5 ms·

Chemical Weapon Munitions Dumped at Sea: An Interactive Map

46 points by Gracana 12y ago

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Gracana 12y ago
The original article download is a KMZ file but I extracted the KML and loaded into a custom google map so it could be viewed online. Interesting stuff. There are a lot of mustard gas bombs rusting and leaking into the sea. 29 tons* off the coast of Honolulu, for a particularly egregious example. * and a 1500 ton dump nearby. I'm going to stop editing, because I keep finding bigger and bigger ones...
- crxgames 12y ago
  30,000 tons on the east coast of Australia
- BrandonMarc 12y ago
  From an infographic point of view, it might be worthwhile to use different colors or sizes of icons, to indicate the relative size of the munitions dumped compared to the others. Of course, you'd use ranges (0-10, 11-20, etc) and probably a logarithmic scale (0-10, 11-100, 101-1000, etc) ... If you're really motivated, you might incorporate age as well. Well done. I hope this raises awareness. Thanks for posting this!
  - Gracana 12y ago
    That would be a fantastic way to display it, yeah. I imagine it can be done with the google maps API, but that's a lot more effort than it took for me to upload it, haha.
shawnb576 12y ago
nFaithInHumanity--
UserRights 12y ago
I get this when I want to tweet this: This map is not public You must change the permissions from "Private" to "Public on the web" before posting or embedding this map. But this should be shared, a lot!
- Gracana 12y ago
  Whoops, I guess I chose the wrong sharing option. Fixed now.
green7ea 12y ago
That's a pretty cool map. What source material did you use to plot all these points? Edit: nevermind, I answered my own question after finding this link in the map (http://cns.miis.edu/stories/090806_cw_dumping.htm http://cns.miis.edu/stories/090806_cw_dumping.htm)
UserRights 12y ago
hmm, this can not be complete, I have read about places in the middle sea that are heavily toxic but can not find them here. Is there any collaborative review and research process connected to the data represented by this map? If not, it should be created!
Alupis 12y ago
Anyone know why there were dumped into the ocean instead of being destroyed? I'd wager a great deal of the dumped ordinance is still in-tact at the bottom of the ocean, albeit corroded. The plethora of buried mines and other unexploded ordinance still being found from WWI and WWII speak to munitions longevity.
- CapitalistCartr 12y ago
  After WW II dumping into the ocean was seen as destroying it. Our modern understanding of "The Environment" post-dates that time period. In 1950 there were about 2.5 billion people in the World, and that was a big new thing. The petrochemical industry was still in it's youth. Colorful car paints were the new thing. Colorful, synthetic fabrics were just being developed. A lot of our current understanding is the result of our past mistakes. Like lighting rivers on fire.
  - BrandonMarc 12y ago
    Exactly. Consider ... lead paint, everywhere. Leaded gasoline was the norm, EVERYWHERE, with little exception.
    - maaku 12y ago
      Well, that's a different issue, having to do with the also relatively recent understanding that trace amounts of a substance can also be toxic over long intervals.
      - CapitalistCartr 12y ago
        It's exactly the issue. Trace amounts of military weapons in the ocean are probably a bad idea, too. The whole business of environmentalism is post-war. Mostly since Rachael Carson's "Silent Spring".
  - jqm 12y ago
    So... the solution to pollution is dilution?
krylon 12y ago
This is scary. I had no idea how much of that stuff is - basically - just lying around.
BrandonMarc 12y ago
Interesting how nearly all the sites are so darned close to the shore. I'm guessing the conversation goes like this: • "hey, we need to get rid of these, let's do it in that giant body of water nearby" • "okay, whatever, what's the minimum distance we legally have to travel? diesel fuel isn't cheap (and my kids don't swim anyway)" • "___ miles" • "fine. find a spot that isn't near any important* people's view, and I don't care about the rest" Does that about cover it? * i.e. celebrities, journalists, policymakers, rich people ... in other words, those who are influential and likely to care ... not saying I agree with this, just surmising it's probably how the conversation went
- epmos 12y ago
  > Interesting how nearly all the sites are so darned close to the shore. Most of the sites do not have a known location. Or at least, not known to the people producing the map. Click a few markers and you will see lots of "Unknown Location" or "Off $location" which usually means the dumping ship left from that location. It is true that many munitions were dumped close to shore, but there is a certain amount of making the map as scary as possible going on.
- chr15p 12y ago
  The ones around Britain and the North sea look close to shore but mostly seem to be tens of miles out at depths of 1600ft or more (the ones between Denmark and Norway are 2100ft+) so the chances of people kids swimming near them or even pulling them up in fishing nets are pretty much zero. So if its 1946 and you have to dispose of hundreds of thousands of tonnes of chemical weapons sitting around taking them out further seems like a waste of time and resources.
azinman2 12y ago
Mmmmm mustardy seafood.....
refurb 12y ago
There has been work done on the fate of chemical weapons dumped into the ocean, especially mustard gas.[1] Interestingly, many bacteria can feed directly on the hydrolysis products (after the mustard gas reacts with water) and use them as a carbon source. The MGHP-degrading microorganisms identified as Achromobacter sp., Pseudomonas sp., and Arthrobacter sp. were isolated. These microorganisms were capable of utilizing the major product of hydrolysis, thiodiglycol, as the sole source of carbon and energy. The bacteria were capable of metabolizing MGHPs at a low temperature. The metabolic pathway for thiodiglycol degradation was proposed. The results suggest the potential for MGHPs biodegradation by naturally occurring populations of near-bottom-water and sediment microorganisms. [1]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19481794 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19481794
- comrh 12y ago
  According to a little googling [1] mustard gas breaks down in water (although slower in salt water) and doesn't bioconcentrate as well. 1: https://books.google.com/books?id=G8O4KUEyIXAC&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=mustard+gas+salt+water&source=bl&ots=ctfNiPH8Zp&sig=MxBNyqhioW-ulmHaCZC9q-NsN98&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mP-_VPu1IILjsATW_IH4Dg&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=mustard%20gas%20salt%20water&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=G8O4KUEyIXAC&pg=PA35&lpg=P...
rbcgerard 12y ago
This is great and depressing at the same time... For those of you that don't realize it there is a tremendous amount of dumped ordinance close to shore - zoom around this chart and you'll find a lot http://www.nauticalchartsonline.com/chart/zoom?chart=12300 http://www.nauticalchartsonline.com/chart/zoom?chart=12300
jqm 12y ago
Can these be retrieved and used or are they deep enough (hopefully) that retrieval is impractical? Horrible either way. Not just pollution, not just the nasty purpose in the first place... but the waste. Just imagine the good that could have taken place with the resources used to create and dispose of the weapons in the first place. As far as I can see, humanity has two choices. Either leave off the tribal feuds and find a better way, or else go back to using bows and spears to solve conflicts.
- maaku 12y ago
  Given how corroded they probably, you are more likely to release contimants from the cleanup than letting it sit on the bottom. It might be possible to an environmental seal, however.
filvdg 12y ago
The dumpsite in front of the belgian coast is at the wrong location , it should be at the right side of the port of zeebrugge http://www.wereldoorlog1418.nl/gasoorlog/paardenmarkt.html http://www.wereldoorlog1418.nl/gasoorlog/paardenmarkt.html it is a well documented dump site that is tested in regular intervals, no concentrations of pollution is detected in the water up until now .... it has been discussed to clean up the place but the risks are too high ...
stefantalpalaru 12y ago
It's missing some WW2 data like the huge contamination in the port of Bari with mustard gas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raid_on_Bari http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raid_on_Bari
xpda 12y ago
Wow! There are five times as many dumps if you zoom out. That's an interesting way to implement map panning.

46 points by Gracana 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

The original article download is a KMZ file but I extracted the KML and loaded into a custom google map so it could be viewed online. Interesting stuff. There are a lot of mustard gas bombs rusting and leaking into the sea. 29 tons* off the coast of Honolulu, for a particularly egregious example. * and a 1500 ton dump nearby. I'm going to stop editing, because I keep finding bigger and bigger ones...

crxgames 12y ago
30,000 tons on the east coast of Australia
BrandonMarc 12y ago
From an infographic point of view, it might be worthwhile to use different colors or sizes of icons, to indicate the relative size of the munitions dumped compared to the others. Of course, you'd use ranges (0-10, 11-20, etc) and probably a logarithmic scale (0-10, 11-100, 101-1000, etc) ... If you're really motivated, you might incorporate age as well. Well done. I hope this raises awareness. Thanks for posting this!
- Gracana 12y ago
  That would be a fantastic way to display it, yeah. I imagine it can be done with the google maps API, but that's a lot more effort than it took for me to upload it, haha.

shawnb576 12y ago

nFaithInHumanity--

UserRights 12y ago

I get this when I want to tweet this: This map is not public You must change the permissions from "Private" to "Public on the web" before posting or embedding this map. But this should be shared, a lot!

Gracana 12y ago
Whoops, I guess I chose the wrong sharing option. Fixed now.

green7ea 12y ago

That's a pretty cool map. What source material did you use to plot all these points? Edit: nevermind, I answered my own question after finding this link in the map (http://cns.miis.edu/stories/090806_cw_dumping.htm http://cns.miis.edu/stories/090806_cw_dumping.htm)

UserRights 12y ago

hmm, this can not be complete, I have read about places in the middle sea that are heavily toxic but can not find them here. Is there any collaborative review and research process connected to the data represented by this map? If not, it should be created!

Alupis 12y ago

Anyone know why there were dumped into the ocean instead of being destroyed? I'd wager a great deal of the dumped ordinance is still in-tact at the bottom of the ocean, albeit corroded. The plethora of buried mines and other unexploded ordinance still being found from WWI and WWII speak to munitions longevity.

CapitalistCartr 12y ago
After WW II dumping into the ocean was seen as destroying it. Our modern understanding of "The Environment" post-dates that time period. In 1950 there were about 2.5 billion people in the World, and that was a big new thing. The petrochemical industry was still in it's youth. Colorful car paints were the new thing. Colorful, synthetic fabrics were just being developed. A lot of our current understanding is the result of our past mistakes. Like lighting rivers on fire.
- BrandonMarc 12y ago
  Exactly. Consider ... lead paint, everywhere. Leaded gasoline was the norm, EVERYWHERE, with little exception.
  - maaku 12y ago
    Well, that's a different issue, having to do with the also relatively recent understanding that trace amounts of a substance can also be toxic over long intervals.
    - CapitalistCartr 12y ago
      It's exactly the issue. Trace amounts of military weapons in the ocean are probably a bad idea, too. The whole business of environmentalism is post-war. Mostly since Rachael Carson's "Silent Spring".
- jqm 12y ago
  So... the solution to pollution is dilution?

krylon 12y ago

This is scary. I had no idea how much of that stuff is - basically - just lying around.

BrandonMarc 12y ago

Interesting how nearly all the sites are so darned close to the shore. I'm guessing the conversation goes like this: • "hey, we need to get rid of these, let's do it in that giant body of water nearby" • "okay, whatever, what's the minimum distance we legally have to travel? diesel fuel isn't cheap (and my kids don't swim anyway)" • "___ miles" • "fine. find a spot that isn't near any important* people's view, and I don't care about the rest" Does that about cover it? * i.e. celebrities, journalists, policymakers, rich people ... in other words, those who are influential and likely to care ... not saying I agree with this, just surmising it's probably how the conversation went

epmos 12y ago
> Interesting how nearly all the sites are so darned close to the shore. Most of the sites do not have a known location. Or at least, not known to the people producing the map. Click a few markers and you will see lots of "Unknown Location" or "Off $location" which usually means the dumping ship left from that location. It is true that many munitions were dumped close to shore, but there is a certain amount of making the map as scary as possible going on.
chr15p 12y ago
The ones around Britain and the North sea look close to shore but mostly seem to be tens of miles out at depths of 1600ft or more (the ones between Denmark and Norway are 2100ft+) so the chances of people kids swimming near them or even pulling them up in fishing nets are pretty much zero. So if its 1946 and you have to dispose of hundreds of thousands of tonnes of chemical weapons sitting around taking them out further seems like a waste of time and resources.

azinman2 12y ago

Mmmmm mustardy seafood.....

refurb 12y ago

There has been work done on the fate of chemical weapons dumped into the ocean, especially mustard gas.[1] Interestingly, many bacteria can feed directly on the hydrolysis products (after the mustard gas reacts with water) and use them as a carbon source. The MGHP-degrading microorganisms identified as Achromobacter sp., Pseudomonas sp., and Arthrobacter sp. were isolated. These microorganisms were capable of utilizing the major product of hydrolysis, thiodiglycol, as the sole source of carbon and energy. The bacteria were capable of metabolizing MGHPs at a low temperature. The metabolic pathway for thiodiglycol degradation was proposed. The results suggest the potential for MGHPs biodegradation by naturally occurring populations of near-bottom-water and sediment microorganisms. [1]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19481794 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19481794

comrh 12y ago
According to a little googling [1] mustard gas breaks down in water (although slower in salt water) and doesn't bioconcentrate as well. 1: https://books.google.com/books?id=G8O4KUEyIXAC&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=mustard+gas+salt+water&source=bl&ots=ctfNiPH8Zp&sig=MxBNyqhioW-ulmHaCZC9q-NsN98&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mP-_VPu1IILjsATW_IH4Dg&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=mustard%20gas%20salt%20water&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=G8O4KUEyIXAC&pg=PA35&lpg=P...

rbcgerard 12y ago

This is great and depressing at the same time... For those of you that don't realize it there is a tremendous amount of dumped ordinance close to shore - zoom around this chart and you'll find a lot http://www.nauticalchartsonline.com/chart/zoom?chart=12300 http://www.nauticalchartsonline.com/chart/zoom?chart=12300

jqm 12y ago

Can these be retrieved and used or are they deep enough (hopefully) that retrieval is impractical? Horrible either way. Not just pollution, not just the nasty purpose in the first place... but the waste. Just imagine the good that could have taken place with the resources used to create and dispose of the weapons in the first place. As far as I can see, humanity has two choices. Either leave off the tribal feuds and find a better way, or else go back to using bows and spears to solve conflicts.

maaku 12y ago
Given how corroded they probably, you are more likely to release contimants from the cleanup than letting it sit on the bottom. It might be possible to an environmental seal, however.

filvdg 12y ago

The dumpsite in front of the belgian coast is at the wrong location , it should be at the right side of the port of zeebrugge http://www.wereldoorlog1418.nl/gasoorlog/paardenmarkt.html http://www.wereldoorlog1418.nl/gasoorlog/paardenmarkt.html it is a well documented dump site that is tested in regular intervals, no concentrations of pollution is detected in the water up until now .... it has been discussed to clean up the place but the risks are too high ...

stefantalpalaru 12y ago

It's missing some WW2 data like the huge contamination in the port of Bari with mustard gas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raid_on_Bari http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raid_on_Bari

xpda 12y ago

Wow! There are five times as many dumps if you zoom out. That's an interesting way to implement map panning.