RSS Feed
July 21st, 2012 
FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda
OFF the coast of Hawaii in the next few months, three old US navy ships will go down in a blaze of glory. As part of the navy’s biennial Pacific training exercise, called RIMPAC, warships, planes and submarines from 22 nations will use the vessels for target practice.
Environmental activists are up in arms. The navy has sunk 109 ships in “Sinkex” training exercises in US waters over the past 12 years. Activists say that each potentially contains in its structure hundreds of kilograms of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds (PCBs) – which accumulate in sea animals and may be neurotoxic – as well as asbestos and heavy metals. They cite military experts who say there are viable alternatives, such as using inflatable targets or simulations.
So how big are the eco-impacts of Sinkex? Hard to say. This year’s targets were built before PCBs were banned and before shipbuilders were made to report the toxic chemicals they use. The navy and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reckons each ship contains about 50 kilograms of PCBs. That is based on similar ships and could be off by hundreds of kilograms, says Colby Self of the Basel Action Network in Seattle, which campaigns against the dumping of toxic chemicals.
Rainer Lohmann at the University of Rhode Island did a rough calculation for New Scientist and estimated that PCB levels would only rise above normal ocean concentration within 1 kilometre of the ships and are unlikely to harm marine life even in that area. “It’s not an ethical thing to do,” Lohmann says, but he doubts that it is a big problem.
Behind the activists’ concerns lies a greater problem: it’s easy to suspect that blowing up stuff harms the environment, but no one really knows by how much. More than any other industry, the military gets away with not declaring the impact of its activities on the environment, and dismissing the impacts that are known. Historically, the US military’s reporting of training operations has been patchy – even activists admit the need for some secrecy – but there’s reason to think the noncombat environmental impact is large. Military bases, where much of the training on US soil takes place, make up 10 per cent of the EPA’s list of most contaminated sites. In a rare assessment of a training exercise, researchers found in 2010 that fish and sea mammals living near the USS Oriskany – an aircraft carrier sunk for training in 2006 – had raised levels of PCBs. The EPA considers any exposure to be toxic, and dumping PCBs, asbestos and heavy metals in US waters is illegal for everyone except the navy: Sinkex is exempted.
Slowly, change may be afoot. This year the navy documented potential impacts of its Pacific exercises, including RIMPAC, in 1000 pages – the most extensive documentation so far. It describes, in very broad terms, a list of ocean pollutants, from PCBs and plastics to sonar noise and the by-products of weapons testing. No one else could get away with this contamination, says Self. “By saying ‘This is for national security’ they get the EPA to look the other way.”
Armed with the Oriskany results, three environmental groups filed a federal complaint against the EPA in December, aiming to end Sinkex’s exemption. “The navy should play by the same rules as everyone else,” says Todd True of Earthjustice in San Francisco, which represents the groups. The case is pending. Neither the navy nor the EPA had responded to requests for comment as New Scientist went to press.
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.
Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article
Look Up Artificial Reef Before You Believe This
Sun Jul 08 15:37:54 BST 2012 by Tom Andersen
When a ship is sunk, on purpose or not, the resulting hulk is used by marine life as a home. A big steel ship also keeps trawlers away. The result can turn a desolate stretch of sea floor into an active community. But the author does not even mention this angle.
Eco-activists Want To Torpedo A War Game
Fri Jul 13 14:49:16 BST 2012 by W G Treharne
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528724.900-ecoactivists-want-totorpedo-a-war-game.html
I am not entirely happy with the practice of sinking ships. My reason is this raises the sea level.
For the same reason I would support the raising of sunken ships from the seabed.
I acknowledge some benefit may be gained from creating places where coral can grow. However in these times of GW surely we should be doing whatever we can to reduce the sea level.
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the “Report” link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
Related posts:
Views: 0
Posted in 
Tags: 
