Slashdot Mirror
Mediterranean Sea To Possibly Become Site of Chemical Weapons Dump
An anonymous reader writes "The organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has proposed destroying at least 1000 tons of the confiscated Syrian chemical weapon stockpile out at sea, which some fear will destroy delicate ecosystems vital to sea and human life alike. The OPCW claims the plan is 'technically feasible' and is apparently willing to risk ecological disaster to destroy the toxic contents of the weaponry in or above the sea. Members of the press were told, 'the group is considering whether to destroy the chemical weapons in the ocean, either on a ship or by loading them onto an offshore rig.'"
We'll never go.
Silence is a state of mime.
unlike DC, we're still not sure if there's intelligent life on mars.
Its a trap! They are trying to kill us all!
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
Iran has some nasty toxic natural gas wells.
They are not alone but pyrolysis using these H2S rich poison gas feeds
could just burn the stuff up.
A strong draft up a tall stack maintained by a natural gas burner could
keep any dis-assembly location in a negative pressure condition and
burn up almost any toxic gas. Many toxic gas weapons have a minimum
bursting charge and may simply be detonated on a sand pit in a largish
coffin , think reactor containment vessel.
Sulfuric acid recovered could be used to detoxify the pit. Fuse up the
weapon.... roll it down a ramp.... a min later thump and the fumes are
pulled up the stack.
Sure stuff could go wrong but the risks seem to be the lesser of evils.
Yes time is an issue, building something like this might take a lot of time
say 3-5 years but there is no EPA in Syria so perhaps 14 months.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
There is no good place on land or sea to dump this stuff, unless maybe the Russians accepted huge sums of money for dumping in Siberia.
Destroy the munitions in place with the proper personnel on hand to verify the destruction.
For a better and less inflammatory description of what is proposed, see http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/30/21686393-us-to-destroy-syrias-chemicals-at-sea-weapons-watchdog-says
The whole idea is that the chemical weapons are destroyed FIRST...they are being destroyed AT SEA, not "destroyed" by simply dumping them into the ocean.
The fact that the other blog entries hosted at the same site as TFA include:
- Rihanna Displays Illuminati Hand Gesture at Latest Music Award Performance
- SSDI Death Index: Sandy Hook 'Shooter' Adam Lanza Died One Day Before School Massacre?
- 15 Citizens Petition to Secede from the United States
- Will U.S. Troops Fire On American Citizens?
- Illuminati Figurehead Prince William Takes the Stage with Jon Bon Jovi and Taylor Swift
- Has the Earth Shifted â" Or Is It Just Me?
- Mexican Government Releases Proof of E.T.'s and Ancient Space Travel ...should give you a hint as to the veracity of the content. (And yes, I realize it's simply a blog site with a variety of authors and content.)
As should the first comment, from "LibertyTreeBud", saying:
"Why not add it to some new vaccine? Or, perhaps add it to the drinking water and feed it to the live stock? These creatures will do anything for profits. Lowest bidder mentality rules."
What "creatures", exactly? The international organization explicitly charged with the prohibition and destruction of chemical weapons? What alternatives are people suggesting, exactly?
If you want a real article discussing this situation factually, not the tripe linked in the summary, see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25146980
Sounds like they aren't planning on just dumping the weapons into the ocean, they are going to literally destroy them. As another poster said, probably by incineration. So no, you won't be fishing up rusted nerve gas canisters.
You hit it on the head.
The thing to balance here isn't the threat of all that stuff being dumped into the ocean, but the ecological consequences should a more-accessible site for consolidation and destruction of the weapons be attacked. An attack would almost certainly release some agent into the atmosphere, and of course should the attackers make off with any of the weapons or chemicals then you'd probably have an even larger release down the road. Despite what the Call of Duty franchise of games put forth, isolated military sites in the middle of open ocean are quite easy to defend, and make it very difficult for an attacker to abscond successfully with anything of significant weight. The defenders can easily establish a no-go zone that extends for quite some distance, and use active means (divers, passive sensors, sonar) to detect anything larger than a fish that approaches either above or below the surface. It's a lot harder to deny access to such a large area on land, and even harder still to find a country willing to accept such a large stockpile on their own territory (which means transporting the hazardous materials through their territory, starting with either a large airport or a seaport...both of which would suffer greatly in the event of a spill). This way, the materials can leave Syria and stop posing a major threat to civilians as soon as they are over the water.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
The entire article is a troll. Nobody's talking about dumping the chemical weapons into the sea. They're going to move the chemicals to a U.S. Navy ship where they'll be neutralized by incineration. By cooking them hot enough, the molecular bonds will break and all they'll be left with are the constituent elements.
Despite the scary suppositions about performing this task over the sea ("what if there's a leak???"), it's actually far safer for the world if the U.S. Navy disposes of them right there in the middle of the Med. If they wanted to dispose of them on land, they'd have a couple of challenges -- the first of which is finding a stable country willing to accept a chemical weapons processing plant. Guarding the lines hauling the weapons to the processing site would be an ongoing problem. And securing the site against local attacks is another. One thing the U.S. Navy can do very very well is guarantee the security of one of their naval ships at sea. The chemicals will have a much safer journey to neutralization than anywhere else.
John
TFA (and I emphasize the 'F') is titled "Sea hosting 100-million year old species..."
It is filled with misinformation and hyperbole. And it fails to account for the largest environmental hazard posed by these weapons: their being stolen and used by a third party, or the disposal plant being attacked, causing the uncontrolled release of the toxins. The navy can operate safely in the sea, much safer than anyone can operate a land based plant anywhere on the globe.
John
Of course, if you'd actually read the article, you'd see that they do in fact propose to burn it.
They simply plan to burn it 'at sea' instead of 'on land'.
Read TFA. You'll be pleasantly surprised at what they actually plan to do vs what everyone assumes they are doing.
The article is so bad it can be considered a troll.
How dare this shit get by the editors, even on Farkdot.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
There are worse places than the Fukushima area. Several places in what used to be the Soviet Union are badly contaminated, some so bad that it's still a state secret.
No matter where you dump it - it will be a problem. A closed off area that is already contaminated or rendered unusable would be the best.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with homeopathy. If you were, you would know that diluting a substance makes it vastly more potent, not harmless. With the amount of dilution they'd be looking at, the whole planet would be quickly rendered too toxic to sustain life.
(Tongue planted firmly in cheek.)
even if they did dump the stuff in the sea, there's so little of it that it would be diluted so quickly it would be entirely harmless.
Unless you're a homeopath, at which point you can make millions selling mediterranean seawater as an antidote for use in the event of a chemical attack.
The average depth of the Mediterranean Sea is 1500 m, that of the Atlantic Ocean is 3900 meters, and that of the Pacific Ocean is at least 4000 m. Or the deepest piont is 5300 m, 8400 m, and 10,900 m respectively. Are you suggesting that there is any difference in suitability from a depth standpoint? Remember that "divers" in the the form of deep diving vehicles can reach the deepest of those depths. On the other hand, "divers" in the form of assholes with scuba tanks are going to be equally unable to reach even the average depth of any of those places.
The Mediterranean is, in technical language, fucking goddam deep.
Finally, the component chemical elements left after incinerating poison gases are not "WMDs". They are things like garden variety oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, etc. Or did you suppose they were just going to dump the intact chemical munitions?
I winder if you would be so sanguine were the suggestion to be to dump the remains in a sea near you and your family
Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
Thanks to Russia and Poland, our herring's already all poisonous (dioxins, mercury, phosphorous, ...) here in the Baltic. So the conclusions are obvious... ... just dump the crap on Russia and Poland. I call this policy "Payback".
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Something just licked its chops...
Do you bring in more than $32,400 annually? Then you are the 1%, hated by many. http://www.globalrichlist.com
Some seem's.
Do you bring in more than $32,400 annually? Then you are the 1%, hated by many. http://www.globalrichlist.com
Such a thing!
Do you bring in more than $32,400 annually? Then you are the 1%, hated by many. http://www.globalrichlist.com
Wow, that's incredible, I didn't even think about that.
Do you bring in more than $32,400 annually? Then you are the 1%, hated by many. http://www.globalrichlist.com