-nuke was 4.8 KTons ANFO by Alsee · · Score: 2, Funny

      The largest non-nuclear explosion in the free world was the 4,800 tons of ANFO

      And the largest non-nuclear explosion in the non-free world was when 1.2 Billion Chinese all jumped simultaneously.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    7. Re:Largest free world non-nuke was 4.8 KTons ANFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the bomb u show is pound not ton ?

    8. Re:Largest free world non-nuke was 4.8 KTons ANFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was saying that ANFO was used in the Oklamoma bombing, and that it was also used in the world's largest non-nuclear test bomb.... He didnt say that the bomb was used against Olkahoma.

      Surely, that would've done a heckuva lot more damage? Dontcha' think?

    9. Re:Largest free world non-nuke was 4.8 KTons ANFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure the bbc have done their research. I doubt you are as thorough.

    10. Re:Largest free world non-nuke was 4.8 KTons ANFO by Phanatic1a · · Score: 1

      Naw. Because the range at which you're seeing a given pressure level is much shorter. As he said, it was to simulate a nuke from a blast perspective. So to study a given level of blast pressure, you could either standoff a given distance from a 5kt blast of HE, or standoff a larger distance from an 8kt nuke.

      All sorts of fun stuff has been done to simulate various aspects of nuclear weapons. Operation Sailor Hat was another blast sim, using 500 tons of TNT. When I was blowing stuff up for the Navy, I saw films of this test, from high-speed cameras mounted on a nearby destroyer, and you could see the steel torpedo tubes just ripple like a sheet in the wind when the shockwave hit.

      One guy I know worked for a military contractor at one point, trying to simulate the flash effect of a bomb. They came up with a biiig double-barreled cannon. One barrel fired, at supersonic velocities, a big blast of liquid oxygen. The other fire, at supersonic velocities, a big blast of powdered aluminum. I haven't found films of that, but, wow.

    11. Re:Largest free world non-nuke was 4.8 KTons ANFO by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      >why 4.8 HE is equal to 8 Nuke is left as an exercise for /.'ers ...

      Well, either ANFO is 67% more energetic per unit weight than TNT, or else it's because the kiloton rating on a nuclear bomb refers to total energy release, much of which is in the flash rather than the blast.

      By the way, this ship is unusual only in its size. There are sections of forest in France which nobody's allowed to enter because of unexploded artillery shells from *World War I*.

      War -- the gift that keeps on giving.

    12. Re:Largest free world non-nuke was 4.8 KTons ANFO by Johan+Veenstra · · Score: 1

      There are sections that are mined with a single mine (> 20 tons). Some years ago one of them was set off by lightning .....

    13. Re:Largest free world non-nuke was 4.8 KTons ANFO by MouseR · · Score: 1

      I thought the largest non-nuke ka-boom was from the NASA contractor (Thiokol?) factory on the outskirts of Las-Vegas?

      They produced the Ammonium perchlorate that fuels the solid rocket boosters of the space shuttle. They had tons (kalbillion tons!) worth of these barels laying in a large structure. Water vapor eventually got the best of the metal rim that locks these barrels down, leaked some content on the ground where, with humidity, set the whole thing off. The place was levels down to a plate of glass and even Vegas shook.

    14. Re:Largest free world non-nuke was 4.8 KTons ANFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow indeed. I thought fuses were only fitted to bombs just before loading them on the aircraft.

    15. Re:Largest free world non-nuke was 4.8 KTons ANFO by Megor1 · · Score: 1
      What about the halifax explosion?

      From the site:

      Stored in the holds, or simply stacked on deck, were 35 tons of benzol, 300 rounds of ammunition, 10 tons of gun cotton, 2,300 tons of picric acid (used in explosives), and 400,000 pounds of TNT.

      Over 1,900 people were killed immediately; within a year the figure had climbed well over 2,000. Around 9,000 more were injured, many permanently; 325 acres, almost all of north-end Halifax, were destroyed.

      Much of what was not immediately levelled burned to the ground, aided by winter stockpiles of coal in cellars. As for the Mont Blanc, all 3,000 tons of her were shattered into little pieces that were blasted far and wide. The barrel of one of her cannons landed three and a half miles away; part of her anchor shank, weighing over half a ton, flew two miles in the opposite direction. Windows shattered 50 miles away, and the shock wave was even felt in Sydney, Cape Breton, 270 miles to the north-east

      --
      Everyone that disagrees with me is a paid shill
    16. Re:Largest free world non-nuke was 4.8 KTons ANFO by Forbman · · Score: 1

      ...probably has to do with the overpressure created by the explosions being essentially the same at a given distance.

    17. Re:Largest free world non-nuke was 4.8 KTons ANFO by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      There are sections of forest in France which nobody's allowed to enter because of unexploded artillery shells from *World War I*.

      And there are other sections where one is allowed, but must keep one's eyes open. I was in the Ardennes and very nearly stepped on a Great War mortar shell lying in the middle of the forest.

      France: the only nation in the world where the timber mills have metal detectors.

    18. Re:Largest free world non-nuke was 4.8 KTons ANFO by alienmole · · Score: 1
      Were they actually testing anything, or was this a thinly-veiled excuse to blow shit up?
      I'll give away a little secret and point out that most things humans do are thinly veiled excuses for what they really want to do. I mean, women's beach volleyball in the Olympics? C'mon!
  17. Article not strictly true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They partially unloaded the ship and stopped for a smoko.
    "3173 ton of various explosives remain on and around the wreck to this day."

    Typical Poms :-)

    1. Re:Article not strictly true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why did they grow the nearby city?
      --> because its absolutely safe!!! --
      Look toward Iran or N. Korea for unexplained detonations...
      Mheanwhile enjoy a pint at the local pub and repel the environmentalist medelers your infected with...

  18. These people are missing the point. by multiplexo · · Score: 5, Funny
    Rather than worry about this they should have a big tourist event around it. Figure out what the safe distance is to view this, fence off two big concentric rings around that, and then sell tickets to watch the show. They could even have different bands playing at different quadrants of the circle before the big blow-off. They could get AC/DC in one quadrant and Judas Priest in another. It would be awesome, and they could make money doing a live PPV event.

    --
    cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    1. Re:These people are missing the point. by PingPongBoy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Good idea. The people will be deaf by the time they blow it.

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    2. Re:These people are missing the point. by hype7 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Rather than worry about this they should have a big tourist event around it. Figure out what the safe distance is to view this, fence off two big concentric rings around that, and then sell tickets to watch the show. They could even have different bands playing at different quadrants of the circle before the big blow-off. They could get AC/DC in one quadrant and Judas Priest in another. It would be awesome, and they could make money doing a live PPV event.


      Funny you should mention that, because it's exactly what they did in Canberra when the Government decided to implode the old Canberra Hospital. They touted it as a big tourist event... you know, come out and see us blow shit up.

      Something went wrong. I think some twit decided to put some barrels of diesel in there for a bigger spectacle. Maybe someone else got the calculations wrong, but debris rained down on the crowd, some of it very big. Unbelievably, only one person was killed - which is a tragedy, but it had the potential to be a lot more.

      -- james
    3. Re:These people are missing the point. by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Unbelievably, only one person was killed - which is a tragedy

      uhhhhh, interesting wording there. Chuckle.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    4. Re:These people are missing the point. by tqft · · Score: 1

      As a person who decided not to go on that day, I agree with the grand parent. A great chance to improve the gene pool was missed.

      A number of people I knew went and unfortunately it was a schoolgirl who died, rather than some of the losers who turned up for the show and whinged bitterly for months afterwards that it might have been them. I wish.

      Sorry, blowing up a bulding is dangerous. As much as I wanted to push the button myself (I used to work there and hated it), no way was I going or taking my kids. The ACT gov was (is?) just hopeless at everything.

      --
      The Singularity is closer than you think
      Quant
    5. Re:These people are missing the point. by tratten · · Score: 1

      Too bad for the people that got hurt that the hospital just got blown up.

  19. Re:Uh oh....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sorry but "London Bridge" has been moved to the suburbs of Phoenix Arizona.

  20. Umm, do you need a job? by way2trivial · · Score: 2, Funny

    neither do I, not that badly...

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    1. Re:Umm, do you need a job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I very rarely laugh out loud at comments on /.

      Thanks.

  21. Re:How is this news for nerds? by shepd · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    >Obviously it involves modern technology because that's how this problem will (hopefully) be solved.

    So, uhhh, why isn't the fact I'm watching TV covered on slashdot? That's modern technology.

    They didn't even MENTION that anything would even be done, at all. The solution, at the moment, won't include ANY modern technology because the solution right now is "sit on your thumbs and close your eyes, you might be in for a big surprise!".

    >This article easily could lead into some great posts about the various ways they might be able to learn whether these explosives are still a danger, and if they are, how they might be defused.

    ROTFLMAO. Much more likely any responses to this article will lead to that town being exploded.

    --
    If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  22. Re:How is this news for nerds? by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

    How does this involve modern technology?

    60 oo

    That's modern enough

    It's time to really test the robots for defusing bombs.

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  23. Re:How is this news for nerds? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because it's "News for Nerds," not "News For Nerds Who Only Care About Things That Run On Silicon." It's the obsessives who think that computers are the be-all and end-all of everything that matters who give nerds in general a bad name, IMNSGDHO.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  24. Halifax Explosion Munitions Ship Explosion by evn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In 1917 250 tons of explosive gun powder, benzol, and gun cotton loaded on the French ship Mont-Blanc exploded and devastated the town of Halifax, Nova Scotia. The ship was carrying supplies to help the war effort over seas. A fire resulting from a collision with a Norwegian ship as the Mont-Blanc was leaving the harbor to join up with a convoy was triggered the blast 28 minutes after the minor collision.

    The death toll rose to about 1,600 in a city with a population near 50,000. An explosion 5 times as powerful in a town 5 times smaller could conceivably wipe it off the face of the earth. 12,000 homes were damaged or destroyed not only by the blast, but also the fires that followed.

    Wikipedia has some more information on the Halifax explosion.

    1. Re:Halifax Explosion Munitions Ship Explosion by newandyh-r · · Score: 4, Informative
      Not quite the same situation: The Halifax explosion was in the town's harbour.

      The Richard Montgomery is 2Km+ from Sheerness and 10Km+ from Southend-on-Sea [locally referred to as "Southend-on-Mud"] the other side of the estuary.

      Furthermore the wreck is underwater (!!) which is going to substantially reduce the flying debris and airbourne shockwave ... the exact effects depending on the tides. Southend's tidal range is about 5-6m so I would expect it to be similar on the other side of the estuary.

    2. Re:Halifax Explosion Munitions Ship Explosion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Texas City disaster of 1947 was caused when 2300 tons of Amonnium Nitrate detonated. The explosion itself wiped out the entire Texas City fire department, and over 500 people died after burning for 6 days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_disaster

    3. Re:Halifax Explosion Munitions Ship Explosion by green1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I was about to post about this exact same event.
      An interesting note, the Halifax explosion would rate as the largest manmade explosion until the atomic bomb almost 28 years later.

      The magnitude of the explosion was truly awesome
      The Mont Blanc vanished, parts of her landing over 5 km away
      2000 dead, 9000 injured, 6000 left homeless, and 25,000 without adequate shelter. Over 12,000 buildings were damaged and 1630 destroyed
      the blast knocked items off shelves 100 km away
      and was heard over 350 km away.

      Now I'd say this is not likely to be any worse (and probably not as bad) however if it were even a fraction of the devastation of the Halifax explosion it would still be a huge disaster.

      source: http://www.foothills-sar.ab.ca/TOMLone.html#Halifa x

    4. Re:Halifax Explosion Munitions Ship Explosion by NickCool · · Score: 1

      Port Chicago in WWII was by all accounts, huge, hundreds of tons of ordnance accidentally detonated. Loss of life was much less, 320 killed with 390 wounded, than the Halifax explosion due to the relative isolation of the docks. Descriptions of the accident and resulting carnage here http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq80-1.htm/

    5. Re:Halifax Explosion Munitions Ship Explosion by ShinmaWa · · Score: 5, Funny

      500 people died after burning for 6 days

      Ouch. That had to hurt.

      Personally, I probably would put the flaming people out after a day or two.

      Three days.. tops.

      --
      The /. Effect: Thousands of users simultaneously accessing a site to not read its content.
    6. Re:Halifax Explosion Munitions Ship Explosion by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      The Mont Blanc vanished, parts of her landing over 5 km away

      Holy living crap! Even the Hiroshima bomb didn't have that kind of power...Oh wait, are we talking about the same "Mont Blanc" here?

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    7. Re:Halifax Explosion Munitions Ship Explosion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, I know this is a sad topic, but that post was friggin funny. Thanks for the laugh.

    8. Re:Halifax Explosion Munitions Ship Explosion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, that was pretty big but was it as big as THIS bad boy??

    9. Re:Halifax Explosion Munitions Ship Explosion by sessamoid · · Score: 1

      Damn, and me with no mod points. :(

      --
      "No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
    10. Re:Halifax Explosion Munitions Ship Explosion by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Bah, you don't even need explosives for dead whales (Warning, graphic pictures.)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    11. Re:Halifax Explosion Munitions Ship Explosion by FusionDragon2099 · · Score: 0

      Proof that Canada's pyrotechnics are better than anything you Americans can come up with without cheating. No offense to those who died.

    12. Re:Halifax Explosion Munitions Ship Explosion by MrWizzle · · Score: 1

      I live in Southend. W00t!

    13. Re:Halifax Explosion Munitions Ship Explosion by Forbman · · Score: 1

      There is also the ship that blew up in Galveston Harbor, TX, during WWI (twas fully loaded with ammonium nitrate), as well as the ammo ship that blew up at Port Chicago, CA, in WWII.

    14. Re:Halifax Explosion Munitions Ship Explosion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have a pint down The Grand in Leigh for me...ah, the memories of being 15...

  25. How about a controlled explosion? by lecithin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From the article, they worried about more on building/windows getting damaged, not injury. Could they take some time and figure out how to control an explosion to help get rid of the danger?

    --
    It could be worse, it could be Monday.
    1. Re:How about a controlled explosion? by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      In the U.S., the government provides millions of dollars in aid whenever a hurricane or flood affects part of the country. I'd say it'd make sense to assess how much damage the uncontrolled explosion would cause, evacuate the area, and then detonate the wreck remotely. Any damage caused should then be reimbursed by the government. I suspect that the cleanup costs would rival the cost of repairing the damage anyway.

    2. Re:How about a controlled explosion? by ebrandsberg · · Score: 1

      You forget. People would pay to be able to see the event. Setup some observation bunkers, and you can make money to offset the damage, and have a blast of a party doing it too!

    3. Re:How about a controlled explosion? by TWX · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that depending on the geography they could build a structure to act to direct the blast. The structure wouldn't have to particularly survive the blast, just prevent the bulk of the flying debris from heading for town. It could be constructed like a dyke or berm or something, but as reinforced concrete, to help direct the blast the other way. Granted, probably nearly twice the blast would now be going the other direction, but if there's nothing in particular over there that is of relative concern it might work.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    4. Re:How about a controlled explosion? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Psst, "dyke" is usually a typically pejorative term for a lesbian, usually a "masculine" one. I think it would be better if you used the word "dike". Yes, I know that dyke is an acceptable form of "dike" but please, think of the children. Or something.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  26. Gilligan? by iamdrscience · · Score: 4, Funny

    Did anybody else think of that episode of Gilligan's Island where Gilligan accidentally brings in a WWII mine while fishing, or was that just my own television warped mind?

    1. Re:Gilligan? by iamdrscience · · Score: 1

      BTW, if that episode of Gilligan's Island is any indicator, the solution is obviously to get Gilligan to tow the boat out of the lagoon (or the Thames river in this case). Unfortunately, I don't know if Bob Denver would really be up for this.

    2. Re:Gilligan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, all of this talk of unexploded munitions reminded me of the suggestion that we use Mad Cows to "find" mines in abandoned mine fields.

    3. Re:Gilligan? by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 1

      Oooh I remember that episode.. he had that necklace that stuck him to the mine. :) In the end he was paddling out of the bay with the mine in hot persuit and he swam back fast w/out the raft he was on as the mine exploded.. Oooh the memories.

      --
      ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
  27. Re:How is this news for nerds? by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

    How does this involve modern technology?

    Damn hypertext syntax

    That is
    60 much much less than infinity

    That's modern enough

    It's time to really test the robots for defusing bombs.

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  28. Re:Question. by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Informative

    If it's a U.S. cargo ship, are we responsible for cleaning up our mess?

    Alternate solution #1 - make the guy who sunk it clean it up.
    Alternate solution #2 -Make the guy who started the war clean it up.

    There are UXO's from WWI and WWII all over Europe. From all sides. The get cleaned up as they are found, by whomever finds them. Hopefully cleaned up under control.

  29. Wrong post by okigan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    #text#
    In 1970, government tests on the site showed a
    blast would hurl a 1,000ft wide column of water,
    mud, metal and munitions almost 10,000ft into
    the air.

    The shock of the blast would shatter almost
    every window in Sheerness and damage buildings.

    The explosion would also generate a 16ft high
    wave that could sink a small craft.
    #/text#

    where did poster get the "with predictions of a 3 kilometre high wall of mud"????

    1. Re:Wrong post by ChipMonk · · Score: 0

      10,000 feet == ~3km

      Do the math.

    2. Re:Wrong post by lecithin · · Score: 1

      10000 ft = 3.048 kilometre.

      --
      It could be worse, it could be Monday.
    3. Re:Wrong post by kfg · · Score: 1

      Indeed, but if I erected four Doric columns at the corners of your property would you be prepared to call it a house and move in?

      KFG

    4. Re:Wrong post by robogun · · Score: 2, Informative
      It says 3km high not 3km wide, and it wouldn't be wide anyway, but spreading in a circle from the center point of explosion.

      We don't have the technology to generate a nearly 2 mile high wave, accidentally or otherwise. That's greater than earthquake generated tsunami, it would probably take an asteroid strike in deep ocean to create that.

      Having said that, 16ft would be enough to cause a compete disaster to the town. There is no need to exaggerate.

    5. Re:Wrong post by carlmenezes · · Score: 1

      Maybe he's a die hard Shrek fan ;)

      --
      Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
    6. Re:Wrong post by kavau · · Score: 1
      10,000ft = 3km

      Guess wall was a bad choice of words. But what do you expect on /.?

    7. Re:Wrong post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he works for NASA's metric conversion unit?

    8. Re:Wrong post by Radical+Rad · · Score: 1

      The original New Scientist article states 'predictions of a three kilometre high column of water, mud, metal and munitions sent into the air by the blast.' I understood what they meant and I misspoke when I used the word wall instead of column. I didn't intend to exaggerate or mislead anyone.

  30. Re:How is this news for nerds? by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 3, Funny

    "So. Let's see. It'll require super modern technology like "SCUBA" gear and big "Cranes", maybe even "Vehicles". Wow. I'm so excited I think I wet my pants."

    nice reply, but

    'SCUBA' wont be used for much of anything

    go ahead and use 'Cranes' to lift 1.4 kilotons worth of TNT buried in a rusted out cargo ship in a sandbank underwater in a large river.

    What kind of 'Vehicles' are you thinking of? 'Vehicles' is a pretty wide ranging group. Do you plan to use boats, or airplanes, or segways, or what?

    As far as you being excited and wetting your pants, I will agree with you there. That is certainly not news for nerds. or stuff that matters.

    Be a little more specific as far as to why you dont think this wont take a little engineering or some other nerdly skills.

  31. Woah by Tesko · · Score: 0

    Gives a whole new meaning to "Somebody set us up the bomb!"

    1. Re:Woah by PReDiToR · · Score: 1
      Someone set up us the bomb

      Remember it like this ...

      Read backwards it says:
      Bomb the US, upset someone

      I do not condone bombing the US.
      Anonymous Cowards, however, are a different matter.

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
    2. Re:Woah by PReDiToR · · Score: 1

      And to correct myself also:

      In the Flash the text says Somebody, the voiceover says Someone.

      Sorry.

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
  32. correction by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

    Divers with SCUBA equipment will certainly be involved, but as far as getting the ordinance from being in a dangerous location into a less dangerous equation, SCUBA is not the interesting part. Certainly not with all else that would be involved.

  33. It was a little bigger than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Don't forget the 2600 tons of picric acid.



    http://www3.sympatico.ca/goweezer/canada/blowup. ht m

  34. New Scientist source article by dr3vil · · Score: 5, Informative

    By coincidence, I had just read the New Scientist's article about this, which is the source of the BBC article, but in much more depth and with many more details,

    1. Re:New Scientist source article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps that's why it was linked from the slashdot article.

    2. Re:New Scientist source article by scupper · · Score: 1
      A detail I spotted in a unconfirmed/verified copy and paste of a March 28, 2004 Sunday London Times article about the wreck discusses the construction in 2005 of a natural gas storage facility/terminal nearby. I assume concern is about both ships transporting natural gas colliding with the sunken wreck of munitions, and the scale of an event at the terminal triggered by a SS Richard Montgomery munitions explosion.

      There are several other interesting facts chronicled about the wreck, but this excerpt about the natural gas storage seems to make it clearer why there is a renewed sense of urgency about the wreck.

      Excerpt from above referenced article:
      But in 2005 a new liquefied-natural-gas terminal opens on the estuary and will be home to 5% of the UK's gas supply. If the bombs aren't completely "safe", there are lots of lives at stake. Sheerness, 11/2 miles away, has a population of 11,000; the entire coastal area has a population of 120,000. Politicians are worried. "They insist the Montgomery isn't a danger to the public," says Sir Teddy Taylor, MP for Rochford and Southend East. "But these things are never 'dangerous'... until they go wrong. It's time for a proper review. "
  35. Ah... by iamdrscience · · Score: 4, Funny

    I suspect that the reason those articles do not cite a plan of action for defusing these explosives stems from the British governments indecision over whether they would rather protect millions upon millions in property or see a really really cool explosion.

    1. Re:Ah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It would save them a lot of money on Guy Fawkes day.

  36. because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because the explosive power is defined by the power of TNT. An 8kt nuke does not weigh 8kt, but only a few thousand pounds.

    Since HE is more potent than TNT, it's rated potential is higher than its weight.

    1. Re:because... by Phanatic1a · · Score: 1

      Since HE is more potent than TNT, it's rated potential is higher than its weight.

      TNT is high explosive.

      ANFO's barely a high explosive, and to get it to really detonate at all, as opposed to simply burn rapidly, you need to confine it properly and set it off properly, and for ideal results you set it off with a bit of TNT.

      A given weight of TNT will certainly produce better results than a given weight of ANFO.

    2. Re:because... by Forbman · · Score: 1

      ANFO is classified as a "low velocity" explosive. TNT is a "high velocity" explosive.

      ANFO is used in open-pit mining because its relatively low velocity explosion ends up pushing lots more material out of the way than a dynamite or other HE explosion would.

      HE is used in solid rock, where the high velocity shock helps to shatter the hard rock into smaller pieces.

      Which is why ANFO is a preferred explosive for trying to level buildings from a distance. That, and it's cheap, simple to make, and relatively stable.

  37. With a robot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not if you are using a robot? The technology is surely there.

    1. Re:With a robot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it isnt, unfortunately. The X proze competitions are evidence. Perhaps in another decade, when A.I. is more sophisticated than a few if() statements.

  38. Does 5,035 tons of ammunition beat that? by CSG_SurferDude · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Shameless lifted from Some random page about the Port of Chicago explosion.

    On the evening of 17 July 1944, the empty merchant ship SS Quinault Victory was prepared for loading on her maiden voyage. The SS E.A. Bryan, another merchant ship, had just returned from her first voyage and was loading across the platform from Quinault Victory. The holds were packed with high explosive and incendiary bombs, depth charges, and ammunition - 4,606 tons of ammunition in all. There were sixteen rail cars on the pier with another 429 tons. Working in the area were 320 cargo handlers, crewmen and sailors.

    At 10:18 p.m., a hollow ring and the sound of splintering wood erupted from the pier, followed by an explosion that ripped apart the night sky. Witnesses said that a brilliant white flash shot into the air, accompanied by a loud, sharp report. A column of smoke billowed from the pier, and fire glowed orange and yellow. Flashing like fireworks, smaller explosions went off in the cloud as it rose. Within six seconds, a deeper explosion erupted as the contents of the E.A. Bryan detonated in one massive explosion. The seismic shock wave was felt as far away as Boulder City, Nevada. The E.A. Bryan and the structures around the pier were completely disintegrated. A pillar of fire and smoke stretched over two miles into the sky above Port Chicago. The largest remaining pieces of the 7,200-ton ship were the size of a suitcase. A plane flying at 9,000 feet reported seeing chunks of white hot metal "as big as a house" flying past. The shattered Quinault Victory was spun into the air. Witnesses reported seeing a 200-foot column on which rode the bow of the ship, its mast still attached. Its remains crashed back into the bay 500 feet away.

    All 320 men on duty that night were killed instantly. The blast smashed buildings and rail cars near the pier and damaged every building in Port Chicago. People on the base and in town were sent flying or were sprayed with splinters of glass and other debris. The air filled with the sharp cracks and dull thuds of smouldering metal and unexploded shells as they showered back to earth as far as two miles away. The blast caused damage 48 miles across the Bay in San Francisco.

    1. Re:Does 5,035 tons of ammunition beat that? by zarthrag · · Score: 1

      Don't mean to be a kill-joy, but this was IMO one of the saddest things in american history. The US navy was well known for assigning black ppl who join up to this type of duty. (There have been movies about it in the past, I believe). Loading ammo was a shit job. But the explosion but no huge deal was ever made of it because most of the victims were black. In fact, most of the base was black, due to segregation. Had this not been the case, that place would be memorialized already - likely almost as commonly known of a WWII place as Pearl Harbor.

      That was also the pivotal event that eventually led to the Navy officially desegregating.

      --
      Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
    2. Re:Does 5,035 tons of ammunition beat that? by jcam2 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't count, because as every conspiracy theorist worth his tin-foil hat knows, the Port of Chicago blast was a nuclear explosion set off by the navy to test the effect of radiation of people :-)

    3. Re:Does 5,035 tons of ammunition beat that? by gujo-odori · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, Port Chicago has been made a national memorial:

      http://www.nps.gov/poch/index.htm

      A pretty big deal actually was made of the explosion; there was a full board of inquiry and it did result in some procedural changes to the way ammunition was handled, as well as the reduction, still in 1944, of the number of blacks at ammunition depots reduced to 30% of staff. At Port Chicago, all of the loaders were black, only the officers were white.

      Shamefully, the handful loaders who survived were court-martialed for mutiny because they refused to load ammunition until safety changes were made. While they were released from prison in 1946, well short of the long sentences they were given, that doesn't change the wrong that was done to them.

      More info on Port Chicago is here:

      http://www.usmm.org/portchicago.html

    4. Re:Does 5,035 tons of ammunition beat that? by Zak3056 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The OP's 4,800 tons of ANFO probably beats your 5,035 tons of various ordnance. The majority of your figure is probably bomb casings which, being made of steel, weigh significantly more then the explosives within them.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    5. Re:Does 5,035 tons of ammunition beat that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      funny thing is...there is ALOT of residual radioactivity in that area along the highways- leading some folks to speculate that the ship in question was carying an early atom bomb prototype that was accidentally set off.

    6. Re:Does 5,035 tons of ammunition beat that? by dillon_rinker · · Score: 1

      There is nothing, NOTHING, shameful about jailing members of the military who refuse to perform a dangerous duty.

      Like charging a machine gun nest.

      Or piloting a bomber in straight, level flight over an area infested with anti-aircraft guns.

      Or manning an aircraft carrier in the middle of an aerial attack.

      All of these are hopeless tasks without ammunition. The loaders were fortunate to avoid a firing squad.

  39. Re:How is this news for nerds? by eatjello · · Score: 1

    Are you seriously telling me you've never seen cool (as in nerdy) stuff on the History Channel? Wild West Tech, Modern Marvels, the history of prostitution (seriously, it was an academic perspective on the subject, and was rather interesting)... the list goes on. You just need to broaden your horizons a bit... wouldn't you rather learn a bit about everything than know everything about just one thing?

  40. It's a shame... by iamdrscience · · Score: 2, Funny

    Too bad it's on the Thames. British people just don't have the same deep appreciation for blowing stuff up that Americans do. I suppose that's one of the reasons we revolted though...

    1. Re:It's a shame... by Jerf · · Score: 4, Funny

      Remember that one of their biggest parties is for when somebody failed to blow something up in a big way: Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot. I don't think this guy would get a holiday of his own here in the States.

      (Ha! Take that all you Brits who think all us Yanks are uncultured swine! A topical British cultural reference from an American! On behalf of my countrymen, Neener neener neener!)

    2. Re:It's a shame... by BJH · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not a holiday for Guy Fawkes. It's a holiday that celebrates his failure and execution; he is (or rather was, I don't know many places that still do this) burned in effigy every year.

    3. Re:It's a shame... by Fallen+Andy · · Score: 1

      Humph. So we don't celebrate some guy who tried to blow up parliament every 5th Nov ? (ok, he prob didn't though...).

    4. Re:It's a shame... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans are still revolting... :)

    5. Re:It's a shame... by Master+Of+Ninja · · Score: 1

      Most people don't have a clue what the holiday is for nowadays. It's just a big excuse for lighting massive fires (in the middle of a busy road), as well as lighting off fireworks well into the night. Oh, and doing this for a month before and a month after as well.

      But it's all in good fun though, and I invite Jerf, as a cultured Yank, to help spread the fun of this party around the world. It's great fun really!!!

    6. Re:It's a shame... by Cassius105 · · Score: 1

      Well officialy yeh

      but im sure a lot of us would of still celebrated him if he had suceeded :)

      though tbh most people just dont care

      we just use it as an excuse to burn stuff and set off lots of explosives

    7. Re:It's a shame... by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2, Funny
      Remember that one of their biggest parties is for when somebody failed to blow something up in a big way: Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot

      I'm never sure whether it's because he failed, or because he tried :-)

      Still, who cares- it's a party and we get fireworks!

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    8. Re:It's a shame... by GuyFawkes · · Score: 1

      I chose this handle for internet use many mnay moons ago, because the (true) story of guy fawkes is a salutary lesson in human nature.

      --
      http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
    9. Re:It's a shame... by PReDiToR · · Score: 1
      It's a holiday that celebrates his failure and execution

      Speaking personally, that aspect was never emphasised in either my Primary, nor Secondary schools. We just learned that he tried to blow up Parliament and that we celebrated this.

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
    10. Re:It's a shame... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1

      Do you know there was a lot of controversy and conspiricy theories about the Guy Fawkes plot, and whether he was a patsy? Last year there were a few interesting documentaries about it, I think they were on the BBC. I think the jist of it was that they'd been set-up for whatever reason, and that the plot was known about. It may have come down to religion, English history is full of religious wars, between different Christian cults. Unfortunately I couldn't find anything on Google on it, though I do remember seeing stuff online about it back then.

    11. Re:It's a shame... by BJH · · Score: 1

      Heh ;)

    12. Re:It's a shame... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We just learned that he tried to blow up Parliament and that we celebrated this.

      Yes, I suspect that most people celebrate the attempt, rather than the failure. And burn an effigy because the attempt failed.

    13. Re:It's a shame... by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Funny
      Speaking personally, that aspect was never emphasised in either my Primary, nor Secondary schools. We just learned that he tried to blow up Parliament and that we celebrated this.

      Let me guess: Catholic school.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    14. Re:It's a shame... by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      It's a holiday that celebrates his failure and execution

      I prefer to think of him as the last honest man to enter the Houses of Parliament.

  41. science to the rescue-A chilly send off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I recommend freezing the ship, and then moving it.

    1. Re:science to the rescue-A chilly send off. by Simple-Simmian · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hmmm you might actually be on to someting. Freezing it would tend to make it more stable but not absolutely safe. Just a bit safer. Perhaps safe enough to deal with. Using ROVs from a safe distance. The Isle of Sheppey is a sheite hole by all accounts and some urban renewal might not go unwelcomed by many in the U.K. as has been noted it many post to this article.

      --
      If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
      Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
  42. Re:BOOOM!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering it was the Brits that directed it to the sand bar, I wouldn't get too uppity with the knee jerk anti-American crap. Oh wait, this is Slashdot. Carry on. Don't bother to RTFA.

  43. Re:Question. by g3000 · · Score: 1

    Well, if you read the linked Wikipedia article, you see that when the ship arrived at the Thames estuary, it came under control of local authorities...

    When she arrived of Southend she came under the authority of the Thames naval control at HMS Leigh, located at the end of the Southend pier. It was the then harbour master, responsible for all shipping movements in the estuary who ordered Montgomery to a berth off the north edge of Sheerness middle sands, where she ran aground in a depth of 24 ft. of water at low tide.

    and that a local company was given the job to remove the cargo or "clean up our mess," but were unable to do so.

  44. Re:How is this news for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or for the american geeks, it is almost as cool as shooting things, or people (esp those middle eastern people)...or for southern americans, the heathens too.

  45. Re:Really big helicopters by Migraineman · · Score: 1

    The payload is 1.4 kilotons. That's 1400 tons. The CH-54 Sky Crane has a payload capacity of 10 tons. The CH-53E Super Stallion can haul about 16 tons. You'd need more like 200 helicopters to pick up the boat's payload, and more if you want to sling the boat itself around.

    The payload is heavy. It was probably sent by boat for a reason.

  46. From the moderator... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I modded this.

    I modded it Informative because of the first parts of the first paragraph. Yeah, the second paragraph is a bunch of assumptions. So what?

    In other news, some people need to stop being so pediantic. Insightful, informative... same difference.

  47. Funding? by XanC · · Score: 1

    We give the UN so f***ing much money it's not even funny. It exists because US taxpayers foot the bill. I don't think we would turn around and ask them for money for something else...

    1. Re:Funding? by dbIII · · Score: 2, Insightful
      We give the UN so f***ing much money it's not even funny. It exists because US taxpayers foot the bill.
      I think you'll find the UN is pissed because the USA has not paid it's dues in years - but having a UN without the USA would be like having a league of nations without the USA and the USA ignoring its sanctions on a fascist government - and we all know how that turned out - ships full of explosives beached because there had to be a D-Day.
    2. Re:Funding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S. is currently somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1 Billion in arrears depending on who you listen to. Several articles here http://www.debate-central.org/topics/2004/LINKS/UN _Costs_and_Financial_Crisis/US_Debt/ on the subject.

    3. Re:Funding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A troll, but I'll bite..
      You are simply wrong. The US is far behind on their payments to the UN.

      Now if only the UN had more power than the US the world would be a more peaceful place.

  48. Re:Uh oh....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps he supposes that the large shockwave will knock the bridge down from the other side of the earth? Sort of like those suspended shiny balls that people put on their desk, that go ckick klack ckick klack ckick klack, you know. Those things? But like HUGE. The explosion will toss the London Bridge 10 feet into the air, and it will come down in rubble!

    Hey, I think that if a butterfly can make a hurricane that it just might work!

  49. Canada? by xsupergr0verx · · Score: 1

    Didn't an oldschool French ammunition ship explode on some coast in Canada quite a while ago, creating the largest non-nuclear explosion?

    The name escapes me, was it in Newfoundland?

    --

    Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
    1. Re:Canada? by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

      That was a world war 1 munitions ship that exploded in Halifax harbour in 1917 after a collision with another ship, it had the same effect as a small nuclear bomb without the radiation. Halifax was levelled. The ship only had a couple hundred tons of explosives, plus other semi-explosive stuff, and the cargo was not arranged for an intentional all-at-once explosion, so it could have been worse.

      Actually the largest non-nuclear explosion ever took place on the west coast of canada. In the 1950's A shallowly submerged island in the straits between vancouver island and the mainland was hollowed out and filled with explosives. The explosion removed a naval hazard that had sunk over 100 ships.

      That explosion also used 1.4 kilotonnes of explosives.

      read about it here:

      http://www.vancouverislandabound.com/tamingof.ht m

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    2. Re:Canada? by xsupergr0verx · · Score: 1

      That's the ticket. Thanks for the info friendly northernly neighbor.

      --

      Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
    3. Re:Canada? by JustOK · · Score: 1

      and, like Halifax is in Nouvelle-Écosse (cuz you can 't use English Latin in french) see map

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
  50. More about Sheppey, the island in question by jpetts · · Score: 3, Informative

    Go here. For more specifics about the offshore explosion hazard click here.

    (Note: site doesn't appear to work well in Firefox)

    --
    Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
    1. Re:More about Sheppey, the island in question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Note: site doesn't appear to work well in Firefox"

      Maybe you have to burn it first, and firebird will work on the replacement site.

  51. Poor sailing by our by xsupergr0verx · · Score: 2, Funny

    Grandparents set up us the bomb!

    You know what you doing!

    --

    Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
  52. I have the solution! by SetupWeasel · · Score: 2, Informative

    What to do if over a kiloton of unstable explosives reside near your town:

    Move.

    You're welcome!

  53. World War relics by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

    After the first world war, lots of the gas produced simply was dumped into the atlantic and still comes up as poisnous foam from time to time. Some of the islands in the Bikini area still are not inhabitable. I am sure there are numours other relics of World War 1 and 2 lying around on the planet, most people dont know of.

    1. Re:World War relics by johannesg · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Such a dump apparently also exists in the North Sea, in front of the Belgium coast. If that stuff goes up at the wrong time (i.e. wrong wind direction) it might also kill a lot of people.

      Anyway, I have seen the spot where the Montgomery lies buried; ferries between the UK and the Netherlands pass pretty close by. A veteran told me about the wreck and its history, and he pointed out that the houses on the shore would get wiped out if the wreck were to explode.

      "What houses?" I wondered. Then I looked really hard, and it dawned on me that he meant the small specks I could barely see on the horizon.

      It's been 15 years since I made that trip, and I forget most of the other things I saw, but that one has stayed with me alright...

    2. Re:World War relics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found a huge stash of opthalmic grade cocaine at a WW2 military dump.

    3. Re:World War relics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well...

      They dumped ships containing mustard gas in the international waters between Denmark and Sweden after WWII. The hulls are rusting and the cement blocks containing the gas capsules are withering away. Somtimes they have to decontaminate trawlers which were unfortunate to catch capsules in their nets. I haven't heard of any recent incidents. GPS?

    4. Re:World War relics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, that wasn't cocaine...

  54. Gotta say it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Someone set us up the bomb!"

  55. Re:Question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you really want Hitler playing around with 1.4 tonnes of explosives smack in the middle of england?

  56. Re:How is this news for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "So, uhhh, why isn't the fact I'm watching TV covered on slashdot? That's modern technology."

    Interlacing? Modern? Everyone who enjoys graphics hates interlacing. Get a clue.

  57. Re:Nerds? by MavEtJu · · Score: 0

    Imagine a beowolf cluster of these ships....

    --
    bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
  58. UXO by Big+Bob+the+Finder · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The Brits and the French have a lot of worries with regards to unexploded ordnance (UXO), which we don't have to deal with here in the US. Although there are a few exceptions (minefields at White Sands Missile Range that are, ironically enough, very close to one of the Space Shuttle's emergency landing strips, for example) on military bases, the US is largely free of unexploded munitions, unlike much of the rest of the world.

    However, in France, the incidence of UXO is sufficiently high that local farmers plow up "items" on a regular basis. If they are small enough to be moved by an individual, they are taken out by hand and put in drop boxes by the road for ordnance techs to deal with. That's how common they are- farmers turned ordnance technicians.

    While working on a test program with some British ordnance people, a story was related to me regarding buried UXO from WWII. Pipes were filled with nitroglycerin (NG), and buried perpendicular to landing strips in the UK. The idea was that they could be detonated in the event of invasion, rendering the landing strips useless. They were forgotten after WWII, and during construction some decades later, were re-discovered when a pipe containing NG was struck with a backhoe; I believe it killed the operator.

    Making things worse during the remediation effort was that apartments had been built over part of the old runway. The Brits paid to bus the residents to the beach each day, and then bring them back in the afternoon after work for the day had halted. Evidently, they became quite cross when the work was finished a day early and everyone lined up for the buses, and the buses didn't come that day.

    Anyway- the only thing worse than UXO is unexploded, toxic ordnance. Chemical warfare just hasn't been the same since the Chinese invented burning pepper upwind of the enemy, I'll tell ya.

    1. Re:UXO by Detritus · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are areas in the USA with buried treasures. An upscale neighborhood (Spring Valley, Maryland) near Washington, D.C. was built on top of what used to be a World War I chemical warfare research facility operated by American University. After the war, most of the material was moved to Edgewood Arsenal. In recent years, people have found buried containers of mustard gas, lewisite and misc. unexploded ordnance.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:UXO by gilroy · · Score: 2, Informative
      Blockquoth the poster:

      he Brits and the French have a lot of worries with regards to unexploded ordnance (UXO), which we don't have to deal with here in the US.

      There is, however, a considerable amount of UXO in the coastal waters of the US, remnants of U-boats brought down. Any good navigational chart of New York Harbor, for instance, has many sites marked as "unexploded ordinance" or "sunken U-boat". To be fair, I believe the total tonnage is still way lower than the Brits or French (or, I suspect, Germans) have to worry about.
    3. Re:UXO by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Informative
      Although there are a few exceptions (minefields at White Sands Missile Range that are, ironically enough, very close to one of the Space Shuttle's emergency landing strips, for example) on military bases,
      There are problems occasionally when those bases are closed and used for other purposes, military or non. Here in Kitsap County a large tract of military housing, a school, and the Naval Hospital were built on the site of a former ammunition facility. They still find the odd bit of ordinance or poke into a former bunker and discover it wasn't actually cleared out...
    4. Re:UXO by pinguwin · · Score: 1

      When I was in northern France, there was a road that I walked down. To the left was an idyllic farm field. To the right was forest. There was small trail in the forest which had a sign warning absolutely not to leave the trail for any reason. Soon as I passed the gate, it was like being in another world. There were large shell holes that hadn't filled in (vegatation had stabilized them) and old trenches still there from WW I.

      Down the road was a WWI memorial which had signs in many languages warning you not to pass the fence due to UXO. Beyond the fence was a hummocked landscapes, shell holes and trenches still there. A bunch of goats were there that kept the grass cut. I asked how often they lost a goat. The attendant said he wasn't allowed to tell!

      Fairly common to see UXO on the sides of roads waiting to be picked up. In Belgium, there was a chemical weapon that a local showed me. He said a small shell will kill one or two people, but the chemical weapon could have killed everyone in a nearby village if the wind was in the right (wrong? :-) direction. He wasn't surprised that the bomb was found, just that it had been there for a few weeks without the demineurs (de-miners in English) coming to pick it up.

      I've also been in Northern Laos where the locals told me of a beautiful trail, but not to leave the worn path. When I flew over Northern Laos (low altitude flight), I couldn't believe how many perfectly circular "ponds" about 30 ft. in diameter there were. Some villages were surrounded by dozens of them. I've was told when I was in Cambodia, that if your bus stops and the driver isn't familiar with the area and you have to go really, really bad, best to take a dump right on the road than to risk a land mine (Laos has more of a problem with larger aerial bombs, Cambodia has more of a land mine problem).

  59. hmmmm by turbotalon · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see a Beowulf cluster of those!!

    --

    I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy

  60. and if it is an excuse to blow shit up... by commodoresloat · · Score: 3, Funny

    where do I sign up?

  61. Re:Halifax Explosion -- bizarre aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Approaching insane levels of bad taste, a new condo development which overlooks the area is called "Mont Blanc":

    http://www.livingatmontblanc.com/

    I don't suppose Hiroshima is planning an Enola Gay Heights set of condos to match?

  62. Disarm it remotely with Robots by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

    Disarm it remotely with Robots ...

    Setup Transponder near surface of wreck, setup relay station 20km
    away, and evacuate the closest town for a short time .

    Use directional low power transmitters for long shots, and
    low power omni directional transmitter near site .

    The remote control subs could use air bags to float bombs to surface
    slowly changing their bouancy and rising up like air bags .

    Also as a precaution they could rig concentric rings of air bladder
    bags to absorb some of the outward explosion , if they completely
    surrounded it with 100 ten foot thick air bag sets it could
    lessen the surface level explosion, alot would still go straight up.

    Also mines are designed to exist in water, those bombs were not,
    and it is VERY possible alot of them are now duds .

    Peace !
    Ex-MislTech

    --
    google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    1. Re:Disarm it remotely with Robots by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      But the problem is the casing is so damaged and potential sparks could errupt from metal scraping agaisnt metal.

      It could puncture the bombs and actually cause teh explosion.

      It needs to be dealt with either way.

      The british government should use robots but first evacuate whole cities near the cite and have all the families take their valuables and pray it will be disarmed.

      It will be hard because if it does trigger the explosion whole houses will be obliverated.

  63. I think i speak for us all when I ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Who fucking cares?

    If you don't want to get asploded, don't live in England or wherever the fuck it is British people come from. Simple as that. Don't come bitching to us when a wall of mud and metal and I suppose various sea creatures and junk crashes down on your stupid little town. You chose to live there, deal with it.

    Why are the English always asking us to solve their problems? One is reminded of when the Great Plague hit England in 1576. If I recall, and I always do, it was none other than the United States who sent over Mr. T and the T-Force to wipe the plague out and make England safe for future American visitors. A few years later it's "Oh no! The Canadians are dropping bombs on our cities or something!" and we're over there again saving their asses. What do we get in return? A snarky attitude about the large amount of explosives we happen to have left behind when we were done kicking Canadian ass.

    1. Re:I think i speak for us all when I ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit, why didn't you post that while logged in? Pure Sunday reading bliss, and I want to add you to my friends list so I can check if you write any other such wonders!

    2. Re:I think i speak for us all when I ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reads like T. Herman Zweibel over on The Onion.

    3. Re:I think i speak for us all when I ask... by MAurelius · · Score: 1

      LOL! Apparently some of the moderators today are humour impaired. Where are my mod points when I need them?? The Canadians?!!! Awesome.

  64. Oh god. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can see that place from out my window, and that's the first I've heard of this.

    Typical.

  65. Umm, do you need a job?-YES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes I do. And people who do this kind of work make excellent money.

    1. Re:Umm, do you need a job?-YES! by BigT · · Score: 2, Funny

      And they tend to have cool nicknames, too.
      Like Stumpy, Peg-leg, Ol' one-eye...

      --
      Is it weird in here, or is it just me?
  66. Reading comprehension is a good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    If you bothered to read the entire first sentence of his post, you might notice that he wasn't tieing the 4,800 tons of ANFO with the Oklahoma City bombing, but with the "Minor Scale Event" (link stolen from the post you're berating I thought I'd let you know, since you obviously never got that far reading it). The Oklahoma City reference was just to give the non-explosives experts an idea of what else ANFO explosives have been used for. Not really necessary, especially since it completely confuses people like you who apparently can't understand anything more complex than a Dr. Seuss book.

    1. Re:Reading comprehension is a good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, them Doctor Soos books are some dang good readin'!

  67. Re:How is this news for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are as ignorant as you are worthless. Put that in your pipe and smoke it as you die alone.

  68. Nukes do not worry you ? by mattlamb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html

    scroll down to lost nukes... many in the USA

    --
    { Pillar candles great for when the power fails and you cant see the keyboard..
    1. Re:Nukes do not worry you ? by mattlamb · · Score: 1
      --
      { Pillar candles great for when the power fails and you cant see the keyboard..
    2. Re:Nukes do not worry you ? by grozzie2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The real enlightening part of that read, is to note how many of those nuclear incidents occurred in areas where the us military is specifically prohibited by treaty and/or local law from having nukes. Kind of demonstrates how the usa as a country honors, or more appropriately does NOT honor, the treaties it signs.

  69. Re:Question. by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

    Not anymore. He's a little bit dead.

  70. Get the RIAA involved by calidoscope · · Score: 2, Funny

    Tell them that the ship is a haven for file-swappers.

    --
    A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
    1. Re:Get the RIAA involved by Justin205 · · Score: 3, Funny

      And make sure they know it'll be dark and they have to bring lots of candles. And matches. And oil lamps.

      And just to be safe, have a plane fly overhead and drop a flare.

      --
      "Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you."
  71. London Bridge by green+pizza · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sorry but "London Bridge" has been moved to the suburbs of Phoenix Arizona.

    Mostly true, except that Lake Havasu City is about a half day drive from Phoenix.

    http://www.havasuchamber.com/lbridge.htm

  72. Re:Question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know this revelation may be too much to understand for someone such as yourself who has a brain the size of a tennis ball, but George Bush is not responsible for the fact that you are equally worthless and ignorant. That fact is entirely of your own doing. Put that in your pipe and smoke it as you die alone, hippie.

  73. I hate to be morbid, by duncanbojangles · · Score: 1

    I hate to be morbid, but that really sounds kinda cool, if it weren't for the people dying and homes getting ruined. It would be perfect special effects for an armageddon movie!

  74. Coolest Thing Ever by celeritas_2 · · Score: 5, Funny
    I have to say that watching fourteen hundred tons of the good stuff turn a river and small town into a crater would be the coolest thing to see all year. I'd even help everyone who was unforturate enough to have a house nearby clean it up.

    But WAIT!!!!you're telling me that a large abandoned ship full of explosives existed exposed to the outside world for sixty some years and it WASN'T looted by hordes of pyro teenagers? There must be something fundamentally wrong with the teenagers across that ocean. Methinks not enough good ol american made rednek would fix it right up.

    GITTERDUN!!!!!!!!

    --
    -- Checking emails and kicking cheats `till the day I die.
    1. Re:Coolest Thing Ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That could be used as a clean up approach. Tell the kids they can keep and detonate anything they can retrieve.

    2. Re:Coolest Thing Ever by trburkholder · · Score: 1

      Two words: Natural Selection. Maybe their teenagers aren't ready for the Darwin Awards Like this guy from Texas or this guy from North Carolina

    3. Re:Coolest Thing Ever by Darthmalt · · Score: 1

      If that would have happend in the south we'd have done looted the thing years ago

    4. Re:Coolest Thing Ever by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Your damn straight on that one. That shit wouldn't have lasted a week around here, not to mention 60 years.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    5. Re:Coolest Thing Ever by goatan · · Score: 1
      But WAIT!!!!you're telling me that a large abandoned ship full of explosives existed exposed to the outside world for sixty some years and it WASN'T looted by hordes of pyro teenagers? There must be something fundamentally wrong with the teenagers across that ocean. Methinks not enough good ol american made rednek would fix it right up.

      Nah it's just that we can get our hand explosive much easeyer than diving on a wreck, just go for walk across an army training ground (most are open to the public most of the time)and keep your eyes open if your lucky you will something cool.

      --
      Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.

  75. What, me worry? by Big+Bob+the+Finder · · Score: 1
    Not quite so much. My forte is conventional munitions, not nuclear. I've been assured by my nuclear associates that they're all perfectly safe, and blah blah blah. Sure, whatever.

    But the list of broken arrows is a pretty long one. The way I understand it, there's no one organization that keeps track of all incidents and lost devices. On the bright side, they may have found the lost Mk-39 near Savannah, GA.

  76. How is this news for nerds?-Har-boiled. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Exploding things are cool. Every geek knows that."

    So that's why you put a carton of eggs in the microwave.

  77. To Pick Nits by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1, Troll

    An ordinance is a law. Ordnance refers to ammunition.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:To Pick Nits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, people are certainly killed by old ordinances!

    2. Re:To Pick Nits by paganizer · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I would say quite a few people are killed each year from ordinances resulting from the Civil War; I doubt very seriously we would have Jack Booted Thugs making no-knock raids on the wrong frikkin' house if the Constitution was still taken seriously, something which started with the War of Northern Aggression.

      Pork Rind flavored Viagra: The South shall Rise Again!

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    3. Re:To Pick Nits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.

      A hex on you!

  78. There's a lot more bombs left by bhima · · Score: 2, Interesting
    It's common knowledge in the EU (well at least in the eastern bit of it) that at the rate of unexploded bomb removal it will take centuries to remove them all. People die all the time from accidently finding one when they set it off (or setting it of when they try to dispose of it). That's scary enough as it is but these are left overs than generally were delivered (meaning mostly they fell out of planes) so they are by themselves. These are a whole boat load (I think this is the first time in a life time of using the phrase that it is accurate!) of bombs setting next to each other.

    It seems to me it would be good thing to develop a nano or microbial solution (don't they have mushrooms that eat High Explosives or was that diesel?).

    --
    Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
  79. A more modern version... er sorta by John+Whorfin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In the US in 197x (no, I don't remember exactly) a munitions train loaded with bombs destined for Vietnam exploded in the railyard (in Roseville, CA). Bombs went off for hours, devastating the surrounding areas. I was a young kid in the area at the time. All I remember was, "Mommy, is that thunder?" Followed by "Get in the house!"

    Anyway. That's not the best part. A few years ago they were doing some construction in the area when a backhoe hit something... something metal.

    Oops.

    Well, they called out the bomb squad, who said 'fsck it!' and called the military, who decided to blow the thing in place. Many windows in the area gave their lives.

    After that they used ground penetrating radar in the area and declared the area "cleared".

    End of story? Nope.

    A week later "tink"... a backhoe hit something... something metal. It seems that, and this is just priceless, when they did the ground penetrating radar passes, they only went for POSITIVE matches, i.e.: it had to look like a bomb on radar. Well, come on, the area is littered with shrapnel and train debris even 30 years later.

    After much flogging, they did more radar and found not 1... not 2... but EIGHT 250-lbs bombs in the immediate area.

    Anyway, I hear houses in the area can be had cheap :).

  80. The only good thing to happen on Sheppey by Sad+Loser · · Score: 5, Informative


    Actually it might be a blessing if it did happen.
    If you want to know more about the dubious joys of living on the isle of Sheppey (on which Sheerness is located) then you can find out at the most excellent Isle of Sheppey tourists guide.

    --
    Humorous signatures are over-rated.
    1. Re:The only good thing to happen on Sheppey by TechnicalThug · · Score: 2, Funny

      yeah, I think most of Kent would second that idea!

    2. Re:The only good thing to happen on Sheppey by Soruk · · Score: 1

      Having had the misfortune of having passed through Sheerness, actually triggering the device might not be such a bad idea...

      --
      -- Soruk
    3. Re:The only good thing to happen on Sheppey by Spunk · · Score: 1

      This island is apparently so offensive that my webfilter at work won't let me look at it. :)

  81. Re:How is this news for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow the troll hunters are out tonight. I think they are getting a few falose positives. I thought this warranted a +1 insightful (maybe to finish off around +3, but -1 troll? A little harsh. Not to mention, I knew it would get some witty replies, and it did. It was a fine post, pointing out the difference between the usual high tech/political stuff the site usually concentrates on vursus this, more of a historic event with modern day repercussions thing. Of couse, it is interesting to us nerds, at least for the discussion on how to best deal with it, But labelling it a troll is a little harsh.

  82. nerds + things that blow up good by Jack+Action · · Score: 1

    Was Oppenheimer a nerd?

    1. Re:nerds + things that blow up good by cpghost · · Score: 1

      Was Oppenheimer a nerd?

      "I am become Death, the Shatterer of Worlds..."

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  83. Naah, sharks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's right, frickin' sharks with frickin' "lasers" on their heads.

  84. I got the perfect host / volunteer for the show. by deathcow · · Score: 1


    Who could build the tension like Giraldo Rivera... and what a perfect conclusion for his career.

  85. Re:Get it over with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    D. Hicks: "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

  86. Nukes in my town by mikeswi · · Score: 1

    The US Air Force (brilliant buggers that they are) managed to drop a nuclear bomb into one of the swamps nearby (Savannah, GA, USA) back in the 1950's. I'm sure that even back in the 50's the detonators were made safe enough that it won't explode randomnly. Still, I'd rather they dug that damned thing up and removed it.

  87. We just had an incident in Poole.... by devitto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While building on an old piece of Poole (Dorset, England) harbour they found a load of phosphorour barrels from WWII. Not sure if they were for grenades or flares, but storing Phosphorous next to the shore? Great idea!

  88. Out govt does nothing by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

    Typical civil servants - know about a problem, know that it will get worse with time, just sit on their hands and hope that they retire or move to a different department before they need to make a decision.

    Yet when it comes to enforcing trivial health & safety laws they are keep to act against all businesses that don't do everything.

  89. Well done, mods by pjt33 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nice to see the mods getting it right: the suggestion that anyone would go to Sheerness for their holiday definitely deserves +5 Funny.

  90. Re:How is this news for nerds? by Rii · · Score: 0

    IMNSGDHO.

    Gesundheit.

  91. Re:Question. by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 2, Funny

    you could ask any question involving the US and 'responsible' and the answer will always be the same:

    NOOOOOOOO

    --
    George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
  92. Re: UXO, not in the US by Roy+Ward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > ... which we don't have to deal with here in the US

    Perhaps that's part of why the US _isn't_ one of the 152 countries that have signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty (effectively a landmine ban) ... it's easier to make the stuff if you don't have to deal with the consequences on your own soil.

  93. About Sheerness by panurge · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Part of the UK side of my family at one time lived on the Isle of Sheppey, which is where Sheerness is situated. I visited it once when, for a few years, there was an excellent cross-Channel ferry from Sheerness to Vlissingen.

    I have to say that, other than the seabird population, an enormous bomb explosion nearby could do nothing but good. The Thames islands are mostly mudflats (and at least one of them may cease to exist before long during to rising sea levels and strengthening tides) and, without human intervention, would be pretty transient.

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
  94. You fail it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The correct quote is "Somebody set up us the bomb."

  95. Re:Question. by pjt33 · · Score: 1

    Okay, I realise that Great Britain isn't a big island, but even so it's pushing it to claim that the coast is "smack in the middle of England".

  96. Wanna go shooting? by ksemlerK · · Score: 1

    Let's go target practicing! Make big boom! BIG BOOM!!

  97. At least they don't live in Savannah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
  98. Re:Nukes in my town by dbIII · · Score: 3, Funny
    managed to drop a nuclear bomb into one of the swamps
    Still, I'd rather they dug that damned thing up and removed it.We're too busy keeping Kennedy off aeroplanes to worry about trivialities like missing nukes.
  99. Re: UXO, not in the US by praksys · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Perhaps that's part of why the US _isn't_ one of the 152 countries that have signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty...

    No. The reason is that the US uses landmines to defend the border between North Korea and South Korea. Its easy for those 152 countries to claim that landmines are unecessary when they don't have 30,000 men and women standing in the way of 1,000,000 mental communists.

  100. Too bad they are not in Irak by ycochard · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Too bad they are not in Irak...

    They would have made nice weapons of mass destruction, well hidden !

    They could have been a great oppotunity for Bush & Blair.

    1. Re:Too bad they are not in Irak by Stevyn · · Score: 2, Funny

      Too bad you couldn't spell "Iraq" properly.

    2. Re:Too bad they are not in Irak by blogeasy · · Score: 1

      Another phoentic spelling.

      --

      Browse the Information Directory
  101. Re: UXO, not in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the 30,000 men should move? :)

  102. Yes you are........ by tufflove · · Score: 0

    now go play in traffic please............

  103. Emulation of nuclear explosions by dimss · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In Soviet Army huge amounts of TNT were used to emulate nuclear explosion. Eyewitness of one such explosion told me that they exploded entire cargo train of TNT. It was cheaper and less dangerous than atomic bomb, but very realistic.

  104. who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'nuff said

  105. Want to see what it looks like? by rsmith · · Score: 1

    Before the Trinity test during the Manhattan project, a test was done with en explosion of 108 tons of Composition B (RDX/TNT). Among the explosives were tubes containing fission products. Looks like the biggest "dirty" bomb ever made.

    Of course the fireball would not be as hot as a nuclear one, but the pictures look very impressive nontheless.

    --
    Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
  106. Slashdot Rule #67 by DeekGeek · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    All topics eventually degenerate into anti-Bush commentary.

    --

    How can the eyes be the Windows of the soul when they never blue screen?

    1. Re:Slashdot Rule #67 by dsouth · · Score: 1
      All topics eventually degenerate into anti-Bush commentary.
      Oh please. Texas was an object of scorn and ridicule long before the Bushies adopted it. Likewise, it was OK to hate new yorkers long before the Bill and Hill show took up residence there.
  107. An even bigger time bomb by no_choice · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    That's not a time bomb.

    This is a time bomb!!!

    Montgomery:
    The explosion would also generate a 16ft high wave that could sink a small craft.

    La Palma:
    Scientists predict that it will generate a wave that will be almost inconceivably destructive, far bigger than anything ever witnessed in modern times. It will surge across the entire Atlantic in a matter of hours, engulfing the whole US east coast, sweeping away everything in its path up to 20km inland. Boston would be hit first, followed by New York, then all the way down the coast to Miami and the Caribbean.

    1. Re:An even bigger time bomb by mabu · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I think this is the bomb we need to be worrying about.

    2. Re:An even bigger time bomb by mrjb · · Score: 1

      No, no, the bomb needing worrying about most is this one.

      --
      Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
  108. Send in MacGyver by Airw0lf · · Score: 2, Funny

    As far as defusing bombs goes, you can't beat MacGyver. In fact, he's been so bored of late that he's resorted to building bombs on aeroplanes (See: http://bbspot.com/News/2004/06/macgyver.html.) So I think he'd jump at the opportunity to defuse a few...

  109. Sheerness by Jodrell · · Score: 2, Interesting
    As someone who lives not very far from Sheerness, I can say with conviction that not many people would be all that upset about it being blown up.
    Sheppey, being in Kent, has been described as "the rotting cabbage in the garden of England." If there's any truth in that, then Sheerness can be similarly described as "the rotting arse in the cabbage of Sheppey."
  110. *Yawn* WWII bombs by ooze · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are still severalcitier in Germany that have to be evacuated entirely or in parts every few months because soem construction worker found some 250kg or 500kg bomb again. That's just part of life and a small note int tha traffic radio.

    now having a 1400t bomb in the middle of Berlin, that would be something. But actually we had that around 60 years ago in several German towns, sort of, so no big news either.

    --
    Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
  111. time bomb by pedicabo · · Score: 0

    This story used to surface regularly in the Sunday papers in the silly season but eventually , even they wouldn't use it. Must have been a quiet day at the beeb. As I understand it, the bombs are far too unstable to move so there is nothing to be done.

  112. Re:Uh oh....... by anothy · · Score: 1

    well, one of 'em, yeah. but the did build another one to replace the one they sold, y'know.

    --

    i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
  113. Re: UXO, not in the US by Cska+Sofia · · Score: 1

    Ah yes, the old Kyoto Syndrome. "Sure, landmines are bad and all, but these folks are kinda pissing us off, and it'd be real handy if we could landmine their country to hell."

  114. ok think about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the bombs that are live now didnt explode when the boat sank, and they have not exploded in the 50 years since then, so why are they so worried _now_ that it is dangerous? or is Slashdot just now getting arround to posting this article and its actualy dated 1946?

    1. Re:ok think about it by VendettaMF · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A huge cache of munitions originally intended to be used as a giant army-stopping mine that had been left undisturbed since WW2 recently detonated without human intervention in France. Thankfully there were no witnesses particularly close at the time (Though this could only be determined by going door to door asking "Anyone missing?".

      Just because it hasn't gone boom _yet_ doesn't mean that it's not going to tomorrow.

      On the other hand, I really, really, really want to see a 3km tall wall of mud. (From a safe height and distance obviously.)

      --
      kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
  115. Re: UXO, not in the US by Tongo · · Score: 1

    Maybe a large population of South Korea likes having those 30,000 soldiers standing next to their own >100,000 (not sure how many) behind those thousands of mines.

    From what I've been told is that minefields are very effective in this type of situation. It forces the enemy to blow gaps in the minefiels, which turn into funnels that we can the direct the majority of our fire into.

  116. Re:Nukes in my town by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hell, kennedy should be put in the friggin Betty Ford Clinic for the rest of his life.

  117. Sheerness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My gran lives on Marine Parade, which is the street facing out on the estuary that this ship sunk in. From the front, upstairs bedrooms you can see the masts poking out of the water.

    As people have pointed out already, the wholesale destruction of Sheerness will actually improve the town and surrounding areas. This formely pretty town has suffered the same fate as numerous other small english seaside towns - it is now a decayed, putrescent mockery of its former self. It is a foul hive of imported scum from London, as well as successive new generations of home-grown scum.

    If you're the sardonic type who derives pleasure from watching from afar the worst that the human race can offer, the Isle of Sheppey is your kind of place. Take care though, as many visitors to Sheppey make the mistake of looking or acting different, and end their sojourn in hospital, having broken glass picked out of the faces.

    To sum up - explosives good, Sheppey bad.

  118. What can be seen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The last image on this page http://www.tuesdaynightclub.co.uk/Tour_01/Medplus2 .html
    shows what can be seen above water in context, including the proximity to the shipping channel.
    A closer image can be found here http://www.gnometech.freeserve.co.uk/html/montgome ry.html
    The top image says 'present' but lines etc. are still in place so I think it was taken some time ago http://www.ronangel.demon.co.uk/
    A map showing the location http://www.submerged.co.uk/monty%205%20big.jpg
    How the wreck lies http://www.submerged.co.uk/monty%204%20big.jpg

  119. Someone called? by upside · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I was nodding away. Did someone say something to me?

    --
    I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
  120. Would this work? by jmichaelg · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Would it make sense to surround the ship with a reinforced concrete caisson that's shaped like a parabola with the ship at the focal point? Blow the ship and any blast effect goes straight up.

    Only drawback I can think of is the inevitable construction vibrations may be enough to set the bombs off. That and getting rid of the caisson after the bombs were set off.

    The idea's based on the old railroad dynamite cars. They were made with heavily reinforced floors and walls but the ceilings had just enough tin to keep the rain out. If the load blew, the blast took the path of least resistance and blew the tin roof sky high leaving the rest of the car intact.

    1. Re:Would this work? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Most ammo stores are built that way, too. The light-weight ceilings protect the munitions from the environment, but if they detonate, it gets vaporised. The walls force the blast upwards, and it just lights up the sky, instead of sending tonnes of re-inforced building horizontally into the surrounding area.

  121. martian metrics by realkiwi · · Score: 1

    I would believe a 3 metre high wall of mud. A 3 kilometre wall would take out London and most of Paris...

    3 metres being 3000 mm!

    --
    realkiwi
    1. Re:martian metrics by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ok i say we tow the thing to perl harbour, let them deal with it.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  122. report conclusion: by t_allardyce · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Ok America, this ones your problem so get your asses over here and pick it up.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  123. Regarding cluster-bombs . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    (Sorry to post as AC - I didn't register yet.)

    Cluster bombs based on a spring-loaded collection of small bomblets were used for delivering both HE and incendiary charges in WW2.

    I live in a dutch town (Nijmegen) that was destroyed by US bombers, partially using cluster-bombs, in August 1944. Over 800 Dutch were killed and zero Germans. The attack was an accident when several aircraft could not find their primary target in the industrialised area of Germany. The resulting fires attracted other 'geographically-embarassed' aircraft....

    I'm certainly glad I don't live in Sheerness though !

    1. Re:Regarding cluster-bombs . . . by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      You can hardly call the incindiary charges "cluster bombs". Indeed, there were many bomblets inside a larger container, but nobody called them cluster bombs. The usage in this case was a journalist who had no idea what he was reporting on, and simply made up details.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Regarding cluster-bombs . . . by RollingThunder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just because they didn't CALL it a "cluster bomb" at the time, doesn't mean it's not of the same classification as what we would now call a cluster bomb - and operate in just the same fashion.

    3. Re:Regarding cluster-bombs . . . by Edie+O'Teditor · · Score: 1

      The report I saw said they were fragmentation bombs, but when they elaborated it seemed they were talking about cluster bombs (and they are not the same thing). Science & technology isn't the BBC's strong suit at the best of times.

      --
      If X is the new Y, and Y is "X is the new Y", solve for X.
    4. Re:Regarding cluster-bombs . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Cluster bombs explode, incendiaries burn. Insightful my bell-end.

  124. Oh gods... by Patchw0rk+F0g · · Score: 1

    ... it could blow up because of terrorists...

    Geez... good thing we posted that for all to see...

    --
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. ~~ Hunter S. Thompson
  125. Re:How is this news for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes it is treu. How did you finds outs?1!

  126. Its possibly 'Amatol' by reality-bytes · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Althought the BBC article just stipulates 'TNT' as the explosive compound, if the bombs were for use by British forces, the chances are they would be Amatol.

    Amatol is an increased yield mixture of TNT and ammonium nitrate which can range from an 80/20 to a 50/50 mix.

    In its manufactured for it is supposedly relatively stable but severe impact can be a trigger.

    --
    Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
  127. Canberra hospital demolition by xixax · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From my following of the coronial inquiry into the blast:

    The contractor found that the structural columns were not as described on the blueprints, but in fact contained a lot more steel. The cuting charges required for this type of steel were not available in the country and would need to be specially imported (you can't just stick HE on a ship or airplane). Since the contractor was working to a contract that included fairly strong late penalties, he improvised something that was quite a bit faster than the proper cutting charges. Unfortunately the sandbags that were placed around the charges did not prevent large chunks of shrapnel from being launched. A young girl (12 or so) was struck by a piece and killed.

    I went to watch the blast, but from a much longer distance than most other folk (and I made sure there was a large hill between me and the base of the hospital). I was surprised at how close people were, and I was also surprised that more people were not injured.

    Xix.

    --
    "Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
  128. Spectacle run amok by dave_in_uk · · Score: 1

    Explosive public spectacles seem to have a mixed track record. Here's an oldie but goodie from Oregon in 1970. http://home.comcast.net/~jlhacks/whale/

  129. Getting an idea by robokev · · Score: 1

    In WWI a ship full of munitions blew up in Halifax harbour. To get an idea of what kind of damage might occur, have a look at: http://www.cbc.ca/halifaxexplosion/

  130. Comparison to Ripple Rock blast ( about 1.4KT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a blast of similar size and configuration, used to blast a treacherous underwater structure and make a river more navigable. Sorry, but no killer tsunami ensued... Read about it at

    http://www.vancouverislandabound.com/tamingof.ht m

    Excerpt:

    "With 1,375 tons of explosives packed into the peaks, April 5, 1958 was the date set for detonation . On that day, at 9:31 a.m., Dr. Victor Dolmage, consulting engineer for the Ministry of Public Works, pushed the plunger that set off the largest non-nuclear explosion ever. The blast pulverized 370,000 tons of rock and displaced 320,000 tons of water. Rock and debris rocketed 1,000 feet into the air. The explosion also created a 25-foot tidal wave which quickly dissipated and caused no damage."

  131. NOT "wall". Did submitter even RTFA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The blurb says "with predictions of a 3 kilometre high wall of mud, water, and metal fragments causing devastation to the nearby town of Sheerness in Kent."

    What the article says is:
    "...including predictions of a three kilometre high column of water, mud, metal and munitions sent into the air by the blast."

    There is a BIG difference between a 3 kilometre high WALL and a COLUMN.

    I feel like I am reading a Jason Blair article.

  132. On the subject of lost munitions by outlaw69 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I guess everyone here in the US has forgotten about the 2 "lost" nuclear bombs that are "somewhere" lost in the mud in a marsh off the coast of savanna georgia!?!?!?!?!
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/06/tech/mai n615978.shtml

    --
    It's better to be hated for who you are, than be loved for who you're not.
  133. US Ship in UK by mgrussin · · Score: 1

    Another issue that may be causing problems is that according to what I've read it is a US Ship.

    I'm not all lawyery, but my wife is doing Maritime Studies as part of her Ph.D. program and if this is considered to be a military ship it belong to the US government - probably the Navy.

    If that's correct it would likely add another of good ol' bureaucratic goodness. If you think the US or UK government is bad enough for that, I can't imagine how the two together would be.

    1. Re:US Ship in UK by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      I think that since it is a sunken wreck it belongs to the Crown since it's sunk in UK waters.

    2. Re:US Ship in UK by scupper · · Score: 1

      Yup, MCA "manages it" on behalf of the govt. MCA and MoD monitor the wreck.

  134. Actually, rather more than 250 tons by fnj · · Score: 1

    I don't have a TNT equivalent, but MONT BLANC was actually carrying 35 tons of benzol, 300 rounds of ammunition, 10 tons of gun cotton, 2,300 tons of picric acid (used in explosives), and 200 tons of TNT.

  135. Halifax by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
    If you want the manifest:

    TNT 226,797 kg
    Wet picric acid 1,602,519 kg
    Dry picric acid 544,311 kg
    Guncotton[?] 56,301 kg
    Benzol 223,188 kg

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  136. Paardenmarkt by [ella] · · Score: 0

    The dump in the North Sea, is on a place in front of Heist (small town in Belgium). Information about it can be found in This link.

    --
    Mike
  137. Amount of explosives wrong by jpmorgan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The parent has the amount of explosives wrong. ~2000 tons of TNT and another ~2000 tons of other explosives.

  138. 3km wide column, not high by kriston · · Score: 1

    I think the figures are confused by the authors of the stories. The column of mud/water/metal would be 1,000ft (0.3km) high and 10,000ft (3km) wide according to one story, and vice-versa in another. Which set of figures do you think is true?

    --

    Kriston

  139. 3km-high wave means We Are ALL In The Shit? by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

    a 16ft wave will wreck london.....

    I'd like to see what a 3km-high wave would wreck, all the same.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  140. Linux Explosives..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So these bombs have been sitting there unstable for 60 years? I haven't seen something remain "unstable" that long since Debian Woody!

    1. Re:Linux Explosives..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Debian Woody

      That's a strange way to spell Windows 95!

  141. Explosion in my pants by CmdrGravy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    All this talk of what was the world biggest explosion, I can tell you for truth that the worlds biggest explosion is the explosions in my pants, baby.

  142. Re: UXO, not in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meanwhile, the 1,000,000 "mental" communists (WTF?) are thinking that the minefield is standing in way of them and 30,000 mental capitalists.

  143. Re: UXO, not in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ironic, isn't it? The more successful the U.S. is at making some other country its protectorate (Canada, continental Europe, New Zealand) the quicker that country turns to tearing down the same military strength it depends upon.

  144. Stupid article by Zip+In+The+Wire · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Baker Shot which was 20 kilotons only produced a "wall" of water about 60 meters high at ground zero.

    This is a really stupid, and over exaggerated article.

  145. ShUt the FUCK UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will you shut the fuck up!!

    A cluster bomb is a bomb containing smaller ones inside, INCENDIARY BOMBS were the 1940's version of a modern cluster bomb. Do you understand Fucktard!! Now shut the fuck up!!

    1. Re:ShUt the FUCK UP! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Please, please, please review the differences between a WWII fragmentation bomb, and a cluster bomb. I can't believe someone is actually defending a journalist's sloppy, inaccurate reporting.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:ShUt the FUCK UP! by goatan · · Score: 1
      You can hardly call the incendiary charges "cluster bombs" Indeed, there were many bomblets inside a larger container, but nobody called them cluster bombs. The usage in this case was a journalist who had no idea what he was reporting on, and simply made up details.

      That is precisely what they did call them ICB's or "Incendiary cluster bombs" I have seen them referred to in official reports of the era I've even seen it written on the side of museum piece bombs. Do you know what a cluster bomb is? It is a cluster of small bombs inside a bigger case; this is exactly how ww2 incendiary bomb worked they where the first cluster bombs. Just because you don't call them clusters doesn't mean they didn't

      Just found this piece of information it also tells you a bit about incendiary cluster bombs Cluster bomb technology was first used by Germany against the United Kingdom in the Second World War, and developed independently by America and Russia, and is now widely available. Please, please, please review the differences between a WWII fragmentation bomb, and a cluster bomb. I can't believe someone is actually defending a journalist's sloppy, inaccurate reporting.

      A fragmentation bomb is a metal case full of explosive that fragments a cluster bomb is cluster of little bombs that can be fragmentation incendiary even toxic gas.

      I can't believe someone is actually defending a journalist's sloppy, inaccurate reporting. The usage in this case was a journalist who had no idea what he was reporting on, and simply made up details. There were no such things as "cluster bombs" in WWII. Typical journalism. If it was the BBC reporting, I wouldn't be surprised in the least.

      Perhaps you should apologise for those statements sources more credible than you disagree. And from your title of Shut the F**k up you know it as well but don't wan't to hear it.

      --
      Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.

    3. Re:ShUt the FUCK UP! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      A whole lot of work for a thread that was dead 5 days ago. Face it, the journo didn't know what he was saying, technical explanations to the contrary.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  146. Another earth-shattering kaboom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Texas City explosion of 1947 (see also here --- 2300 tons of ammonium nitrate.

  147. And yet another earth-shattering kaboom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also the Halifax explosion of 1917 (see also here) -- 2300 tons of explosive picric acid, 2115 tons of TNT, and other assorted nasties. A fireball that rose a mile high, windows shattered 100 km away, 1635 killed, 9000+ injured, 325 acres destroyed.

  148. War cleanup steps in Iraq... by zoney_ie · · Score: 1

    ...possibly not a valid comparison. New things keep being set on fire, and the map redrawing hasn't yet happened... (bad stuff will eventually happen re: Kurdistan or the lack thereof). Come to thing of it, they're having problems killing the remaining "bad guys" too - plus new ones keep popping up.

    I guess it will continue to be a question of "occupy indefinately", or "abandon to civil war + new Islamic state(s)".

    But I'm probably being optimistic!

    --
    -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
  149. Re:Halifax - Non metric by Graemee · · Score: 3, Interesting

    TNT 226,797 kg
    Wet picric acid 1,602,519 kg
    Dry picric acid 544,311 kg
    Guncotton[?] 56,301 kg
    Benzol 223,188 kg

    Since 1000 KG is about 1 ton

    TNT 226 Tons
    Wet Picric Acid 1602 Tons
    Dry ... 544 Tons
    Guncotton (nitrate of cellulose) 56 Tons
    Benzol 223 Tons

    Or 2651 Tons of explosives, very approx.

    Of course TNT is not as powerful then the others listed but it was one hell of a blast. They did a survey of the harbour that proved that the long standing story that a crater existed in the harbour was not true.

    http://gsca.nrcan.gc.ca/pubprod/of3154/showimg_e .p hp?p9

    Other Links
    http://museum.gov.ns.ca/mma/AtoZ/halexpl.ht ml

  150. Biggest non-nuke explosion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bet it won't be as big as Krakatoa. Biggest man-made non-nuke explosion, that's another matter.

  151. Re:How is this news for nerds? by rpj1288 · · Score: 1

    Good God, I actually understood what that acronym meant! What's happening to me?

    --
    Marvin knew: "Think of a number, any number..."
  152. Doesn't count by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    The category in question, of course, is "largest state in land area, counting only states that actually have at least one real city (towns under 300k residents need not apply)".

  153. Similar to the Halifax Explosion of 1917 by Vaystrem · · Score: 2, Informative

    Halfiax Explosion Municipal Information Site. CBC Halifax Explosion Info Site.

    From the first article:

    "Around eight that morning, the Belgian relief ship Imo left its mooring in Bedford Basin and headed for open sea. At about the same time, the French ship Mont Blanc was heading up the harbour to moor, awaiting a convoy to accompany her across the Atlantic. A convoy was essential; this small, barely seaworthy vessel was carrying a full cargo of explosives. Stored in the holds, or simply stacked on deck, were 35 tons of benzol, 300 rounds of ammunition, 10 tons of gun cotton, 2,300 tons of picric acid (used in explosives), and 400,000 pounds of TNT." ....

    "The Mont Blanc drifted by a Halifax pier, brushing it and setting it ablaze. Members of the Halifax Fire Department responded quickly, and were positioning their engine up to the nearest hydrant when the Mont Blanc disintegrated in a blinding white flash, creating the biggest man-made explosion before the nuclear age. It was 9:05am.

    Over 1,900 people were killed immediately; within a year the figure had climbed well over 2,000. Around 9,000 more were injured, many permanently; 325 acres, almost all of north-end Halifax, were destroyed.

    Much of what was not immediately levelled burned to the ground, aided by winter stockpiles of coal in cellars. As for the Mont Blanc, all 3,000 tons of her were shattered into little pieces that were blasted far and wide. The barrel of one of her cannons landed three and a half miles away; part of her anchor shank, weighing over half a ton, flew two miles in the opposite direction. Windows shattered 50 miles away, and the shock wave was even felt in Sydney, Cape Breton, 270 miles to the north-east."

  154. Re: UXO, not in the US by praksys · · Score: 1

    Whose country? The landmines are in South Korea, with the permission of the South Korean government. I would have thought that was obvious. How could the US put landmines in North Korea?

  155. bomb casings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bomb casings should be just a bit rusty and weak to say the least.

    They should have evacuated the town on 12/31/99 and touched it off at midnight!

  156. Landmines and Static Defenses at 38th parallel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem about land-mines and static defenses is that if you know where they put them or have infinite amount of time to figure it out, they aren't that hard to extract or detonate when the time comes to pass over said defenses.

    Weather this is done by engineers/sappers, artillery fire, or pointing a machine gun into the backs of prisoners and telling them to run en masse over certain areas, or vehicles with the appropriate mechanism to detonate mines safely (ie chains and extremely thick tractor treads).

    And eventually when you have cleared a safe path then the rest are pointless (except for people not smart enough to walk through or mark safe travel zones etc).

    Mines are usually best in active war zones where there is a fluid front line or in the cases of say... Vietnam or Soviet Afghanistan War... No front line at all... Where you have no clue where the mines and defenses will be.

    1. Re:Landmines and Static Defenses at 38th parallel by Rich0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Weather this is done by engineers/sappers, artillery fire, or pointing a machine gun into the backs of prisoners and telling them to run en masse over certain areas, or vehicles with the appropriate mechanism to detonate mines safely (ie chains and extremely thick tractor treads).

      You're talking about using up lots of prisoners, and vehicles aren't practical except for clearning road-sized passages.

      The whole point of a minefield is to really slow down the enemy. If you send 1000 prisoners into a field, one will trip a mine, which will probably kill at least a few dozen of them (many launch grenades high into the air), and the mine 10 feet away will still be active. How do you get all those prisoners to the border in the first place.

      What a minefield does is make your enemy either put millions of people on the border simply so that they can absorb HUGE losses, or use mineclearing techniques, which funnel their troops through narrow corridors which can be more easily defended.

      You can't park millions of troops on a border for years at a time - it costs a fortune and they aren't occupied in useful work. So, if the N Koreans started moving that many troops to the border, the US would quickly reinforce its lines.

      Also, if you send prisoners across the minefields, they won't set off anti-tank mines - just anti-personnel mines. So at best the enemy can get lots of poorly-armed and unsupported troops over the border. That isn't much use in a war - you need a well-reinforced army with armored support to be effective.

      Minefields are very effective. They're basically like $10 smart-bombs - every detonation is a perfect hit. They force the enemy to slow down, buying you time to reinforce.

      And the mines that the US uses are well mapped, and are designed to disable themselves after some amount of time. I'm sure this isn't perfect, but there are no perfect solutions when you have a country ruled by a dictator on your border. The normal rules of diplomacy don't really apply - the behavior of a single person is not that easy to control...

  157. Re:Question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Alternate solution #1"

    Probably Dead by now ...

    "Alternate solution #2"

    Also dead ...

    "If it's a U.S. cargo ship, are we responsible for cleaning up our mess? "

    No , historicaly speaking Canada always clean the US of A mess.

  158. News just in by Gax · · Score: 1, Funny

    News has just reached the Slashdot studios that Sheerness has officially declared to be part of Iraq. In an interview, President Bush announced:
    "Thank gawd! There's y'er nuclear weapons, y'all".

  159. So what? Anyone whose been to Sheerness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...will think it an improvement.

  160. Port Chicago? by EvilStein · · Score: 1

    How big was that again?

  161. Few links about the ship by EvilStein · · Score: 1

    http://www.ronangel.demon.co.uk/

    The last link is quite interesting.

  162. but by geekoid · · Score: 1

    if you cut alaska in half texas would be the third largest state.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well not to brag but a quick web search tells me that Alaska is 586,400 square miles and my state of Queensland in Australia is 666,800 square miles.

      No winner here as Queensland is only the second largest state in Australia, the biggest is Western Australia.

      Todays geography lesson has been brought to you by the letters O & Z ;-)

  163. Damned shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that this ship isn't in a French port. Then there wouldn't be a problem at all.

  164. Re:Nukes in my town by winwar · · Score: 1

    Of course in order to dig it up you have to know WHERE it is (it's in the swamp somewhere isn't very useful...)

  165. Private information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This news is an example of: "Should be this information top-secret?"

  166. "Mental communists"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ehhh, I was with you til you decided to use that silly rhetoric. Blame Kim Jong Il, that guy's nuts, but don't blame each and every North Korean. That just doesn't make sense.

  167. Re:Nukes in my town by mikeswi · · Score: 1

    It wouldn't be that difficult to find it if they wanted to. They know where it dropped. All they need is for a P3 Orion to make a few passes with the Magnetic Anomoly Detecter and a team of marines on the ground to follow up on any detections until they find the thing.

  168. The world would be better off without Sheppy! by MarkTina · · Score: 2, Funny

    Trust me, the world would be a nicer place without the Isle of Sheppy! It's aweful! It doesn't have beachs or sea it has mud! Aethiests could work on the water there! It's a nasty horrible, unpleasant place, with no charming features at all, a website called http://www.sheppyscum.com summed it up brialliantly! (pity thse site is gone now) And sadly my father is from their and my gransparents and family are STILL there .. which means I have to visit! I even ran away to New Zealand to get as far away as possible! Now I feel unclean after thinking about Sheppy and Sheerness-on-Sea(mud), need to go get drunk now to forget it. ;-)

  169. You can see if from the "beach" anyway! by MarkTina · · Score: 1

    If you stand on what is supposed to be the beach at Sheerness, you can see the ship at low tide anyway .. the radio mast sticks up about 12 feet above water. Many a time I've stood on the beach and thrown rocks at it, hopeing by some fluke of luck I could throw a stone the mile distance and cause it to blow ... then Sheerness would be toast! MUHAHAHHAAHAA!! I HATE Sheppy!

  170. Re:Halifax Explosion -- bizarre aside by linuxbert · · Score: 1

    If You ever visit halifax, and see a building with a date prior to 1917, odds are it was a mouge after the explosion. The same likely applies in the aftermath of the Titanic.

    Many of these buildings are now excelent pubs and resturaunts.

    Halifax doesnt have small disasters. they save up for big ones.

  171. Yes, a wet blanket would help too by GoPlayGo · · Score: 1

    Build the parabolic blast shield in sections and float or drag them into place to minimize vibrations.

    When it is in place, gently drop the world's biggest blanket(s) on it from remote controlled cranes or airships. The blanket can be fabricated from cheap light weight biodegradable material, probably recycled in some way, or agricultural fiber waste. When in place, hose down the blanket.

    Warn small craft, and as another writer suggested, board up windows.

    Ignite a primer bomb.

    --
    The game of Go (Igo, Weiqi, Baduk) has the simplest concept and the deepest play.
  172. Photo of Wreck by mindhaze · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Searching Google Images, I found this photo of the wreck:

    http://www.gnometech.freeserve.co.uk/html/montgome ry.html

    Not the greatest in quality (taken in 1990), but still, it's nice to see. The BBC article should have included a photo of it. Grrr!

  173. cool! by RMH101 · · Score: 2, Funny

    so all we need is, oh say a round thousand, of Arizona State Mine Inspectors. Train them as divers, and problem solved!

  174. 3D/SONAR visualizations of wreck at Univ. of Hull by scupper · · Score: 1
    Paul Chapman Derek Wills, Peter Stevens and Graham Brookes of the University of Hull's CS Dept. Simulation and Modelling Research group published 2 papers on case studies which use a Seabed Visualization System they have developed, and one of the study subjects was a wreck visualization of the infamous SS Richard Montgomery. "Seabed visualization". In Proceedings of Visualization'98, pages 479-481.
    Paul Chapman, Peter Stevens, Derek Wills, Graham Brookes.
    IEEE Computer Society Press, 1998. ISBN: 0-8186-9176-X
    Abstract | PDF "Visualizing underwater environments using multi-frequency sonar". (Invited Paper)
    Paul Chapman, Derek Wills, Peter Stevens, Graham Brookes.
    IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, September/October 1999 (Vol. 19, No. 5).
    Abstract | PDF Excerpts of visualizations: I'm blown away the /. crew didn't swoop on this aspect of the wreck story. These 3d visualization using sonar data are uber geek /. material.

  175. Yep! For a site supposedly read by smart people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there are an awful lot of fucking clueless idiots here!

    I mean - how much force would it take to raise a 3km wave? Do you think even a 100 ships packed with high explosives would do that?

    Err... nope!

  176. Re:Question. by danro · · Score: 1

    The get cleaned up as they are found, by whomever finds them.

    Nice euphemism there for being blown to smithereens while plowing your fields, or whatever...
    Would you be as cool about it if there were UXOs in your backyard?

    --

    "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
  177. Re: UXO, not in the US by dave420 · · Score: 1

    It forces the enemy to blow the shit out of the area with artillery. That's going to mean the 30,000 guys will be blown up, then be run over by "1,000,000 mental communists" (though some would argue the americans are more mental than any communist...)

  178. Re:Halifax - Non metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Since 1000 KG is about 1 ton
    Hmm... what's with the about? 1000 KG is exactly 1 Metric Ton. There now, was that so difficult?
  179. Re:Story on lost hydrogen bomb presents no threat by maotx · · Score: 1

    Fact: Yes the bomb is there
    Fact: Yes the government is going to pull it up.
    Opinion: They are retrieving for national security.
    Reality: They are recovering it to
    a) help their image
    b) protect the environment (it is radioactive ya know)
    c) To protect the innocent.


    This thing is buried in mud as it is and is gonna take a lot of work to recover it. It is currently located off of Georgia by about 120 feet? in approximatly 15' of water.

    --
    I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.