![]() |
And at least two off one of Japan's main ports that got dropped off a carrier!
What we need now is one of the suicide bomber nutters to buy a SCUBA set and go for a dive ... |
Quote:
________ Buy medical marijuana vaporizer |
Quote:
http://www.submerged.co.uk/monty%205%20big.jpg Edit: Never mind, the link was in OHP's original post. |
Quote:
That's one of the funniest pics I've seen in a while. |
Quote:
|
Some of the links suggest over 3000 tons of explosives left on the ship - reminiscent of the Halifax tragedy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion |
Hopefully the storage of the explosives will prevent it from all going off at once, if it indeed detonates. If some of the explosives detonate, I wonder if the water makes it more or less likely for the rest to detonate.
|
Ah, Coast. Excellent series. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/cool1.gif
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
From the map it looks like it would be easiest to see the wreck from Sheerness. |
Wrecked ship could trigger massive explosion
IN THE Thames estuary, 60 kilometers from central London, lies the 60-year-old wreck of the American liberty ship Richard Montgomery. It still carries 1400 tonnes of TNT, and according to a report commissioned by the UK government, an explosion is "increasingly probable with the passing of time". Which makes it odd that it has taken four years to publish the report, which will appear this week.
New Scientist revealed last year that the then secret report warned of the dangers posed by the wreck (21 August 2004, p 36). The ship is disintegrating and is likely to start collapsing in 10 to 20 years' time. "Experience from other similar wrecks indicates that the explosion of one munition is likely to result in a mass explosion," the report says. It would be the world's biggest non-nuclear explosion apart from volcanoes, and would cause £1 billion of damage and widespread injuries to the public. It would be the world's biggest non-nuclear explosion apart from volcanoes Removing the explosives would mean evacuating 40,000 people for six months. The report's favoured solution is to build an 1800-meter earthwork around the wreck to deaden the blast of the explosion. info taken from new scientist. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4032629.stm http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A22716759 http://www.ssrichardmontgomery.com/i...wsci210804.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Richard_Montgomery http://www.submerged.co.uk/montgomery.php same thing happened just off of Folkestone... a ship carrying explosives blew up digging a 20ft crater in the sea bed, causing an earthquake of magnitude 5 on the sphincter scale scaring the towns people to death http://www.bmwland.co.uk/talker/imag...s/icon_lol.gif oh dear.. |
That's quite a lot of explosives, especially when it breaks it down...
286 × 2,000 lb (910 kg) bombs 4,439 × 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs of various types 1,925 × 500 lb (230 kg) bombs 2,815 fragmentation bombs and bomb clusters Smoke bombs, including white phosphorus smoke bombs Pyrotechnic signals Booster charges Probably more risky to touch. Bit of a shitter really. |
I first heard about this a while ago. It's pretty local to me, but I think I might be far enough away for me not to be affected if it does go off. What's to be done about it, I dunno.
|
Well volunteered Bungle! I know its a bit chilly, but go have a swim out a give it a poke with with a stick.
|
When it said Thames Estuary I thought it meant slap bang in the middle of London for some reason.
Maybe it would be cheaper to evacuate everyone from the area for a day, set the thing off and just pay compensation to the damage caused rather than evacuating and rehousing everyone for six months with the risk of it going off anyway http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ies/laugh1.gif |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:04 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2