Greenpeace None Too Happy with Mighty O Sinking...

[BarryNL]

By the way my 2 cents on Greenpeace and PETA. If you piss everyone off they are less likely to take you side. They do their causes more harm than good most of the time.

It's a shame that Greenpeace (not PETA - they really are a bit wierd) get most of their publicity for their most extreme acts. 99% of what they do is normal political campaigning. I do sometimes think they might accomplish more if they made that 100%.

 

[mfalco]

99% of what the make the news for howerver is. . . .

 

[Misplaced Priority]

I'm surprised by the attitude of some here! I would have thought that, as SCUBA divers, we'd be supportive of any organisation that is trying to protect marine and inland water environments. And, "Wayward Son", seeing that you support fishing I'd have thought you might support an organisation that's trying to ensure the fish you catch and eat aren't going to give you cancer.

I imagine that the vast majority of divers and Scubaboarders are environmentally conscientious people. The problem with Greenpeace is that they have such a militant all or nothing approach to what they do. Because of their elitist and adversarial mentality, they alienate most people who would otherwise support environmental protection. Therefore, in my mind, I automatically discredit anything I hear from groups like theirs.

 

[trigfunctions]

"In fact 97% of the PCBs are in the insulation around electrical wires. On top of that no one points out that the EPA did a 2 year study to test PCBs leeching out of the materials on the Oriskany, and found negligible amounts actually leeched out. Their data (with actual numbers) can be found on the web. "

I don't consider a 2 year study to be sufficient to analyze the risks. What they have done, in effect, is turn the O' into a 1,000 year study. What if we learn in 10 years that an unanticipated coral or algae or something has broken down the electrical insulation and PCBs start to bioaccumulate in the fish stocks?

They could have removed the PCBs, but chose not to because of costs. If they are wrong, the damage to the fisheries could be much, much greater than the costs of removing the PCBs. And, as Rik points out, if costs allowed 700 lbs to be dumped this time, what will be the cut off next time? Personally, I would prefer to err on the side of caution rather than on the side of potentially saving some money in the short term.

 

[trigfunctions]

Instead of worrying about what "COULD" be, let's worry about what "IS".

Shark finning, coral destruction, overfishing.

These are proven problems, and far more concerning to me than a new reef that will be crawling with life in a few months, and "might" have a problem "someday".

This is a common argument on the internet - "instead of complaining about one problem, why don't you work on preventing a different problem?"

Why not do both?

 

[Skull]

Why so opposed to Greenpeace? I'd think anyone who enjoys the ocean would support a group that tries to preserve it; even if it's made up of What are you doing to preserve the ocean? 700 lbs of PCBs might not seem like a lot to you, but compare that to the body mass of a turtle or fish. Do you have any idea of what that stuff does?

PS-You do realize that the US military is the largest polluter in the world, right? Maybe that's what Greenpeace is upset about.

If they were only made up of long-haired-granola-eating-Kumbiah-singing-hippy freaks, I would say yea they are a great organization. Its the lawyers that infest the organization that concern me. Like rats waiting for a the next dump site to infest.

700lbs of PCB's is not good anywhere ...however I gotta think that the calculated risk involved in leaching that much PCB out over the next 50-150 yrs is managable. We have collectively accepted the introduction and use of these chemicals into our economy now we must determine how to dispose of them. Here in San Diego the Navy has disposed of PCB and heavy metals in the Harbor for decades. A policy of not dregging the harbor is in place to ensure "containment" ...probably the only solution right now.

Collectively we have to decide what to do with these polutants short of dismantling every single vessel in the navy's mothball fleet. I say if the risk is acceptable (and I know some will say no level of PCB is acceptable) then create the reefs and lets dive. Monitor the dive sites as we monitor gas station leaching or fuel farm sites as well for ground water contamination. Ultimately we have to dispose of these chemically altered products somewhere. Incinerating them is not an option and burying them in containment sites can lead to ground water degredation. I hate to say it but maybe the ocean is the best retirement site for these great vessels.

 

[victor]

I feel this description of Greenpeace sums it up.

"Greenpeace is now a multinational company, with offices in 42 countries and global operating income of around $125 million a year. But with operating expenditures of nearly $120 million -- ostensibly spent on campaigns to "save the planet" -- and only $80 million in cash reserves, it is clearly on a survival mission of its own. Unlike most multinational companies, however, Greenpeace doesn't actually sell anything useful (aside from the odd T-shirt or bumper sticker). Rather, it is in the business of crafting scary stories, in the hope that the media will pick these up and the public will give it money to campaign against the supposed problems that it highlights."

The navy is as good a target as any and the only people to benifit will be some divers. Sounds like a good target for greenpeace.

 

[RikRaeder]

Since I've been quite vocal on this forum up to now, I'll reiterate my opinion:

I think it's good that someone is bringing this issue to light because if there is just a chance that it can escalate or cause severe environmental damage, short or long-term, it is something that needs to be addressed. If that someone is Greenpeace, you, or the girl-next-door, frankly I don't really care because I know one thing for sure; it isn't me so kudos to anyone who has the stones to do it. Wreck diving is cool, Chuuk and Bikini are on my long list of dive sites, and yes, I have seen fish frolicking and proliferating on 60 year old wrecks. US Military: good. Some of their policies: bad. Environment: good. PCBs: certainly bad. Closedmindedness: very very bad. Short-sighted view of environmental protection: bad.

 

[TheRedHead]

I think it's good that someone is bringing this issue to light because if there is just a chance that it can escalate or cause severe environmental damage

I predict this thread will escalate and cause severe ego damage.

 

[cerich]

I predict this thread will escalate and cause severe ego damage.

Just because it runs the jagged edge againts politics?