4 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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.