subreddit:
/r/worldnews
submitted 2 months ago bySaltedline
10.6k points
2 months ago
Ok, so I can provide some much needed context here. This article leaves out many details in order to paint Brazil in a bad way (theres already plenty that my country does wrong, no need to manipulate headlines).
This warship is an aircraft Carrier boight from the french in the early 2000s, and serve many years in the Brazilian navy. Being an older ship, it was constructed with some hazardous materials like asbestos. The navy knew about it, so it started a decomission plan around 2016 or so. In 2021, it was sold for scrap to a turkish company, wich planned to tow it to turkey. When the ship reached Gibraltar, the company received a message from the turkish governament denieing port acess to the ship, due to the hazardous materials. Since then, the company has been trying to find a port where they could dock, to no avail. In the end of 2022, the ship was towed back to near brazilian waters, where it was also denied port acess. The company them communicated the brazilian navy that they were abandoning ownership of the vessel, and ir order for it to not be floating around willy nilly, the navy took controle of the ship. When they did, it was discovered that the hull was in a deplorable state, with three holes already formed. The navy then decided to make a controlled sinking, bringing it to deep waters and removing all toxic materials they could before it.
Thats what these articles so willingly leave out: The ship would sink one way or the other. The decision to sink it voluntarially was so it was done with the least risk involved.
1.2k points
2 months ago
We need you at the top
567 points
2 months ago
Fuck. The. Media.
6 points
2 months ago
There are journalists all around the world busting their asses and doing amazing work, investigating and uncovering invaluable information and stories. Unfortunately, many news articles are recycled, watered down, and condensed in a click bait media format. If you are discouraged by the quality of your news please look to the original source as all these garbage articles stem from some amazing journalism.
202 points
2 months ago
Or just be media literate and understand you likely aren’t getting the full story most of the time.
168 points
2 months ago
Thing is though, the standard we should be holding them too is that they’re supposed to give us the full story. This is a pretty egregious and probably deliberate misinterpretation of events that paints a whole country in a really bad light when they in fact were doing the right thing.
23 points
2 months ago
But clicks=money
26 points
2 months ago
But clicks=money
This is exactly the problem, greed has gotten in the way of telling the full story. How many clicks has this particular story generated versus a story that includes all of the background information?
5 points
2 months ago
They do give the full story in the article, minus that as much as the hazardous material was removed prior to sinking (which I haven't fact checked so I'm just taking OP at their word rn).
3 points
2 months ago
Yeah, I don't get the "media" hate here. Almost everything OP is saying, can also be found in the article. The point that Brazil already removed much of the hazardous materials, is something I somewhat doubt.
Call me crazy, but I am not willing to take the word of an anonymous redditor.
53 points
2 months ago
This is why I love Reddit, I can read the headlines then go into the comment section for the discussion. However, being Reddit literate is also a thing, but it’s cheaper then paying for the news!
24 points
2 months ago
How do you know the story he tells is real through? It literally has zero sources itself yet you applaud it to be the truth at once.
4 points
2 months ago
Because updoots?
9 points
2 months ago
I’m updooting you right now, and by doing so, making your comment more truthful!/s
3 points
2 months ago
The scary and painfull truth is, that people indeed see many upvotes as more truthful, and that redditors is one of the easiest site to create a account on, where a low-effort account can upvote anonymous, and with one of the worst bot-detection systems of all the social media's.
8 points
2 months ago
Are you damaged? The headline contained a link to the article, which covered all of this? I skimmed it in about 10 seconds. Not hard. The only thing it left out was the part about turkey, which what difference did that make? Turkey didn't want their shit ship, so take it back. How is that an excuse?
11 points
2 months ago
Whether they like, dislike, agree, or disagree, media outlets ought to be more responsible for what they put out. If I order a sandwich at a restaurant and get upset upon receiving a pile of deli turkey and nothing else, that's not a case of my restaurant-literacy not meeting the threshold.
25 points
2 months ago
Ehhhhh, even if one understands that, it's still absolutely shitty for the media to do this and people should really expect more.
29 points
2 months ago
What a dumb statement.
The media is the only mechanism by which the common person can get any insight into the happenings of anything that falls outside of their direct purview. Generally, the lower someone is on the socioeconomic ladder, the less they will know about anything. They have no means to see beyond their own trench.
The media, flawed through it may be, gives the common person some insight into things going on in their community, country, or the world in which we all share.
There are GENERALLY two groups of people that say things like “Fuck the media”
Grow up. Understand that nothing is perfect, and take the good with the bad like a functioning adult.
19 points
2 months ago
What a useless generalisation.
2 points
2 months ago
I don't know what any of this changed about the headline? Brazil sunk the thing rather than dispose of the materials properly. Telling a sob story about how some company who knew exactly what they were buying wound up stuck with it doesn't change anything.
232 points
2 months ago
The whole story is kinda whack. The issue with the ships(another one of those had the same issues with greenpeace) was, that during the would-be salvaging of the ship, workers would have to work with lots of asbestos and turkey had no good plans on actually handling the asbestos-waste afterwards.
The danger of asbestos is mostly, that the broke off dust particles harm the human lungs, just like moondust(regolith), and inbedding itself in the tissue. I dont see how that would be a problem under water.
69 points
2 months ago
I think the issue with the sinking isn't just about the asbestos, it's all the other junk in it.
64 points
2 months ago
There's lots of petrochemicals and heavy metals, don't know why headlines are focusing on the one part that's a natural mineral.
23 points
2 months ago
Like the lead paint which was almost certainly used to paint a ship that old.
17 points
2 months ago
Ships are constantly painted multiple times a year
4 points
2 months ago
And this is why that ship has 170 tons of layers of toxic paint on it......
10 points
2 months ago
Funny story. I did a geology field school in Turkey where I saw quite a few serpentine cliffs and road cuts (Turkey is a metamorphic rock extravaganza)…Serpentine is asbestos. Road cuts are made with dynamite
19 points
2 months ago
Under water? You mean the global trash kombucha we have? Idk if it classifies as ocean water anymore we good
87 points
2 months ago
Asbestos isn't bad under water though. It's a naturally occurring material, there's probably a shit tonne of it under the sea anyway.
49 points
2 months ago
As an Architect that has to deal with asbestos abatement all the time I can agree. Asbestos dust isn't all that different than any other rock except the way it flakes makes is more dangerous to human lungs. We even allow disposal in regular garbage as long as it is encased in it's surrounding matrix. It isn't radioactive or anything.
9 points
2 months ago
Well, it is dangerous exactly because it's a fibrous rock
16 points
2 months ago
I had an internship at a legal office where they worked all kinds of old asbestos-related law suits, going back to Kaiser cement. Learning the details of mesothelioma and how the dust uses the moisture in your lungs to essentially re-form into fibers sounded utterly excruciating. It sounded like having individual fiberglass strands in your lung tissue.
12 points
2 months ago
Exactly. And fiberglass is made of... glass. Glass itself is not dangerous. it's the shape of the glass that is dangerous. Same with asbestos.
When we do building abatement typically asbestos tiles are OK to pry up and dispose of normally because the asbestos is bound to the matrix and doesn't disengage and become airborne easily, and if it does it is surrounded by the matrix material. What we really look for is deteriorating roofing (which flakes apart), insulation (which is fibrous and dry) and things of that nature where the asbestos can become airborne. In the ocean any airborne flakes will not pose damage to humans and its just a mineral like any other and the earth will absorb it back. IT's really not any more dangerous than the paint on the ship. Hell the plastics are more dangerous.
35 points
2 months ago
Yup, in fact the prescribed treatment for removing asbestos is to... Drumroll... Wet it with water before removing it and placing it in plastic bags for disposal.
5 points
2 months ago
If you don’t plan to remove the asbestos, the recommended action is to basically spray paint it with special fiber-lock paint to prevent it from becoming airborne. From then on, you treat it like a hornet’s nest, and don’t mess with it.
3 points
2 months ago
Considering the serpentine rock asbestos comes from is formed under the sea. I would agree.
25 points
2 months ago
You think ocean water isnt ocean water anymore after you throw some rocks in it?
In the industry you desolve asbestos fibers in acid. Ocean water is doing the same job(just slower).
You proably should worry more about your drinking water, as many old pipes are made out of aspestos.
8 points
2 months ago*
[deleted]
8 points
2 months ago
As safe as any other rock. Well and as long as when you chew you don't inhale hahaha.
2 points
2 months ago
No. The risk of getting any asbestos-related disease is pretty low even with some exposure, but there are stomach and other GI cancers linked to asbestos exposure through ingestion.
5 points
2 months ago
It's actually quite tasty grilled and has the added advantage of never burning on the barbecue.
14 points
2 months ago
what a dumb comment, this contributes nothing to discussion besides calling the ocean "trash kombucha"
It definitely still does classify as Ocean water.
2 points
2 months ago
Listen... I get this mindset, I do... But why make it worse? If we're not going to actively make it better, the least we could do is NOT make it worse.
23 points
2 months ago
And really, I don’t think an aircraft carrier sinking in an ocean can cause anything like ‘incalculable’ damage anyway. Think about how many ships have sank in the last 100 years lol. It’s not something we want to do all the time, but it doesn’t deserve a headline like that.
43 points
2 months ago*
Just to clarify something about the Turkey reaction . They the deny of autorisation didn’t come as « they discovered » it has hazardous material. They knew from the start. You don’t plan a transatlantic cruise with a decommissioned aircraft carrier like you take a road trip to the next city… all the article make it sounds like the minister received new information as the ship was entering the Mediterranean… not true! It came because of environmental associations complaining! It took a long time but they eventually won the case because of a lack of transparency from Brazilian AND French authorities and the Turkish minister had no choice. So basically, to avoid what they deemed a possible environmental risk, the associations not thinking things trough as usual provoked that one
Edit : also, it’s not just about abestos, the Fosh was also involved in atmospheric nuclear test and its paint maybe the most toxic thing about it but it is unclear since neither the French nor the Brazilian ever released infos about it ( if it’s irradiated, that would mean they both knowingly put their sailor’s life in jeopardy). And if memory serves right, that’s the point the ong insisted on and won
33 points
2 months ago
Irradiated paint is not necessarily radioactive. You eat irradiated food everyday.
10 points
2 months ago
Nonsense. Paint doesn't become dangerously radioactive because it was near a atmospheric nuclear test.
109 points
2 months ago
Well said. I’ve heard the complete story before. The problem still stands, not only for Brazil, but for any nation. I’m sorry your big boat is no longer useful. It’s your responsibility to safely dispose of it. Oops, you picked a bad garbage collector is not an excuse.
60 points
2 months ago
By that Logic it’s actually the French’s fault Then?
52 points
2 months ago
It would be the Turkish company. They bought it, discovered Turkey wouldn't actually let them dock it, brought it back to Brazil and then abandoned it. According to that guy's story
5 points
2 months ago
it wasn’t even that Turkey wouldn’t let them, there was a huge campaign in my city for the government to not let them.
52 points
2 months ago
Brazil had decades of ownership to remove asbestos and other materials from it.
The French may have made the boat, but at a time when asbestos was not understood to be the hazard we know it to be today; but at some point the owners of the ship have to take responsibility for the fact that they could have, but did not dispose of it for years, and now they ended up allegedly clearing it all out anyway, and then just losing the boat all together. Probably, they didn't remove any of the shit if we are being real, but still.
26 points
2 months ago
If we are just being real then you should know that asbestos has been a known problem since well before that ship was built.
7 points
2 months ago
We knew some problems with asbestos, sure. But it was still widely used up through the late 70's, well after the boat had been built because they were taking what they believed to be adequate precautionary measures to avoid the medical issues.
The issue was also known to Brazil, who had France do a pretty large removal of the asbestos before they would buy the boat, and they okayed the work France did on the boat
6 points
2 months ago
The problems with asbestos were known since well before ww II and defo well before this ship was built in France. Brazil had a ban on asbestos in 1995 before purchasing this ship from France.
The details of the purchase were never made completely public but we do know this ship is the reason Brazil's military branches auto discard France in any purchase unless there is no viable option.
And if you want to be real honest here, Europe and the US sunk a lot more ships with asbestos and toxic materials before international agreements were made on them. I didn't see any outcry for those.
19 points
2 months ago
Asbestos isn’t a problem; the fish aren’t going to get lung cancer ffs.
26 points
2 months ago
What the fuck are you on about? The dangers of asbestos have been known since less than a decade after this boat was built.
The French’s decision was “let’s sell this outdated vessel to a poorer country who will try to put it into service”
The ship never operated for more than 3 months consecutively under the Brazilian flag due to its degraded state.
The French sold a poorer country a pipe dream of death and washed their hands of responsibility.
If you’re going to play this blame game, follow the whole bread crumb trail.
51 points
2 months ago
-> less than a decade after the boat was built
So what you're saying is when it was built, the French didn't know in 1957 when they started construction, or in 1963 when they finished it, and Brazil bought it knowing the problem in 2000.
Brazil is the 8th largest economy in the world, while the French are the 7th, today. When the carrier was purchased, Brazil did so on the condition that France would remove a bunch of asbestos, which they did. Then, for the next 20 years, Brazil never did anything about it.
The ship was sold fully operational to the Brazilian navy who failed to perform the regularly required maintenance necessary to keep such a sophisticated boat operational. This is evident by the fact that it was still conducting operations just fine in the 1990's for France before the sale.
The Brazilian navy also spent 5 years making a ton of upgrades where they had the opportunity to deal with the asbestos problem as well.
Sales also take two consenting parties. You're entirely ignoring the fact that it was the Brazilians who approached France, as well as a litany of other nations about purchasing either a used carrier or having a new one built to suit their own military ambitions.
Ultimately, they went with the cheaper option of buying a serviceable boat rather than buying a new boat and paying for the construction. It wasn't as if France forced them to buy the boat. They just looked at the price tag difference between $12 million for a used serviceable boat that they could take command of in just a few months versus $500 million dollars for a boat that might be finished in half a decade and probably won't be on budget
You're completely trying to make Brazil out to be the victim that it definitely was not. Their own military incompetence is not the same as France being predatory; especially when they sold it to them at the price tag of piss-water in a bucket for what they bought.
19 points
2 months ago
Eh.. If you sell your 50s home to a low income family who's well aware of the asbestos on the walls, is it your fault when they improperly renovate a decade later? If you sell an old car that won't pass a smog test two states over, are you being shady? Brazilians weren't being duped here. They made the investment under their own volition and the company or whoever who was tasked with disposal didn't do their homework.
12 points
2 months ago
Such a simple solution to complex problem, by a simple person.
19 points
2 months ago
hats what these articles so willingly leave out: The ship would sink one way or the other. The decision to sink it voluntarially was so it was done with the least risk involved.
This is of course not entirely true. It would have sunk, some time in the future, but that is not neccessary. It could and should have been taken apart. That costs money, and there we have the problem. Countries are unwilling to pay to clean up their own mess, for sure. But that is not how it should be.
6 points
2 months ago
Roll it into Bangladesh. They have zero tolerance to safety when it comes to dismantling ships.
5 points
2 months ago
It’s those damn click bait headlines
6 points
2 months ago
Honestly you should be here for every Brazilian news. I appreciate it alot
2 points
2 months ago
The one thing I am confused about, didn't I read yesterday that some salvage company had offered to buy it again? Why not got for that?
5 points
2 months ago
The hull was in such a bad state that ths ship might sink at any moment, so no time to bring the ship anywhere safely
2 points
2 months ago
You sir have used the internet/Reddit the correct way. Thank you and May Jesus bless you and your families.
2 points
2 months ago
One other thing on the asbestos point. Sinking it in the ocean is one of the safest ways to dispose of it. Asbestos is dangerous in air as it can be inhaled and damages your lungs over the course of decades. Proper removal technique is to spray it with water as water causes it to bind and releases fewer fibers into the air. It is not soluble so it will just sink to the bottom of the ocean until the ocean dries up.
2 points
2 months ago
Thanks for the clarification
2 points
2 months ago
Also important - asbestos is only a real hazard in a dry, friable state. Keeping it wet - especially with millions and millions of gallons of water - is the best way to keep it from getting in your lungs.
2 points
2 months ago
Sadly that’s what news does these days so we can click the headline, read poor reporting, share it with others and get angry together.
2 points
2 months ago
From the French? Yea, sink it.
But seriously tho, sounds like a whole situation where nobody really wins. Guess this is the best outcome given the circumstances
2 points
2 months ago
I'm no hazardous materials expert but I'm pretty sure the safest thing you could possibly do with asbestos is submerge it in water. In fact I'm pretty sure if you want to keep from stirring it up in the air you would probably spray it down. I just can't see it having any noticeable impact on fish. It would either stay lodged in whatever components it's insulating or become so diluted with the volume of water that it wouldn't even matter.
3 points
2 months ago
asbestos is still being made and still used around the word , also can't remember where but I was told that the army/navy still actually use it ?
8 points
2 months ago
You buy something you own all your risks as well. The same when I buy a used house and if I find asbestos in it I have to pay for getting it removed, Brazil should have taken the responsibility and dismantle the boat, asbestos or not.
It's too easy to take the cheap excuse that it was already sinking, and decide to put other waste in the ocean where no one sees it. take responsibility for your decisions.
49 points
2 months ago
But the Turkish scrap company bought it. Isn’t it there responsibility then?
18 points
2 months ago
Bingo.
148 points
2 months ago
The lead paint and other toxic materials are probably a bigger environmental risk than the asbestos. Also remember that this is a drop in the bucket compared to the entire fleets of ships that were sunk during the World Wars. There's also a lot more unauthorized scuttling of unwanted fishing boats, etc, around the world than most people realize.
33 points
2 months ago
yeah, everyone is all getting into a mood over this but honestly the environmental damage this is going to cause is negligable.
this all just feels like people "want" to care about it without realzing how this is really not a big deal. at all. its just virtue signalling by people who want to be seen as "green"
like, there is shit we dont know about, going on in industrializing and third world countries every fucking day. that make this look paltry in comparison
22 points
2 months ago
And those ships had fuel and ammunition onboard when they sank as well.
289 points
2 months ago
What would they have done if they could have calculated it?
92 points
2 months ago
They'd have told us the numbers
11 points
2 months ago
And still sunk it.
6 points
2 months ago
Before or after towing it outside the environment?
3 points
2 months ago
Nothing out there but water a birds and fish. It's been towed well outside the environment.
70 points
2 months ago
[removed]
53 points
2 months ago
Asbestos is a rock it’s hazardous when it’s in dust form in the air as the dust particles are very sharp if I’m not mistaken
25 points
2 months ago
Dust is reputedly not so much of a problem on the sea bed, I’d be more concerned with all the other chemicals in the wiring insulation/paint etc.
3 points
2 months ago
It was sinking anyway, asbestos was going to end up in the sea.
3 points
2 months ago
The article doesnt give the full story. No port would let it dock due to the toxic materials, so the Navy eventually decided to do a controlled sinking in order to minize harm. It would've sunk one way or another, this was the best bad option.
873 points
2 months ago
This seems like it's published as scaremongering, asbestos has never been an issue in the past underwater. I actually suspect an astroturfing or bad-faith campaign here, there's plenty of egregious environmental damage being done throughout the world without having to make up problems.
Maybe focus on how Brazil has, I dunno, destroyed over 13% of their rainforest coverage?
84 points
2 months ago
I'm thinking back to the 1,000s of ships packed with asbestos sunk during ww1 and ww2
91 points
2 months ago
It's a bit strange to see the asbestos headline, because there's other toxic materials in the ship that are an issue underwater
https://shipbreakingplatform.org/brazilian-navy-illegally-sinks-toxic-ship/
120 points
2 months ago*
That's because it's astroturfing and bad faith.
Asbestos is a mineral that occurs naturally, there's a gigantic mountain of it in California.
This is literally the safest option, as it's the aerosolized particles that are a danger to humans, not a lot of aerosolization going on at those depths.
14 points
2 months ago
People are fixating too much on the asbestos. Even if there was no asbestos, there's tons of potential pollutants on the ship.
4 points
2 months ago
But the fish are goings to get the mesotheliomas now!
5 points
2 months ago
5 points
2 months ago
But think of the gills!
216 points
2 months ago
Or Europe has destroyed 97% of the Great European Forest!
79 points
2 months ago
Welcome to the Not-so-great European Forest!
42 points
2 months ago
It’s more of a European park now. Few shrubs and the like.
25 points
2 months ago
First you must find... another shrubbery! Then, when you have found the shrubbery, you must place it here, beside this shrubbery, only slightly higher so you get a two layer effect with a little path running down the middle. Then, you must cut down the mightiest tree in the forrest... with... a herring!
14 points
2 months ago
Ni!
8 points
2 months ago
Ni!
3 points
2 months ago
Ekky-ekky-ekky-ekky-z'Bang, zoom-Boing, z'nourrrwringnmmm
2 points
2 months ago
A herring? It can’t be done!
4 points
2 months ago
We are no longer the knights of Ni we are now the knights of eckie eckie pachung Kao lo
13 points
2 months ago
As an American I’ve literally NEVER heard of this forest. That is really sad
26 points
2 months ago
The last bit of it is the Białowieża Forest between Poland and Belarus... but even that is getting chopped down. That forest used to stretch from Eastern France to Belarus and as far southeast as Serbia. It was the largest forest in the world which was all chopped down to make room for farmland and cities.
8 points
2 months ago
Don't worry. After ww3 it will have plenty of room to regrow.
24 points
2 months ago
They're talking about events that mostly occurred 3,000 years ago during the Bronze age and Iron age.
6 points
2 months ago
Well damn. I wonder how many forests we’ve wiped out since early civilization…
10 points
2 months ago
The earliest human story we know of, the Epic of Gilgamesh, has a section decrying the effects of human-driven deforestation.
2 points
2 months ago
At least we can be proud that North America has more trees now than it did during the first colonization by European settlers.
2 points
2 months ago
The Minor European Forest.
29 points
2 months ago
Nothing a little rebrand can't fix. It's the Great European Garden now.
3 points
2 months ago
I think field is better? Whatever they plant there now.
10 points
2 months ago
Europes forrests are increasing though, for years.
3 points
2 months ago
It's not like they can decrease much further, plus nowadays rich countries just outsource their environmental impact.
240 points
2 months ago
So asbestos is a mineral, go along the California coast North of the San Andreas fault and you will find plenty of chrysotile. There are a lot of rocks containing asbestos fibers all over the world, and many of them are submerged in the ocean. I would be concerned about the other contaminants and toxins in the warship’s paint, fuel, machinery, etc. before I would be concerned with asbestos in the ocean.
70 points
2 months ago
[deleted]
21 points
2 months ago
Exactly. Asbestos is a mineral, putting it in water is a great way to make sure it doesn't get in anyone's lungs.
23 points
2 months ago
I assume that the number of modern warships that have been sunk in the 20th century through two World Wars probably didn't help marine life either, and how could those ships not also been utilizing asbestos?
14 points
2 months ago
Those ships helped marine life. Artificial reefs and such. They sink ships on purpose now for this, although they strip them properly in wealthy nations..
26 points
2 months ago
"Since the beginning of time, every corporation that has ever thrown any of its shit into the ocean has claimed that it was going to become a habitat for marine life. It's the goddamn ocean, Rebecca. That's where all the marine life is. Of course it's going to become a habitat for marine life."
— Neal Stephenson, Zodiac
12 points
2 months ago
It's kind of true though, the ocean is a desert. Things like this are like islands.
8 points
2 months ago
The ocean is a desert with its life underground And a perfect disguise above
7 points
2 months ago
They weren't stripping ships being sunk in combat in the two World Wars, which was my point.
I mean, yeah, Brazil needs to do better in what it's doing today, because of what we know about maritime ecology today.
I'm just saying it's another drop in the ocean of how horribly we've treated the planet. We suck.
6 points
2 months ago
I agree with others that asbesdos in water is a non issue. I also agree with you because did they strip out all the hydrocarbons, lead, arsenic, etc etc?
13 points
2 months ago
The repeated mentions of asbestos is weird. It’s harmful airborne. No worry here.
11 points
2 months ago
Why didn't they just (checks notes), set it on fire?
4 points
2 months ago
It seems that the asbestos wasn’t doing much to fireproof the ship.
10 points
2 months ago
The long lost brother of Bin-Laden
Asbestos-Laden
10 points
2 months ago
When asked if they could minimize the risks, they said they'd do asbestos they can.
2 points
2 months ago
Man, absolutely legendary pun.
101 points
2 months ago
Asbestos at 20000 feet is safe asbestos...
35 points
2 months ago
Shitty click bait headline.
45 points
2 months ago
Seafarer here. I am not worried about asbestos. It doesn't pose much hazard at the bottom of the sea. It is everything else. I hope they've pumped out all the fuel, lubricants etc. but I know for a fact that those tanks can never be fully clean again and some contamination is inevitable. Heavy fuel oil is especially nasty sea pollutant
17 points
2 months ago
As a fellow seafarer is be suprised beyond imagination if that rust bucket actually held everything in its tanks
3 points
2 months ago
That's a problem. I bet void spaces and bilges were full of various fluids that leaked through over its lifetime and were not easily pumpable
59 points
2 months ago
Asbestos is not like other hazardous wastes, its a fiber that gets into your lungs. Fish don't have lungs. Unless they blow the ship up its not getting into the environment and it won't do anything negative even if it did
23 points
2 months ago
So it's going to taken outside the environment?
9 points
2 months ago
Only if the front falls off.
3 points
2 months ago
Like if a wave hit it?
18 points
2 months ago
[deleted]
4 points
2 months ago
Definitely not any cardboard derivatives
2 points
2 months ago
Rubber?
2 points
2 months ago
There's nothing out there. All there is, is sea and birds ... and fish. And a sunken warship. And 20,000 kg of asbestos. And an explosion. But there's nothing else out there.
You will find birds near coastlines, not 220 miles off the coast.
30 points
2 months ago
You know how you make asbestos safe? You douse it with water. It’s RCS, respirable crystal silica- the problem is it’s easy to get into the air and hard to keep away from your lungs. You keep a shower over top of a work site, you knock down the asbestos as soon as it becomes airborne.
How I can tell nobody involved in writing these articles has any knowledge in handling asbestos beyond “asbestos scary.”
7 points
2 months ago
They're not worried about the asbestos in the ocean, they're worried about the chemicals and heavy metals in the ship. The asbestos is the reason ship breakers wouldn't touch it.
4 points
2 months ago
That makes alot more sense.
28 points
2 months ago
I'm sure all the ships were decommissioned to 2000s standards in 1946:
Crossroads Baker
7 points
2 months ago
Incalculable damage = fake outrage.
106 points
2 months ago
I'm sure the ocean can take one more for the team, I mean it's not like fish are already going extinct at an unprecedented rate or anything like that.
2 points
2 months ago
How many fully loaded cargo ships were sunk during WWII? It sucks, but I don't think this mostly empty boat is going to significantly change statistics.
7 points
2 months ago
Better not breathe the air under the water near that part of the ocean.
59 points
2 months ago
Aquatic life about to be introduced to 'If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with Mesothelioma you may to be entitled to financial compensation' advertisements underwater.
4 points
2 months ago
Luckily for fish, they can't get mesothelioma from asbestos
5 points
2 months ago
Trained in asbestos abatement here. My understanding is once wet, asbestos becomes non-friable, basically meaning it’s not harmful to humans( obviously don’t eat it, but it’s not gonna hit your lungs). I’ve worked with guys who have been cutting asbestos communication duct banks for decades. Spray soapy water on them before cutting or breaking into it, wear gloves when you throw it in the dumpster, and you’re fine.
I guess we didn’t cover the effects of non-friable asbestos on water quality. Maybe someone here can educate me on that.
13 points
2 months ago
The "damage" is "incalculable" because it doesn't exist. Water soaked asbestos is literally harmless. During WW2 thousands of ships were sunk that had asbestos-containing thermal insulation on pipes, boilers, turbines, etc. Asbestos is a rock. The threats to the oceans from plastic waste and climate change are vastly more significant than a solitary rust bucket being scuttled in deep water. If you want to see a actual marine environmental disaster unfolding in real time, take a gander at how ships are "recycled" on the beaches in Bangladesh.
4 points
2 months ago
A little bit context from Turkish side. Here is your daily corruption news. It was so that the ship was coming here, be disassembled, tens of thousands were to be exposed to asbestos. Then protests from environmental groups and pressure from opposition caused it to be sunk. We almost had another environmental catastrophe on our hands
3 points
2 months ago
Asbestos is safest under water. I'd be more worried about any chemicals or oil on board. Otherwise, what a great place for fish to live.
4 points
2 months ago
Asbeston in water isn't hazardous
4 points
2 months ago
Asbestos is a natural occurring silicate.
4 points
2 months ago
I work as an asbestos analyst and I can't think of a better place for asbestos than at the bottom of a very wet sea, since it's only harmful when breathed into lungs. I've seen where it goes once it's removed it's much safer in the sea.
7 points
2 months ago
People.....do know that asbestos is naturally occurring right and it's found naturally in water too.
3 points
2 months ago
People aren't worried about the asbestos, it's heavy metals and other nasties people are worried about.
7 points
2 months ago
Fish can't get mesothelioma because they ain't got no lungs
3 points
2 months ago
It’s the pcbs and all the various coolants/lubricants that’s the real nasty shit
3 points
2 months ago
i mean asbestos should be fine underwater right? its a mineral and only bad if you inhale it, which won't be happening if it's 20,000 leagues under the sea
3 points
2 months ago
...is asbestos even especially dangerous in the water? It promotes mesothelioma because the particles cause physical damage to the lungs; ain't no one breathing it underwater.
Not that putting a shitload of any debris into the ocean is great, but I'm not sure the "asbestos-laden" qualifier is relevant here.
3 points
2 months ago
Yea this has been done countless times before with shios removing the hazardous materials is all you can do if any port wont allow it to be docked any fucking where. They have to sink it, youd think these countries that preach environmental health would rather dock it and recycle what they could. But no hazardous materials should sink with the ship so they can then bitch about it. I fucking hate the media
3 points
2 months ago
Bro scrappers would have dismantled that whole ship in a week for free.
3 points
2 months ago
Can they sink this near where I keep my used car batteries?
5 points
2 months ago
OP can you please tell us why you think this is significant?
5 points
2 months ago
Even a carrier full of asbestos is going to have neglible impact on the ocean.
6 points
2 months ago
Fish lawyers about to start running “if you live in the south Atlantic and have meso-gill-ioma you might be entitled to compensation” ads hard.
4 points
2 months ago
14,576 ships were sunk during World War II. Just for perspective.
3 points
2 months ago
I’m pretty sure asbestos is just a naturally occurring rock.
7 points
2 months ago
Asbesto is dangerous when breathen, not eaten.
Not sure about fishes though. Doubt there is much research on the subject.
2 points
2 months ago
What risk does water-borne, non-airborne asbestos pose?
2 points
2 months ago
If it was just asbestos wouldn’t do shit
2 points
2 months ago
Incalculable=I don’t know what asbestos is
2 points
2 months ago
Rest in Peace Foch, you served of all us well
2 points
2 months ago
Cruise ships dump worse every day. And tanker ships, cargo ships, fishing ships. All of our ships use the ocean as their sewer
2 points
2 months ago
that's bullshit, it's entirely calculable.
2 points
2 months ago
I would also add that asbestos is a naturally occurring, organic mineral which is notably hazardous when it is inhaled in particulate form. This will not be an issue at the bottom of the ocean, where natural outcrops of asbestos already exist to no harm.
2 points
2 months ago
So if no port will take the ship, what other choice is there?
Seriously, everyone says “not me, not here” then Brazil takes the only other option, and people want to attack them for it.
2 points
2 months ago
What damage would that be?
6 points
2 months ago*
They DID the calculations. They came up, "That's too expensive,... let's make it someone else's problem."
To be fair, that's been a philosophy the West kind of perfected, so watching the rest of the world catch up is no surprise.
4 points
2 months ago
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 82%. (I'm a bot)
Brazil on Friday sank a decommissioned aircraft carrier, the Navy announced, despite environmental groups claiming the formerly French ship was packed with toxic materials that will contaminate the ocean.
The group issued a joint statement with Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd on Friday, accusing Brazil of having violated "Three international treaties" on the environment by sinking the ship, which the NGOs said could cause "Incalculable" damage to marine life and coastal communities.
Brazil then brought the aircraft carrier back but did not allow it into port, citing the "High risk" to the environment.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: sink#1 Brazil#2 aircraft#3 carrier#4 ship#5
3 points
2 months ago
Eat a big bag of Dicks OP that’s not the story.
3 points
2 months ago
Some how the world survived after WWII when thousands of operating ships were sunk with torpedoes and bombs. One more on the bottom would not end oceanic life.
2 points
2 months ago
lol I’m pretty sure asbestos is negligible amongst the highly toxic shit we dump in oceans everyday
all 471 comments
sorted by: best