3 ms·

Interesting article, but it gets a little too political. It lashes out at the Bush Administration, but those ships have been there since the 50's; a mothball f

Interesting article, but it gets a little too political. It lashes out at the Bush Administration, but those ships have been there since the 50's; a mothball fleet is also not really much concern for any high-ranking officials. Also: “rusting and leaching toxic heavy metals" Is there any evidence of this? Most nuclear-class ships contain their reactors far from the hull, and the only two types of ships that have reactors are modern aircraft carriers and subs. Also I think there may be some security concerns here - usually we are very protective of sub designs (just sail around San Diego's facilities and you can see the measures they take to protect them) -- do you think they patrol these waters for such a reason?

YokoZar 14y ago
Well there was an entire lawsuit about the environmental impact of the ships which the government lost, so presumably there's SOME evidence that they're harmful.
jlgreco 14y ago
There is more to "toxic heavy metals" than radioactivity you know.
- ams6110 14y ago
  The "toxic heavy metals" are probably mostly lead from paint peeling away from the hulls.
larrydag 14y ago
There are a lot more ships that have nuclear reactors than just carriers and subs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Naval_reactors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Naval_rea...
DanBC 14y ago
Anti-fouling paints are pretty nasty environmental pollutants. I have no idea if these were used for military vessels. Marine paints often contained heavy metals as a pigment and a biocide. This website has a pretty horrific list of stuff that you wouldn't want to be eating that has been added to paints in the past. (http://events.nace.org/library/corrosion/seawater/anti-fouling.asp http://events.nace.org/library/corrosion/seawater/anti-fouli...) > Also I think there may be some security concerns here It's amazing how much stuff is 'protected' by scary looking fence and a warning sign and little else. A man hopped over a wall, climbed up a drain pipe and into a window, then walked along a corridor into a bedroom. (and this was in Buckingham Palace. He had a nice chat with the Queen.)

YokoZar 14y ago

Well there was an entire lawsuit about the environmental impact of the ships which the government lost, so presumably there's SOME evidence that they're harmful.

jlgreco 14y ago

There is more to "toxic heavy metals" than radioactivity you know.

ams6110 14y ago
The "toxic heavy metals" are probably mostly lead from paint peeling away from the hulls.

larrydag 14y ago

There are a lot more ships that have nuclear reactors than just carriers and subs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Naval_reactors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Naval_rea...

DanBC 14y ago

Anti-fouling paints are pretty nasty environmental pollutants. I have no idea if these were used for military vessels. Marine paints often contained heavy metals as a pigment and a biocide. This website has a pretty horrific list of stuff that you wouldn't want to be eating that has been added to paints in the past. (http://events.nace.org/library/corrosion/seawater/anti-fouling.asp http://events.nace.org/library/corrosion/seawater/anti-fouli...) > Also I think there may be some security concerns here It's amazing how much stuff is 'protected' by scary looking fence and a warning sign and little else. A man hopped over a wall, climbed up a drain pipe and into a window, then walked along a corridor into a bedroom. (and this was in Buckingham Palace. He had a nice chat with the Queen.)