Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

vwb2022 t1_j6xw0mn wrote

Basically, the hull is leaking and Turkey is worried it will sink somewhere en-route before it gets to the scrapyard. So Brazil will sink it in deep water (5000+ feet) away from protected marine areas and any underwater infrastructure.

The hull likely still contains toxic materials, like paint and oil residue, so by sinking it in deep water they hope to limit environmental damage.

59

goblinmarketeer t1_j6yqnnd wrote

They are going to tow out past the environment and let the front fall off?

65

noodles_the_strong t1_j724p2r wrote

Well the front doesn't usually fall off, it's built to rigerous maritime standards...

8

omg_drd4_bbq t1_j6zi347 wrote

Dilution is the solution to pollution. (jk don't do that, bio-accumulating toxins are bad at low concentration)

19

GetCelested t1_j72woxn wrote

Oh good that should put the ship outside of the environment.

2

justtheentiredick t1_j70e8id wrote

What kind of insane logic is this?

−8

Tef-al t1_j7187jz wrote

Once it's deep and cold enough nothing will really travel or move from it is the thinking.

9

justtheentiredick t1_j718eys wrote

Got it. Still fucking stupid. There's gotta be a better solution

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/plastic-bag-found-bottom-worlds-deepest-ocean-trench

5

Tef-al t1_j71bp2q wrote

Not really. To get it somewhere to work on you have to bring it to shallower waters which have much more life in them don't have the same pressures and temperatures etc. If it sinks there it's a big problem so they've decided better to end the journey now and sink it where its less of a problem.

7

UtahCyan t1_j78juux wrote

It's a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. It's more about harm mitigation at this point. The options to salvage it put a lot more critical areas at much more danger. But they let the ship get so bad that they can't do anything now. It's kind of like windmills, sure they kill birds, but global warming is going to do a hell of a lot more damage to birds.

1

jerseycityfrankie t1_j6xue97 wrote

Two things: shame on the Brazilian Navy for allowing the ships deterioration to run far past the point of being able to safely tow the hulk. That is profoundly unprofessional and completely avoidable. The other thing that bothers me is the news item title. You can’t be “at” the “high seas”, it’s not a place. You can only be “on” the High Seas, a state of being.

33

Counter-Fleche t1_j6yiexf wrote

Add "under" to the list of high seas locations since that's where it's about to be

14

DukeOfGeek t1_j6yttsb wrote

Here I am recycling tin cans and they just let a whole aircraft carrier go to waste.

13

Proud_Tie t1_j6yf619 wrote

At "high seas" - the point where the sea level is highest. antonym of "Low seas (or tide)" The point where sea level is lowest.

1

jerseycityfrankie t1_j6ylmbh wrote

I’ve never heard a maritime pro say anything other than high or low tide. “Seas” is interchange with “waves” as in “then we shipped a huge sea and it broke the Derrick”.

2

Proud_Tie t1_j6yoqru wrote

maybe the original reporter at Reuters isn't a native English speaker and hasn't heard the term before? only guess I got.

1

jwm3 t1_j70nft2 wrote

It was a French warship. A Brazilian/Turkish company was just going to decommission and recycle it. The Brazilian navy only got involved now that they have to scuttle it since no port will accept it for disassembly.

1

GatoNanashi t1_j71r45y wrote

Uh, no, it was purchased by Brazil in 2000 and spent 18 years in commission with the Brazilian Navy. It's definitely the Brazilian Navy's problem.

3

barrinmw t1_j6xse6p wrote

Hopefully they make sure that all the oil and other hazardous wastes that would normally aboard are all removed.

17

KCOLREHSTIHSON t1_j6y1jsi wrote

Yeah I don't think that's actually gonna happen, bet you they say they did but I don't think they will

29

MalcolmLinair t1_j6yfc99 wrote

She was being transferred to a scrap yard to have all that done when they realized she wouldn't make it and had to scuttle her, so I highly doubt it.

10

[deleted] t1_j6z8vuy wrote

Don't assume the ship's gender.

−26

MalcolmLinair t1_j6za5ma wrote

Old maritime tradition; thanks to a childhood obsessed with pirates and an adulthood of sci-fi ships, I always refer to vehicles as 'she', especially actual ships.

11

thunderclone1 t1_j7043au wrote

Ships are shes no matter if they have dicks welded on them.

6

Smithium t1_j6y2e84 wrote

Asbestos is a problem when you try to scrap a ship like that. Airborne fibers are toxic. It's not a problem when you sink it. Unfortunate, that's a huge amount of metal that could be recycled. The residual oil can be mitigated by scrubbing tanks and reservoirs before scuttling. It may still leave an oil slick, but I think that's more of a cosmetic problem than long term environmental issue.

17

B00LEAN_RADLEY t1_j708yws wrote

Just fly an Argentine flag before setting sail south toward the Falklands. A british sub will send to Davy Jones's locker next to the General Belgrano.

4

_deltaVelocity_ t1_j71fwyz wrote

Can we at least film it so somebody can edit to look like the sinking of the Foch in Red Storm Rising?

4

Malforus t1_j71loeq wrote

GoPro has a sinkex on YouTube or just Google sinkex. Navies do sinkings all the time.

3

_deltaVelocity_ t1_j71n99z wrote

No, no, I know that. It’s just that this particular carrier is the ex-Foch.

2

Lopsided_Web5432 t1_j70c1ut wrote

I can’t help but think of all of the ships that were sunk in ww2. The North Atlantic and South Pacific had a lot

1

DudeWithAnAxeToGrind t1_j71016q wrote

There are also couple of US and Russian nuclear reactors on the bottom of the various oceans. Plus a selection of nuclear warheads. From various submarines that sunk after catastrophic accidents, or were scuttled intentionally.

1

Lopsided_Web5432 t1_j71reog wrote

Yeah crazy but true so I guess if one more old leaky old vessel has to be scuttled, so be it

1

DudeWithAnAxeToGrind t1_j72nas4 wrote

I'm not saying this is ideal. Ships shouldn't be simply scuttled at the end of their life. They should go to scrap yards. However, an isolated incident far from any fishing areas far out in the sea isn't going to be environmental disaster. There are many large ships at the bottom of the oceans. E.g. just count sunk WW1 and WW2 battleships.

At least there was attempt to do it properly with this one ship, but it didn't work out.

2

Dr_Ifto t1_j72b703 wrote

This would be a kickass painball arena.

Also, they could just strip and sell the steel. but i guess its too far gone.

1

autoposting_system t1_j6xuzum wrote

Well this doesn't make any sense. There are actually junk dealers that float sunk ships and tow them someplace and sell them for scrap. Somebody will take this and cut it to pieces if you just let them

−1

IBAZERKERI t1_j6xxt39 wrote

might have to do with the asbestos in the ship.

also if you read the first sentance of the article they state turkiye refused its entry (to be scrapped in turkiye) because of environmental hazards.

15

DudeWithAnAxeToGrind t1_j70zti1 wrote

That's what they were trying to do. But no country is accepting her, because the ship is in a such a bad shape that it can sink at some point en route. Nobody wants to risk her sinking in their territorial waters.

2

jwm3 t1_j70nmzx wrote

No one is willing to let it get close to their shore due it likely sinking on the way and blocking or damaging their ports and releasing all its gunk right by their coast.

1