No Oriskany this summer

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

ReefGuy

Contributor
Scuba Instructor
Divemaster
Messages
3,293
Reaction score
869
Location
Punta Gorda, Fl.
# of dives
500 - 999
http://www.cdnn.info/news/industry/i050212.html

Plans to sink the retired aircraft carrier USS Oriskany as an artificial reef this summer have been put off until after the next hurricane season because an environmental assessment cannot be completed until September, Navy officials said Friday.

The delay is due to the Jan. 7 death of a key scientist who was developing a simulation model to predict the long- and short-term effects of polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs.

The industrial compound, known to cause cancer in animals, has been found in electrical cable insulation and other items aboard the ship.

It would be cost-prohibitive to remove all PCB-containing material without dismantling the ship, Navy spokeswoman Patricia Dolan wrote in an e-mail.

Navy officials had hoped to sink the 888-foot Oriskany, which would be the largest ship ever purposely sunk as an artificial reef, in June. Now, the earliest possible date would be in September because the scientist's unexpected death will delay the model development by two months.

"As September is the heart of the hurricane season, the Navy will secure the ship in a hurricane mooring arrangement approved by the U.S. Coast Guard and delay the sinking of the ship until later in the year and subsequent to the hurricane season," Dolan wrote.
 
Bummer!
 
Can't put down an aircraft carrier but can still keep dumping reffuse off the coasts ???
Go figure.
 
wonder what "cost" this will have. I mean there are costs associated with waiting another year. They have pier rental fees, insurance, security guard costs, man hours, etc..... Wonder if they did an assesment to see what the extra costs were to waiting another year.?
 
My boss cutout the newspaper article for me, guess we'll have to wait just a bit longer.
 
(I know boo... hiss...) and have to admit that this is logical. It's one thing to plant something in the ocean that you just can't find another home for (which I still don't personally agree with, but the lawyers are having fun with the chemical company in this area right now so the exec's from the days when this is more common are getting some of their just desserts). It is quite another to deliberately sink a huge amount of a known carcinogen without doing your best to making sure that the salt water and hurricanes won't release them to the environment. This sounds like a unwelcome decision, but a cautious and correct one.
 
Don't get me wrong, I don't condone putting materials in the ocean that will cause an imminent danger.

I do wonder, however, how long it would take to release these carcinogenic materials to the point that they would become dangerous.

With the ever continual refreshing of the waters in the ocean caused by tides and winds, wouldn't the probable danger of generating a hazardous level of material be miniscule?

Sort of like the great cranberry scare of the mid 1950's. It was determined that the pesticide applied to the cranberry crop that year could cause cancer.

But then it came out that in order to succumb to the dreaded disease, one would have to eat 2 tons of cranberries a day for 10 years or something like that before the levels would become toxic.

Just wonder . . . . . .
 
gfisher4792:
That's too bad. But better to do it right start to finish.

Here Here, I'm sure there will be even more delays after Sept. Atleast they are taking there time and trying to be as enviornmental friendly as possible.

Matt
 
Does this really surprise anyone??

It would have been cheaper to "accidentally" sink her & pay the stupid fines than to go thru the stupid EPA red tape BS.

Has anyone gotten cancer from the THOUSANDS of ships that have been sunk, full of fuel, explosives, cargo, etc as well as wire?

Check you common sense at the door, the government is here to protect us from ourselves.

I hope I'm not too old to dive by time they get her down. lol
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/
https://xf2.scubaboard.com/community/forums/cave-diving.45/

Back
Top Bottom