Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Locate Sunken, Radioactive Aircraft Carrier Off California Coast

HughPickens.com writes: Aaron Kinney reports in the San Jose Mercury News that scientists have captured the first clear images of the USS Independence, a radioactivity-polluted World War II aircraft carrier that rests on the ocean floor 30 miles off the coast of Half Moon Bay. The Independence saw combat at Wake Island and other decisive battles against Japan in 1944 and 1945 and was later blasted with radiation in two South Pacific nuclear tests. Assigned as a target vessel for the Operation Crossroads atomic bomb tests, she was placed within one-half-mile of ground zero and was engulfed in a fireball and heavily damaged during the 1946 nuclear weapons tests at Bikini Atoll. The veteran ship did not sink, however (though her funnels and island were crumpled by the blast), and after taking part in another explosion on 25 July, the highly radioactive hull was later taken to Pearl Harbor and San Francisco for further tests and was finally scuttled off the coast of San Francisco, California, on 29 January 1951. "This ship is an evocative artifact of the dawn of the atomic age, when we began to learn the nature of the genie we'd uncorked from the bottle," says James Delgado. "It speaks to the 'Greatest Generation' — people's fathers, grandfathers, uncles and brothers who served on these ships, who flew off those decks and what they did to turn the tide in the Pacific war."

Delgado says he doesn't know how many drums of radioactive material are buried within the ship — perhaps a few hundred. But he is doubtful that they pose any health or environmental risk. The barrels were filled with concrete and sealed in the ship's engine and boiler rooms, which were protected by thick walls of steel. The carrier itself was clearly "hot" when it went down and and it was packed full of fresh fission products and other radiological waste at the time it sank. The Independence was scuttled in what is now the Gulf of the Farallones sanctuary, a haven for wildlife, from white sharks to elephant seals and whales. Despite its history as a dumping ground Richard Charter says the radioactive waste is a relic of a dark age before the enviornmental movement took hold. "It's just one of those things that humans rather stupidly did in the past that we can't retroactively fix.""

34 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. So by toygeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "It's just one of those things that humans rather stupidly did in the past that we can't retroactively fix."

    You mean just like the dumb things we do now but won't realize how dumb they are until later?

    1. Re:So by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      At least we didn't sink it off the coast of Japan.

      That would have been way foolish.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'd probably disagree on that. This was a time where people did things for the betterment of people as the top priority. For example the main reason why central Texas has water is because of the creation of a lake system via dams. This would be never, ever done today, either due to NIMBY, eco-whining, or the detachment of government from the people's interests.

      Some of the biggest things that the US depends on now would never be made today, be it the Panama Canal, the Hoover Dam, the interstate highway system, or many other structures. There just is too much resistance and disinterest in building anything except perhaps more prisons.

    3. Re:So by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Feeding Godzilla is always foolish

      FTFY.

    4. Re:So by tomhath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You only see the projects that were completed; there were plenty of others that were never started for various reasons. But even today there are may Megaprojects planned or in work. Granted, many of these are outside the US but not all of them.

      That said, your comment is off topic. Sinking an obsolete aircraft carrier after blowing the crap out of it with a couple of atomic bombs hardly qualifies as something that was done "for the betterment of people".

    5. Re:So by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As my late father liked to say, "The Golden Gate Bridge could never be built today."

    6. Re:So by tomhath · · Score: 2

      True, today they would just bore a tunnel .

    7. Re:So by aristotle-dude · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Polyester leisure suits. Paul Williams. "Song of the South". Asbestos. Smoking. Thalidomide. As it has always been, and as it will always be.

      What's wrong with Song of the South? Are you one of this lilly livered liberals who like to ignore and whitewash the past so that nobody can learn from it?

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    8. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Of course not. At the time suspension bridges were the cheapest way to safely build such a bridge. These days we know of much cheaper ways to build bridges. Suspension bridges, unsurprisingly, are not as cost effective as they once were.

      Anyhow, the new Oakland span of the Bay Bridge is the worlds longest self-anchored suspension span. It's not as iconic as the Golden Gate, but that's has nothing to do with our willingness to push the envelope from an engineering perspective.

    9. Re:So by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      why central Texas has water is because of the creation of a lake system via dams. This would be never, ever done today...

      You imply it's Fate's Will and/or a "good thing" that we heavily populate arid land.

      I suppose you could argue "we do it because we can", but then don't whine when Blow Back hits.

    10. Re:So by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Song of the South isn't racist or offensive or anything. It's just not a very good movie.

      It's just a simple tale of how slavery wasn't as bad as all that and how well the white landowners got along with their help.

      The movie is racist enough that Disney stopped listing it in their film catalog, in 1980. If folks during the Reagan administration thought it was a little over-the-edge, I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that the Song of the South minstrel show was probably kinda racist.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    11. Re:So by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      We can't get any large projects completed today. Not the International Space Station, a large hadron collider, or anything of that sort.

      The origin of both of those projects was over a decade-and-a-half ago. And the LHC was built by Europeans, where the anti-government rhetoric hasn't reached the AM-Radio fever pitch that it has here in the US. You see a lot less of the "Get government out of my Medicare" sentiment in Europe than in the U S of A, where a gun for every person is the reason there is zero crime.

      The statement was that we couldn't get those large projects completed today unless they can be shown to create a massive and ongoing profit to some rent-seeking corporation with legislators and governors in their pocket.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:So by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3

      Not sure what reagan has to do with racisim

      1. Reagan opposed all civil right legislation.

      Reagan's transformation from actor to serious political figure began in the 1960s, first with a nationally televised speech on behalf of presidential candidate Barry Goldwater and then with his election as governor of California. This was also the decade in which the civil rights bills that ended legalized racism were passed ... and Reagan was on record opposing all of them, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

      Reagan continued this pattern as president by gutting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), fighting the extension of the Voting Rights Act, vetoing the Civil Rights Restoration Act (which required all recipients of federal funds to comply with civil rights laws) and initially opposing the creation of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (he changed his tune when it passed Congress with a veto-proof majority).

      2. Reagan vetoed and anti-apartheid bill.

      Reagan further tarnished his record on racial equality when he vetoed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act, which imposed economic sanctions on South Africa that could only be lifted when that country abolished apartheid. Although Reagan argued this was because he worried the sanctions would prompt the South African government to respond with "more violence and more repression," critics pointed to his administration's close relationship with the apartheid regime, well-known belief that anti-apartheid groups like the African National Congress were Communistic, oversight of the decision to label Nelson Mandela as a terrorist and weakening of a UN resolution condemning apartheid.

      Ronald Reagan was one of the most racist presidents we had in the post-WWII period. He and Nixon are 1a and 1b on that list.

      http://mic.com/articles/85379/...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:So by dwye · · Score: 2

      In an EARTHQUAKE ZONE? Are you CRAZY? Do you really WANT to reenact all those crappy 1970s Irwin Allen disaster films?

  2. Think walls of steel... by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 2

    "which were protected by thick walls of steel" Iron eating bacteria are working on that right now.

    1. Re:Think walls of steel... by itzly · · Score: 2

      Is there a good reason to think that it will pose a risk to future generations ?

    2. Re:Think walls of steel... by itzly · · Score: 4, Informative

      Do you happen to know what type of radioactive material is in those barrels?

      According to the article, it's a variety of materials, and they name Pu-239 as one of the more dangerous ones, because of its 24000 year half life.

      Generally, products with short half lives are not a big risk because they'll be gone quickly, before the contamination reaches us. Products with extremely long half-lives are also not a big risk because they don't emit much radiation. Pu-239 has an intermediate half life, which makes it radiate fairly high levels, for quite a bit of time. However, Pu-239 is an alpha emitter, and alpha radiation doesn't penetrate very far, especially not in the water. The only way that Pu-239 poses a risk is by ingestion, and really only if the amount is high enough. Since the crap is heavy, and covered by 2600 feet of water, I don't think there's a risk of it washing ashore in grains big enough to pose a danger.

    3. Re:Think walls of steel... by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      I will also point out that Caffeine is far more toxic than Plutonium

      I'd be interested in hearing why you think that.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Think walls of steel... by dbIII · · Score: 2

      We gave some atomic scientists enough time and caffeine and they came up with the Hydrogen bomb which is far more dangerous than Plutonium :)

  3. Lost? by digitalPhant0m · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The title suggest the ship was lost. Is this now news when something was found right where you left it?

    1. Re:Lost? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The title suggest the ship was lost. Is this now news when something was found right where you left it?

      They also seem to suggest this is some kind of environmental disaster, but really don't quantify it in any way, basically saying "there's bad radioactive stuff down there". In reality, any negative impact of the radioactivity from the wreck is likely immeasurable and unobservable. We are doing much worse things to the ocean on a daily basis today, so its a quite comical (or maybe better described as ignorant) to point to this as an example of the environmental atrocities of the past. There certainly have been great environmental mistakes in the past, including many by the DOD and some even radiological, but this is not even remotely comparable.

    2. Re:Lost? by peragrin · · Score: 2

      The ship also isn't radioactive any more yet that is in the title too.

      Ocean water currents for 50 years removed and moved around the radioactive particles. This rendering the ship as safe as any metal structure under water for 50 years.

      I don't understand why we don't bury radioactive waste in sealed drums in the marina a trench. It is a safe non accessible location.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  4. Just staggering... by Lucas123 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The amount of money we waste scuttling U.S. Naval vessels is shocking. We sink multi-billion dollar aircraft carriers as part of "live fire testing." Here's the USS America (CV-66) sunk off the East Coast after only 40 years of service. Why? The Navy chose to install diesel engines on it even after nuclear powered CVs had been launched. So, they decided the cost to replace the USS America's power plant with a nuclear reactor was just too expensive. Should be recycle thousands of tons of steel? Nah. There goes another $4.5 billion in taxpayer money.

    1. Re:Just staggering... by Gilgaron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's more like burning down derelict farm houses for fire department training rather than taken apart for the 2x4s and copper pipes. The materials aren't worth the labor to extract them and the structure/house is too obsolete to overhaul or continue using.

    2. Re:Just staggering... by Garfong · · Score: 4, Informative

      Canada likely wouldn't want it. We had an aircraft carrier but we scrapped it because it was too expensive for a country of our size to maintain.

    3. Re:Just staggering... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's the USS America (CV-66) sunk off the East Coast after only 40 years of service.

      Well, actually USS America had been decommissioned after 30 years of service, and been mothballed for the ten years previous to her sinking.

      Note that the reason it was decommissioned early was DoD budget cuts - it costs a lot to keep a carrier plus its airgroup operational, even ignoring the required escorts. And America was the most expendable carrier, since it was the only non-nuclear carrier left - fuel oil isn't cheap.

      Oh, and note also that it did NOT have diesel engines. Old-fashioned steam turbines on that one...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:Just staggering... by phorm · · Score: 2

      "ex-Kennedy and ex-Kitty Hawk are currently in long term storage"

      How exactly does one do "long term storage" on something the size of an aircraft carrier
      Serious question, it's not like you can just park it in the garage/barn and cover it with a tarp.

    5. Re:Just staggering... by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It should also be pointed out that at the time they were conducting the Able/Baker tests, they didn't realize just how nasty the effects of nuclear weapons against warships is. The military scheduled three tests as part of Operation Crossroads - Able, Baker, and Charlie, held at Bikini Atoll. It was considered important to know how effective nukes would be against ships, and what sort of defenses could be employed, how long they could survive, etc. Various animals were used in place of crew members at different points around the ships, with radiation measuring devices.

      Able was an air burst, and for the most part the ships survived, partly because it missed its target, the Battleship Nevada, though it was judged based on the data that the Nevada would have been a floating coffin from the radiation. So the ships got hosed down and the second test, Baker, was conducted, with a nuke detonated some 90 feet below the water, which not only sunk multiple ships, but sprayed the radioactive byproducts pretty much everywhere, and it got into everything on all the ships, to the point that they had to cancel the third test because it was judged impossible to clean them up at that point.

      So in short, they intended to clean up the surviving ships and recycle them, but the nature of the test served to make that impossible.

  5. Godzirra!!! by Wild_dog! · · Score: 2, Funny

    That is what will happen to San Francisco... not Tokyo. San Francisco.

    1. Re:Godzirra!!! by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      You mean Gayzilla [snicker snort giggle]

  6. Fool me once... by DarthVain · · Score: 2

    Also Canada has been burned in the past using this practice. Be bought a few used subs off the British and had them retrofitted. From what I have heard they have been nothing but trouble. They have been under repairs longer than actual service. Had multiple issues when actually in service, in that they leak, which is kind of a bad thing for a sub. They cost billions. There is a reason they have a shelf life and why the parent country no longer wants anything to do with anymore. Buyer beware.

  7. Not a bad place for it by yakatz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Under water might be the best place for the ship to be. The water has a great stopping effect for the radiation. See this WhatIf ( not a comic, actually science) for a great example.
    Admitedly, the fish don't know to stay away.

  8. Humans by clonehappy · · Score: 3

    Does anyone else notice that in every article where there is someone lecturing us in a denigrating fashion for something "bad" we do or have done, they have to refer to people in the third person as "humans". They never say "we", or even "humanity", no. It's always "humans", like the person doing the lecturing is above the level of us filthy "humans".

    Is it nanny-talk 101 to speak of us in such a manner, or are the people doing this of another species?

  9. Re:rather stupidly by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Nah, we learn from our mistakes. We do different stupid things now than we did back then, there's plenty left to be done!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.