That would be entirely possible - which maritime salvage company would be willing to do that for free?

The owner (or the insurer, if it was insured) have determined that the various alternatives are too expensive. The claim for total loss has probably been paid already. If the owner is still interested in squid fishing, a replacement ship has been purchased. So the ship is not worth the cost of towing to Japan for repair or scrapping, or towing to North America for repair or scrapping.

If any private party with proper resources would come forward with a plan to claim the hulk and immediately take charge of it, that would solve the problem. But it is worthless (actually less than worthless - salvage would be dangerous and more expensive than any value received.)

With all the money and resources our federal government wastes for corporate profits, cost isn't and shouldn't be part of the argument.

Ditto...........

The Coast Guard claims this derelict is a navigation hazard, strange that it floated thousands of miles across the Pacific and nobody saw it until it was ~200 miles of the West Coast of Canada. Most ships today generally have operational Radar so I expect they should see it unless asleep at the helm. If they wait awhile it will drift close enough on its own and they won't have far to tow it.

It is in an active shipping lane, and these ships don't just turn on a dime. Have you ever actually used a marine radar? It is not as simple as just seeing a blip on the screen and saying "hey I bet that is a derelict tsunami ship from Japan sitting smack in the middle of the shipping lane, we better start turning so we can get out of the way," in the middle of the night with no visibility. That is like saying a broken down truck in the middle of a busy highway is not a problem because people have eyes.

I just love how everyone is an expert at everything on the internet, and even the most complex things in the world, such as renewable energy, world peace, and social justice, are supposedly as easy as a few short keystrokes. Must be a nice dream world to live in.

Hmmm, radar is used to avoid collisions not indiscriminately to investigate why a blip shows up. Also radar is fundamentally a "line of site" aid.

To others, 2100 gallons of marine diesel probably costs an average of $6/gallon so the value of the onboard fuel would be $12,600 assuming it hasn't been contaminated with seawater. No wonder why no salvage company is interested. You all think that an open sea salvage operation is like calling the local tow service to pull you vehicle out of a ditch.

Yepper superskunk, let's just add to our public debt. A little here, a little there. Before you know we will be talking about real money.

So Rontron, since nobody hit it, it's not a navigational hazard? While most large boats are going to have radar.... many smaller vessels don't.

Does anyone posting on here have any experience with marine navigation, at all? If you see a blip of this size on radar, it could be anything a fishing or pleasure boat not responding on radio, in certain sea conditions it might be questionable whether that husk would even show up consistantly on radar, at least at any range. You can set marine radar to not even scan at sea level, but rather to look for storm formations, and thus it wouldn't even pick it up (most ships of any size have several radars all set to look for different things). Also, all commerical ships are required to be tracked under international maritime law, so any ship under power in working condition is fully visible of the ship's chart plotter without radar, so they wouldn't be neccesaily looking for another ship on radar of that size under normal conditions. And once again, you can't just stop or turn a large ship like this on a dime. Have any of you ever been in a shipping chanel? You can sit near one fishing for a few hours and have a dozen frieght and oil tankers pass you, and they do not have the capability to make quick manuvering at full crusing speed. But yes, most of the time one would expect that they would see the object on radar, with sufficent lead time, and course correct to avoid it. The concern is in foul weather, due to human error, or insufficent time to make an adjustment, a REAL disaster could happen.

Also, fuel has a shelf life, after floating in the full conditions of the open ocean for over a year it has likely started to degrade and wouldn't even be worth anything close to "street" value. There is no economic reason to get it, and the environmental risk it poses as a navigation hazard is far more than the minor danger of 2,000 gallons of fuel leaking out of a boat in the middle of the ocean.

american, I won't get into the falsehoods of the economy that were force fed.

There would be no need to add to any debt, I could get the US out of debt in 10 years, but I digress.

If we just didn't make one missle, one tank, or one bomber today I'm sure that could cover the cost of the salvage mission and then some.

Well we did not build a tank today so we are good.

If the Coast Guard would fine a merchant vessel for dumping 2100+ gallons of diesel into the ocean than they should abide be their own rules and not allowed the diesel to be dumped. They should have off-loaded it before sinking.

Good point Obama, a failed experiment !

I see everyone has forgotten the explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. The oceans are huge, and oil is a natural substance. The only bad effect of the "disaster" in the gulf was financial.

Why can the ship be scrapped and recycled? Sending it to the bottom of the ocean
just adds to the junk that’s already polluting the waters, killing fish and
plant life in the ocean.

It sure would be nice if people read the article before they started spouting off. It CLEARLY states the ship was in the process of being salvaged when the tsunami hit. The first thing they remove is fuel and hazardous materials for salvage. Most likely there is little if any contaminants on board. It is a hazard now floating without lights. SINK IT!!!!!!

In a perfect world

One reason the boat was sunk without boarding and evaluating is most likely due to the fact that the ship was too "hot" after being contaminated with radiation while in and near Japan, from the ongoing Fukushima nuclear reactor explosions and subsequent melt-downs and melt-throughs.

Coast Guard doesn't salvage derelict vessels. They're a first responder organization and the safety of the ship's crew takes priority over a rusted piece of junk. Not to mention if they catch your vessel trafficking narcotics they will do the same thing.

But that didn't stop the Bernice C from trying to make some money off the rusty vessel.

A salvage companied tried to tow the 'ghost ship' in to salvage but they we unable. How much fuel would it take to tow such a ship in to dock? Perhaps an EIR should be done but who wants to waste thousands of pages of paper?

Just sink the SOB and be done with it.

Just what is so dangerous about putting a salvage crew on that ship, tow it to a dock, drain the fuel out, THEN sink the thing as a habitat reef?

Except for perhaps sinking the ship as a reef, everything that you mentioned carries risks and costs. The CG isn't a salvage operation and the only salvage company that approached the ship wasn't capable. I don't understand this hysteria over 2100 gallons of fuel. In the vastness of the oceans, that is nothing. It will dissipate. Sending out another salvage vessel would consume far more fuel and result in far more pollution than sending this ship to the bottom where it wil slowly rust away.

Why not have scrapped it to cover the towing cost to shore, anything would have been better then the inevitable marine life kill now taking place.

KatGirl, I don't think you're really grasping how insubstantial that amount of fuel is. It is unlikely any marine life was affected aside from the barnacles on the hull.

KatGirl1977

Not to worry too much about the hydrocarbons. The radioactivity on the decks and equipment will do much more damage to the biosphere than a few hundred gallons of diesel fuel.

Think about all the tonnage that was sunk in WW2...pacific and atlantic! Lots of fuel dumped then....we still have plenty of fish in the sea!

lokay5... There is no radioactivity on the ship. The meltdown occurred well after the tsunami, remember?

"there is no radioactivity on the ship"

And you know that how?

Radiation alarms at reactor 1 were sounding immediately following the earthquake. The radioactive plume from the multiple meltdowns and Spent Fuel Pool fires traveled eastward from Fuku. The ship was found east of Japan carried by the same winds that carried the radioactivity to the west coast of the United States.

Why the heck would a ship slated to be salvaged be loaded with any fuel at all? It seems to me quite a few people didn't read the article

@mathuin - Great idea! I think the Kalakala ferry in washington is still looking for a good home ;) Would probably make a better and bigger guest house! :)

It's 200 miles offshore... it's not "our waters", it's international waters.

Sarcasm I hope Chris ?!?!?

Even if your narrow minded enough to actually not care about the environment globally that the human race continually destoys, "our waters" tie into international waters. Or do you think there's some magical barrier that keeps "our waters" exclusively in US territory ?

Chris-

...it's not "our waters", it's international waters.

It's already in US waters, according to the story above.

... the Ryou-un Maru, which entered U.S. waters on April 1....

All those tankers, freighters and warships sunk during WWl and WWll, and what has been the environmental impact of that? I wonder how many vessels are lost at sea every year and the thousands of gallons of fuel lost are?

Tell you what folks, if it is so important to you all, why don't you gather your nickles, dimes and quarters together and rent a salvage ship and crew to go get it?

and what has been the environmental impact of that?

Tell us and we will all know. You don't know if there was any impact or not. Just because no one was really concerned about fuel in the ocean 70 years ago, doesn't mean there wasn't any damage done.

Seeing that the EPA wasn't created until nearly 30 years after WWII, your point seems moot. Hell, we were detonating atomic weapons in the ocean back then. Do you think there wasn't any impact associated with that as well?

It's rather hard to do an environmental impact study when the agency that would have done it, would still need nearly 30 years to be realised. As for ships that have sunk since the advent of the EPA, they would need to know the exact location of the sunken ship, water current speeds and direction and hope they can find the contaminates, which of course we all know is like finding a needle in a hay stack.

Just because something can't be found, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You ask questions that can not be answered.

Our waters? And who do you mean by THEIRS? Japan? This is not garbage, do you realizes it costs big money to obtain salvaged ships to sink for making reefs, this is a free gift for this area. In the long run it will improve the sea life with a man made reef over the next couple hundred years.

While we're polluting our own waters with our own pollution. Yup, "nothing new here".

Chris:

Once you saw that heap up close, you wouldn't want it. It would be one foolish idea!

Maybe he has been compensated for it maybe not. It is/was his livelihood, at least tender the offer.

He's probably dead.

By the Border

The owner doesn't want it. Not worth to salvage. No one knows its mechanical stability. All in the article.

Or maybe read the article where it says the owner dosen't want it.

It would probably cost more to salvage the thing than to build a brand new boat.

Cost vs benefit, they've decided the cost is higher.

The cost of dumping 2100 gallons of diesel fuel into the ocean is higher than any monetary value ! How many species will die due to this ? How many species will be placed closer to extinction ?

The cost of dumping 2100 gallons of diesel fuel into the ocean is higher than any monetary value ! How many species will die due to this ? How many species will be placed closer to extinction ?

No 'species' will die due to 2100 gallons being dumped in the water.

FYI, Humanity actually has very little to do with most of the extinctions that occur on the planet.

Where is Green Peace when you need them the most?

You typing "no species" will die due to 2100 gallons of diesel fuel being dumped in the water, isn't really enough evidence to convince me.

If you were forced to drink a few gallons of diesel fuel without medical treatment, would you be fine ?!?!?

FYI, humanity does play a large factor in extinction of species in todays world. Poaching and deforestation are HUGE contributors, is that not caused by humans ?

FYI, if all the insects were wiped off the planet today, the human race would cease to exist in roughly 100 years or less.

FYI, if all the human race was wiped off the planet today, mother nature would FLOURISH in no time !

We're (myself included, but I'm working on changing me) are destructive, gluttonous, wasteful, greedy beings that are heading towards self destruction.

@Superskunk

Think about this logically instead of flying off the seat of your pants.

The ocean is, by best guess, around 310,000,000 cubic miles of ocean. That's over 340,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water.

So, 2100 divided by 340,000,000,000,000,000,000 is... not enough to make anything extinct.

That's 340 ba-zillion for all you non math majors :)

If Some Guy-5289621 were to drink diesel fuel without medical attention, he may die, but the human species would be okay. So as Some Guy-5289621 states, no species will die from this.

The 2100 gallons is almost nothing, considering how many millions of barrels of oil leaked into the gulf of mexico, from their leak. How much gas is leaking into the North Sea from their leak? To be throwing fits over this small amount is absurd.

I don't think anyone should step foot on that ship. Look at how much rust is covering the entire deck and sides. A person would go to get on it and fall through the floor, not to mention trying to get fuel lines up there and into the fuel hold.

Agreed on all points, but the point I was attempting to make was that we're not talking about the entire ocean. Sure it may spread out over time, but we're talking 2100 gallons in a small area where this boat goes down.

It is going to kill life in the ocean, which will eventually add up, and have an effect on the human race.

I wouldn't be speaking up about this if it was just a one time thing, but we constantly destroy and say silly things like "It won't make a big deal, it's only 2100 gallons.", but this isn't the first, second, or third time we've dumped crap into the ocean. It adds up, but we'll forget about that once the new episode of American Idol or some dumb Kardashian show comes on.

We're oblivious to the destruction our government imposes on the world, let alone the global destruction of our Mother Earth.

Why not scap the boat? It would be a good project at the right port and would create essential jobs. I would imagine a boat that size would have to bring in a couple million $ in scrap not to mention the engines, and equipment, electronics. Turn the 2100 gals of fuel into offroad and sell it there in Alaska. Idk sounds like they are just too lazy and would make it too much bureaucracy

Read the article, it's not worth the effort, if the owner doesn't want it, then their is probably a reason for it. I hope for an awesome youtube video out of it...

Yes, we're talking about 2100 gallons (if that is even true) in 21 trillion gallons. That will increase the amount of oil (and this is diesel, not crude oil, you morons) in the ocean by .00000000001%. Damn, we're all dead.

aarrgghh me hearty"s. scuttle the bitch and we"ll commandeer us a new wench ! !

Tiny, if it would bring 2 million to scrap, somebody would have already thrown a line on it. Superskunk, the ocean is not a still-water pond. Whatever is leaked out of this vessel will be dissipated almost immediately. I would bet that if it was discharged all at once, you could find no trace of it in 72 hours. You think like chicken little.....

One reason the boat was sunk without boarding and evaluating is most likely due to the fact that the ship was too "hot" after being contaminated with radiation while in and near Japan, from the ongoing Fukushima nuclear reactor explosions and subsequent melt-downs and melt-throughs.

lokay5, you keep bringing up radioactivity. This ship was no where near the power plant in japan. It washed out to sea before the plant had problems. Get your facts straight and get a life. That goes for all you bunny hugging enviro-terrorist. Think with your heads, not your hearts.

Radiation alarms began sounding at Reactor 1 at Fukushima Dai Ichi immediately following the earthquake and BEFORE the tsunami struck.

The plume of radioactivity from the following reactor explosions and spent fuel pool fires was blown eastward. The ship was drifting east of Japan blown by the same radioactivity laden winds. Radioactivity from Fukushima has been detected across the entire United States.

For more information on the ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan go to enenews.com

BTW I have a life. And a good one at that. Good luck with yours.

The ship would not be too radioactive to board even if it had radiation levels that were the same as the plant site. The concern in the evacuation area in Japan is that 24 hour a day exposure over a long time period may increase the risk of cancer (based on studies of previous exposures this risk causing the evacuation is for an increased cancer rate of less than a 1%).

The danger in salvage, is it is dangerous to board from ship to ship, the waters of the Gulf of Alaska are cold and the risk of hypthermia is high for any salvage crew member who may fall overboard during such an endevor.

Weather conditions that often in GOA could make towing very dangerous (50 foot waves are common there). The towing rope could break and the ship could again become a navigation hazard. Then the salvage company may have libility.

The Coast Guard did the right thing.

At Superskunk: Learn about ocean currents, and realize that 2100 gallons of fuel (where the heck did you even get such a ridiculous number?) is such a small amount that the fish will probably go "Meh" when they drink it.

If it weren't for the fact that crude oil has been seeping into oceans for millions of years, long before man existed, and that sea life evolved in that habitat along with the oil, I'd be concerned too. In fact there are bacteria that evolved to ingest oil in the sea environment. Mother nature has a way of cleansing herself.

We have far more serious flaws in what we do to the environment than the sinking of this ship. Mother nature can heal herself, and will once we are gone, we just pollute faster than the natural processes can keep up with. I'm more broken up about the sonic and sonar devices being used to find undersea oil that are killing all sorts of marine mammals. We will pay the price for our neglectful and careless ways...Karma is a bitch.

It isn't about what we are doing to the environment, it is about what we are doing that will eventually come back and bite us all in the arse. We are putting a gun to our species head thousands of different ways and we just can't seem to figure out how to uncock the gun.

Yeah, Japan should pay for that tsunami they caused! (sarc. of course)

If it weren't for the fact that crude oil has been seeping into oceans for millions of years, long before man existed, and that sea life evolved in that habitat along with the oil, I'd be concerned too.

Your point?

Point me in the direction of all those diesel fuel deposits seeping up from the ocean floor. The planet has had billions of years to adapt to oil seepage. Not so for diesel fuel spills.

While the amount is quite small, there is no doubt that any local life will be affected. Worse case, some life dies. Probable case, the local life relocates away from the sunken ship until the fuels drifts off to affect another area of the water.

The EPA wants to fine a gas station for a few gallons spill, but this is somehow OK?

If the vessel was already in the 'boneyard' waiting to be scrapped all of the good stuff was most likely removed long before it became flotsam. Electronics, and anything else of value that could have been removed without cutting holes in the decks would not be on board. That the vessel is floating so high in the water bears out that the existence of anything of value onboard is not likely.

The amount of rust indicates that there is a hazardous condition below decks as the chemical reaction resulting in rust removes oxygen from the air. This is one reason why people working below decks on barges and vessels of this nature set up blowers with flexible ducting to provide breathable air. Many people in shipyards have died from exactly this type of situation. The rust displayed on the deck surfaces would tend to cast doubts on the structural intregity of this vessel and its ability to anything more than behave like a bobbing cork. Taking it under tow would be a very risky proposition as a result, and towing would be impractical if fixing the rudder in the amidships position was not possible.

The strain of placing this vessel in tow with a tug capable of performing the task would most likely be the straw that breaks the camel's back with the hull materials incapable of withstanding the physical strain. There's a great difference between bobbing like a cork and acting like a boat and finding out that contrast is a very dangerous proposition especially with 200 miles of northern ocean to traverse. Take this with a grain of salt from an old Coastie and retired member of the Piledrivers Union, if there were anything to warrant salvage there would be a fleet of scavengers clamoring for the opportunity.

Peace, out.

ski55,

So are you volunteering to board the vessel?

Insertion by rope from helicopter? Look at all those antennae, jibs and booms to foul on. And any canvas area is suspect on not having deck below it. Insert via assault ladder from zodiac boat? Same issues as helicopter insertion. Oh don't forget that even a calm sea can have 7-10' swells.

Once aboard, you discover dead sea fowl, rotting food, spilled liquids (unknown) and structural damage. Even so, you recover 2100 gallons of OLD fuel oil (already started to degrade) which will require filtering and reprocessing. (So it is only worth $1-2 per gallon, unless you want to do $1000's of damage to pumps and injectors for poorly performing fuel.) And how much will you spend, and how much will you risk.

If you want to challenge me to drink the pollution, let's put it into perspective. About the same as swimming in a small private pool while wearing sun-block. Or swirling a cotton swab dipped into fuel oil in a liter of water. And no, the oil will not remain as a contiguous poison blob, but will be broken up by currents, tides and wave action.

What bs, the CG can practice boarding the ship from a zodiac, they do it everyday on merchant ships all over u.s. ports anyway. Would be dicey from a helo though, too many masts and wires sticking up. When the navy sinks old ships they have to clean them up and get rid of all the fuel and other toxic stuff before they do their target practice and sink it, (EPA regs). I would think the Coast Guard would do the same thing since they are suppose to be so environmentally aware, but i guess not. Remember the Coast guard in the Bp cleanup. They want to be wanna be navy and actually have a chance to use there little guns and dream about being real blue water sailors. They should tow the ship into the nearest port and auction it off or clean it up and then use it for practice. Btw u.s. territorial waters are around 13 miles offshore but the economic zone goes out around 200 miles if i remember right. Retired Navy

Bill Marvell,

Fuel oil should be removed prior to scuttle and no, it does not degrade. Yes, I would board her in a minute. Not everyone has spent their life working in an office Bill, time to go paint your nails.

the coast guard is well able to board any vehicle by helicopter, and they do it constantly. Fuel oil, like gasoline and most other refined fuels DOES DEGRADE (ski55) to the point it can not be safely used for fuel because it will cause damage to expensive motors. It also increases in toxicity. Nobody will be safe from it without haz-mat gear, and once "reclaimed" it still has to be disposed of safely.

Crude oil is like pudding, and refined diesel is lighter than water. By two weeks from now the majority of the chemical components will be totally gone.

Insertion by rope from helicopter?

I have fond memories of Air Assault training.

It was an honor to be called a dope on a rope.

Repelling from a helicoptor is a perfected skill. Boarding this vessel would have been very easy.

Skii55

Fuel oil should be removed prior to scuttle and no, it does not degrade.

Your dead wrong on both counts. I think you need to go take some biology classes, diesel fuel naturally breaks down, in fact quite quickly in salt water. Want proof, read the environmental reports on the Gulf spill a year after. The oceans already have natural scrubbers that dissolve petroleum products. This process seemed to evolved naturally to dissolve the millions of gallons that seep into the oceans daily from the sea floor.

Dope on a rope...interesting, all these years I've always thought it to be called RAPPELING; maybe that's why the CG called the vessel a hazard to navigation and took appropriate action to eliminate it thereby REPELLING it from the surface of the ocean.

Steve the dog man

"By two weeks from now the majority of the chemical components will be totally gone."

Really? "Gone"? To where, exactly?

Ski,

If you have a magical way of keeping the fuel from degrading please share...I'll be a billionaire overnight!

As for the other experts on this post...tooo funny!

As for the REAL experts out there DOING the job...thanks for your service "guys"!

PAUL 1820470 !!

Be careful; Washington is considering re-furbishing this boat for the President's next summer home.

The US had better sink it fast before the Canadian Government gets any ideas. Similar to the first Gulf War they will drag it to port, place a few cannons on it from a museum and call it the HMS Liberal, our new Battle Cruiser. (we don't build new ships, we refurbish garbage)

That would be HMCS Liberal

Oh ! I keep forgetting that the ocean magically consumes large amounts of diesel fuel AND asbestos ! No danger in dumping diesel and asbestos in the ocean, but too expensive to dispose of properly.

Ugh, the human race is doomed.

No danger in dumping diesel and asbestos in the ocean, but too expensive to dispose of properly.

Ummm...where did you hear that any asbestos was aboard this ship? Because I don't see it mentioned in the story. It also seems unlikely you'd be able to breathe in asbestos dust after it's been in seawater, [it's only dangerous if airborne].

I agree that dumping the diesel is unfortunate, but 2100 gallons is not a major amount, much will be likely to evaporate at the surface; it's not good but not nearly as bad as an equivalent spill of heavy raw oil that would clump together as tarballs.

Boarding a ship at sea is dangerous work, this isn't Hollywood. They can't lower anyone by helicopter because of all the tall obstructions, there's nowhere safe to put them. There also isn't a safe way to climb aboard from a small boat, at sea, in dangerously frigid water, and attach a line for towing.

Are you really so ready to risk someone else's life under these particular circumstances?

I was being sarcastic about the asbestos, and running with essie222's post. I didn't say, nor do I believe there's asbestos on the ship.

All I have to say to your post is, if our government can waste thousands of American lives for their global occupation, and average about $400 BILLION dollars annually since 9/11 on that global occupation, they can eat the cost to salvage this ship.

Actually could have asbestos for certain areas: engine exhaust, cabin heaters, steam generator and hot water heater, steam or hot water lines. Keep in mind that this was a fishing boat that would have required some facilities for wash-down and sterilization of some areas, plus crew comforts (shower and toilet). Hard to gauge the real age of the ship, since the design has change little since before WWII.

Supersunk is one of those enviornmental hippies who cares less about the human life involved, and more about a few trees. I personally don't see how it's "wasting lives" to help the rest of humanity enjoy the freedoms we so use... Then again I'm a humanitarian, not a hippy.

LOL, not quite malith102, not quite.

I care equally about humanity and ALL life from a few trees to an entire forest.

Nothing our military has done since maybe WW2 has been about freedom or humanity.

If humans were gone nature would flourish, if nature was gone humans wouldn't last long at all. I worry about these things because those few trees matter, and have an impact on humanity.

How much longer can we say things like "It's only a few trees.", "It's only a few gallons of oil, or diesel fuel.", "It's only a few bees." before we're wondering how we're going to survive with no trees, no marine life, or no bees ?

That doesn't make me a hippie, it makes me a realist.

SS 12.3-

All I have to say to your post is, if our government can waste...

That's setting up a false equivalent. Your 'if- then' premise simply justifies wasting human life by saying 'the guv'ment did worse elsewhere'. I'm fairly sure the family and friends of the Coastie who's life was risked [or lost] wouldn't see eye to eye with that thought.

Japanese whalers might though. Heck, they can use that same twisted logic to justify slaughtering 'only a few more whales'... s/ What's a few more anyway, right? Good job promoting their efforts! /s

How much longer can we say things like "It's only a few...

I agree with the basic preservational ethics of this, but if you're drawing the line at 'any release of any fuel ever', then you're again creating false equivalents by rating all situations, and all risk, and all harmful effects...as equal. They aren't.

BTW- the Coast Guard is not military. They're under DHS, not DoD, with primarly law enforcement and SAR duties, not warfare. The monitoring and enforcement of pollution regulations are part of their duties, the same as dealing with a 'hazard to nagvigation'.

Bill Marvell is right, it's conceivable that there's asbestos on the ship, depending on where and when it was built. But once immersed asbestos isn't breathable, and the question becomes moot...unless a vessel carrying it is towed back to port where salvagers could be exposed to it.

Everything is natural. We do nothing but move stuff around. If stuff gets into the wrong place and creates a problem, well, too bad. Mother nature will fix all when we are gone. The wars caused by overpopulation and/or disease will reduce our presence enough to help matters and if not, the natural world will recover when we are gone. I intend to counter all of your over zealous suggestions other than recycling with eager consumption.

First it will be a training exercise. Secondly it will be cheaper than some half a** attempt to defuel it at sea. Safer also!

Agreed, all around. Bet some WWII vets could teach the gunnery crew on the Coast Guard ship a few things.

If our government can spend $585 BILLION more dollars than China on military in 2011, they can afford to tow and dispose of this ship properly.

Put a big "FREE" sign on it and some dope will claim possession of it.

Hi ewqusnret;

You might want to read my earlier comment chief!!

Funny!!!!

jupmod,

Don't discourage the ignorant with facts. Sitting in front of a computer in the basement gives one instant knowledge of the entire world and the solution to all it's problems. They'll tell you that money should not enter into the equation unless it means getting it from the "evil rich". The ship could be taken care of in a loving, caring fashion with no money spent and give everyone warm fuzzies that the environment has once again been protected. I have no idea how that works.

Superskunk,

Please do not give our government any ideas on how to piss away any more of our tax money than they already do.

I am in the Navy, and I have personally been a part of an open ocean tow 100 miles away from the coast. The amount of time and money involved in training and preparing to tow an active-duty, sea-worthy vessel is extraordinary, and more than a little dangerous. I can't imagine the money or risk involved with boarding and towing a derelict vessel that floated ~4000 miles across the open ocean; it was the right choice to sink it.

And to respond to a few of the comments I have read here:

1-Diesel fuel does break down, and quite fast when exposed to seawater.

2-Asbestos is a naturally-occurring mineral, and represents no danger to any form of life unless breathed into lungs.

3-2100 gallons of diesel fuel is insignificant in terms of open ocean volume and legitimate use. A naval vessel will use that much fuel in less than a week.

no way Jose!!

and how many coast guard sailors would you be willing to risk to pump this unknown amount of oil out of this ship and where are they going to pump it to? The coast guard sailors risk their lives on a frequent basis to save people, not salvage derelict ships. As several others have mentioned, there are salvage companies in every port. Apparently, they are unwilling or unable to salvage this ship.

Assumptions made by miseducated posters about other people they know nothing abouts living conditions should do themselves a favor by not showing their ignorance in general in a public place.

Now that I got that out of the way, please point to a post on here that says anything negative about the Coast Guard ?!?!?

Agree. Having been in the NAvy for 10 years and watched Coast Guard Law Enforcement Dets board ships that were under power and control and they still had difficulty at times. Now lets throw on some sort of attempt at defueling at sea, which I've never heard of being done, and what we have is a recipe for disaster. So then all these basement posters will be calling for the Coast Guards collective head when something goes wrong. Brilliant idea.

"If our government can spend $585 BILLION more dollars than China on military in 2011, they can afford to tow and dispose of this ship properly."

My post was referring to unknowledgable posts such as the one above. If the Coast Guard states it is not safe to put anyone aboard or tow the vessel to port then I believe them. Sorry my post went over you head. I'll attempt to make my comments simpler for folks like you.

Please Codger, your gross and irresponsible assumptions are evidence of your lack of simple logic or intellect. I called you on it in your first post, which obviously went over YOUR head, and then you blindly do it again in this post by labeling me simple, when you know nothing about me.

I didn't ask the Coast Guard to put anyone on board, the story doesn't say anything about the dangers of towing it. And if the Coast Guard can't do it, don't tell me the Navy can't.

My post was quite knowledgeable, the American federal government and The Federal Reserve wasted over $700 BILLION of OUR money on military in 2011, #1 in the world. China, #2 in the world, spent about $115 billion in 2011, doubled in the last few years in response to America's global occupation.

Not ONE of my posts said anything negative or derogatory about the Coast Guard. If you want to say that I said something negative about our federal government, I'd totally agree, they're crooks and terrorists.

But nothing bad was typed by me about the Coast Guard, you may want to get your eyesight checked and your dementia meds increased my friend if that's what you took from any of my posts.

Superskunk,

You want me to point out a post that refers to negatively about the Coast Guard (Please note I am not referring specifically to your posts, but you made a pretty open ended statement which I am challenging.). Well, I don't have to look very far. Everyone that states how easy it is to tow the large boat in to shore, talks about sending a crew on board to transfer fuel off of the vessel, or just letting the vessel continue to drift is criticizing a decision that the Coast Guard has had to make. The options of towing the boat to shore and getting the fuel transferred off the boat both involve getting a crew transferred to the stranded vessel. Reading all of the comments posted by the seafaring community on this site, I am sure that most of you think that is some easy task. You have never done that so please don't question the Coast Guard's decision not to put people on the vessel. If the Coast Guard were to do nothing, the vessel is a hazard to other boats in a major shipping lane. What would all of you people think if this vessel caused another (possibly larger ship) to sink? Although polluting the ocean with 2000 gallons of diesel fuel is bad, it is not the end of the world. I think that there is quite a bit of water to dilute the resulting spill. The best part of the Coast Guards decision is that everyone goes home safe at the end of the day.

As a side note, I can do more to relate to this than most on this site. I work as a firefighter. We don't put our crews in harms way for nothing. There is also a saying in my line of work "Risk a little to save a little. Risk a lot to save a lot." The Coast Guard is not going to jeopardize lives for a little diesel fuel.

Keith, I never said it was an easy task, or inexpensive task. I don't doubt it one bit that it could, and most likely would be dangerous and expensive, and certainly not easy.

But isn't America supposed to be the greatest country on the planet ? The most advanced and intellectual ? Well taking the easy way out is the least intelligent and intellectual way to deal with anything. Neanderthal comes to mind when taking the easy way out. It's all about worrying about the monetary price tag, without taking a good long look at the environmental price tag is my point, and from what I can tell the points of a good number of posters here.

I respect and admire all our armed forces, including the Coast Guard, but the brave men and women that signed up did so knowing that their lives might one day be at risk. I'd rather they risk their lives doing something righteous like salvaging this ship, than dying in far away lands for our elected officials and corporate greed.

Polluting the ocean, one or two times with large amounts of fuel and/or oil might not be a bad thing. But humanity has a track record of doing it over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again.

So is it a big deal when you add it ALL up ? It is to me.

I'd rather they risk their lives doing something righteous like salvaging this ship,

NO, NO, NO!!! Risking someones life over this is stupid.

than dying in far away lands for our elected officials and corporate greed.

Look up what the Coast Guard's mission is please.

I can accept that falconer, if you admit that every US serviceman and woman that has risked their lives in the Middle East over corporate greed is stupid.

If it's not the Coast Guard, bring in the Navy !

The Navy would sink it quicker. I wouldn't risk any human life over 2100 gallons of fuel.

As far as the Middle East, I have no problem with the mission at the start but we shouldn't have stayed and wasted our guys lives on a hopeless cause.

falconer, that is the typical conditioned response that the federal government propaganda machine has you trained to regurgitate.

I just want you to realize what you're saying, that 2100 gallons of fuel isn't worth any human life, but millions of gallons of oil and other special interests are worth thousands of American lives, and countless numbers of innocent civilians lives.

You try and sound like you value humanity in one line, and then contradict yourself the next.

Did you even read any of my posts above ?!?!?

SuperSkunk, that is the typical response the liberal media has conditioned you to regurgitate.

Super, where is all this oil? The oil belongs to Iraq, is being drilled and sold under Iraqi contracts. I guess Iraq is greedy for wanting their resource to profit their people. Our military doesn't need to be there. You and your type seem to have a problem with corporations just because their corporations. Not all corps are the shady, evil thugs you've been fooled into thinking they are. Is their greed present in a corporation or any business, sure. You would be a fool to think their isn't that same greed in the organizations that use people like you as foot soldiers. You're the typical "they make money, they have to be greedy & corrupt" type. The biggest factor I see in you and yours is jealousy, the classic have vs. have nots.

Our military didn't die needlessly for oil as you claim, they died needlessly trying to change a government that doesn't want to change.

I hope you have more than that tired old liberal argument, you seem smarter.

Superskunk, it's really hard to take your posts seriously when they're full of that condescending, "holier-than-thou" attitude. :\

Codger and Falconer, I agree. So little fuel isn't worth losing life or limb for. Doubt it'd even be a blip on the environmental radar either, given how much natural oil seeps out of the ocean all day every day.

Exactly! Considering the amount of oil, methane and other "pollutants" being released your right.

SuperSkunk,

So you want to risk putting a hole in the side of one of those very expensive Coast Gaurd or Navy vessels with literally an iron iceberg. What you may not realise is that, except for ice-breakers, Navy and Coast Gaurd vessels are no longer armored, they are thin-skinned. Why? Because missiles and bombs beat armor. Their best defense is speed and counter-measures, not wasted weight. Again, you would mount a multi-ship expedition to salvage something worth nothing, while risking men and assets. And what would happen if another emergency occured while the vessels were tied up? Would SuperSkunk take responsibility, or blame poorly coordinated resource use and waste of resources?

NotAnArtist, the reason you have trouble taking me seriously is that I offer a more truthful look at what you've been conditioned to believe. There's nothing holier than though about me, I'm one of the humblest, loving people on this planet. I know I'm as guilty as the next American, and our so called elected officials.

falconer, you have me labeled as a liberal, which couldn't be further from the truth. The liberal/conservative media is one in the same, and I follow neither. The liberal and conservative politiicians that we blindly argue over, are one in the same. Check their voting histories if you don't believe me. Liberals vote conservative if the lobby dollars tell them to, and conservatives vote liberal if the money says so.

I'm anti-Republican and Democrat alike.

Our military is in the Middle East to change an evil government ?!?!? That's the propaganda again. If that were the case we'd be in Sri Lanka, Congo, Syria, Somalia, and Burma to name a few. That argument is nonsense. We haven't fought for freedom, liberty, democracy, or doing the right thing since WW2, and I even have my doubts about that.

Iraq ? Really ? The government that our elected officials and their corporate bosses control ? As they have with other countries over the last 100 years ? I agree, not all corporations are evil, but the ones that control our government are.

Do you know why the Iranian Revolution of '79 happened ? The Iranians were sick of the US and UK controlled government that was in place at the time. Do you know why the US and UK overthrew the Iranian government in the 50's that led to that government ? Iran didn't want to "play ball" with the UK's oil demands, so the combined intelligence communities helped overthrow them to gain control.

They are doing the same thing with Iraq.

Do you know how much money is used to buy votes through lobby dollars by special interest groups and the corporations ?

Do you really believe that we have over 700 military bases globally for freedom, democracy, liberty, or doing the right thing ?

NAFTA is a perfect example of how corporate greed guided government policy in America. The general public was against NAFTA, yet it made it through anyway. NAFTA essentially destroyed the economy of Mexico by moving American companies factories there, and crushing organized labor. If they couldn't crush it, they closed the plant, moved down the street and started over paying slave wages. Which led to a poor, drug fueled economy, and a large part of our immigration problem as well. Who do you think supplies the drug cartels with the chemicals and such they need to produce the drugs smuggled into America.

Or even better yet, look at the revolving door in our nations capital. A good number of elected officials go to work for these large corporations that "donated" to their campaigns and lobbied with money. It works the other way as well, there are a number of corporate officials that have held or are holding positions within the government.

Don't be naive or duped into believingthe "noble lie" and the propaganda. Look at the entire situation critically and intelligently and you'll see the truth as well. It's right there in front of our faces, we're just distracted by too much BS.

Bill, you as well as Codger, falconer, and the like aren't understanding the big picture I'm attempting to paint.

If this was a one time thing, or maybe a third time thing, I wouldn't be so nuts about it. It's a continual cycle of waste and pollution that's always shrugged off with, "No big deal, what a few thousand gallons." A few thousand gallons might not be a big deal, but add it up.

The main reason that's being used for not being able to salvage is that it's too costly, or did I read another article ?

My response to that is that our federal government wastes massive amounts of money, an attempt to salvage this ship would be peanuts compared to what is wasted on military and other things.

It's all a cleverly built facade that we are all conditioned to believe.

Anarchist then, whatever. Hope your happy in the world you live in, I live in reality.

Nope, not an anarchist, an American patriot that wants this country to go back to what it was meant to be. A place where liberty, freedom, and democracy meant something.

This country has gone from a Constitutional Republic, to an authoritarian terroristic military empire. That's the reality.

I'm the first one to admit when I'm wrong, but all the reading and research I've done has opened my eyes to the main issues in OUR country.

I've admitted in numerous posts that I'm not a scientist, and I don't actually know the full effect of the 2100 gallons of diesel fuel in the ocean, but I do know the ocean would be better off without those 2100 gallons. I'm sure we can agree on that.

I'm not making this stuff up, this isn't opinion, this is truth and facts.

Can you disprove anything in the information I've given you ?

Deffinitely holier-than-thou. You sound like a fresh-out-of-class college student. The world isn't one big conspiracy. Promise.

I offer a more truthful look at what you've been conditioned to believe.

I do agree with Superskunk to a point. I agree that we are destroying this planet, and we will keep destroying it because our attitudes will never change.

BUT!!!

No way should anyone step aboard that ship, it's not worth the risk to human life. Sink it now!

There's nothing holier than though about me, I'm one of the humblest, loving people on this planet.

Lol.

I attempt to bring a fresh, intelligent, critical point of view to a subject, nothing more, nothing less. I make it perfectly clear when I'm making opinion, asking a question to the forum, and stating facts plain and simple.

I have no problem with being questioned or challenged, but bring something to the table. I can at least have an intelligent back and forth with falconer, Keith Fillinger, Bill Marvell, and even Codger.

I never stated that the world was one big conspiracy, I don't even think what the US federal government is doing to us citizens is what I would call a conspiracy, even though the Websters definition would.

Today they're conspiracies, but usually tomorrow they're truth.

Let's try looking at it this way, say it's today's date in 1946. I'm having a discussion with someone, anyone, about a rumor I heard about the United States intelligence community assisting the defection of numerous Nazi scientists and intelligence officers to the United States to work for the US intelligence community. You'd probably tell me, and rightfully so at the time, that I was a nut job conspiracy theorist moron as you attempt today.

Do some research on Operation Paperclip. The US intelligence community and their new friends upset democracy through force and torture in Korea and Southern Italy, and through election sabotage in Northern Italy. How they kept a standing platoon outside Russia of Nazi soldiers working for the US.

And when it all finally does come out, a good time later, how does the US liberal and conservative media alike spin it ? All about the Nazis living in the US, put the spotlight on that. But barely any mention of Operation Paperclip, or the US officials involved, swept under the rug when it makes them look bad to US as a whole.

I agree with Rick. We generally need to change our habits to protect the environment, but this ship clearly needs to be sunk.

Apparently, Superskunk is an omnipotent expert to be capable of second-guessing the USCG without being present at the scene.

Thanks for the quote dat crazy bok. Contradicted himself in the same sentence too...seems to me like someone just slipped up...looks like Superskunk's just full of himself. Espouses humility, then praises himself.

CWST, it's almost like the old quote, I can't remember who said it, and I am paraphrasing, but it goes "If I only had a little humility, I'd be perfect..." Even while espousing his humbleness and swearing he has no holier than though attitude, he maintains that not only is he humble, but one of the most humble on the planet. And loving, as well. Lol.

Sorry Skunk, the way you said it struck me as funny. I certainly meant no offense by anything.

With regards to your point, If I could quote myself in a discussion from my school site...

In 2011, there were 9 oil spills resulting in 10,000 -10,500 tonnes of oil
spilled. This is equivalent to over 3 million gallons of oil spilt in 2011. Or
roughly 8,500 gallons of oil spilt, per day.

In 2010, there were 13 oil spills resulting in 500,000 - 800,000 tonnes of
oil spilled. This is equivalent to 155-253 million gallons of oil spilt in 2010.
This is about 425-700 thousand gallons of oil spilt, per day.

For the past two calendar years (2010,2011) we have averaged over 400
thousand gallons of oil spilt, PER DAY.

(From the wikipedia list of oil spills, and I know about Wiki as a source.
However, each spill is sufficiently documented therein.)

Now, I'm as big of a tree-hugger as anyone. But, we're talking about roughly 2,100 gallons, if I am understanding, using your number. It's about like complaining about spilling a drop while the tap is left on behind your back.

I'm just saying... pick your battles. Mother Nature can handle the 2,100 gallons. I'm much more worried about the tap being left on than the drop we spill.

Did I miss your facts somewhere? I see you asking people for facts, but I've read all your post, and the best I can come up with is something like "2,100 just has to have an impact... it just HAS to." Is that what you're going with? Do I really need to factually counter that?

Anyways, I'll be with you, saving the planet and all... but, seriously, this just isn't that big of a deal, comparatively speaking. Voicing our collective outrage over 2,100 gallons when we've averaged 400,000+ gallons a year for decades seems a bit small-minded.

The last sentence should read "Voicing our collective outrage over 2,100 gallons when we've averaged 400,000+ gallons PER DAY for decades seems a bit small-minded."

My mistake.

The ship should be removed from the ocean waters, scrapped and recycled, sending it
to the bottom of the ocean just adds to the junk that’s already polluting the
waters, killing fish and plant life in the ocean.

you are all ignoring the fact they said the boat was going to be scraped and had been floating sence the tsunami last year and has little fuel aboard so when did little=2,100 gallons?

I used the number I was given. Regardless of the number of gallons of fuel aboard, siffice to say it is insignificant when you look at the overall picture. I could be wrong, cause I'm too lazy to scroll, but I'm pretty sure Skunk came up with the number. Interestingly enough, he's also the one asking for facts from the other side.

He also has no idea where the idea comes from that he comes across as holier than thou, as he swears he is among the most humble and loving people on the planet. His words, not mine.

I read that the government offered it as a contract salvage at first. Noone wanted the contract, from what I understand. Noone even bid. Then, they reoffered it as a free salvage. Basically, they said "Come and get it... anyone?". Noone came, so they planned to sink it. They were about to start and a salvage company showed up. The salvage company, on the scene, said... "We give up" after like 45 minutes.

I dunno, though. Little fuel on a vessel that carries 50,000 gallons or more could equal 2,100. I'm just not sure where the number came from. Ask Skunk.

Either way, it is pretty insignificant, in the grand scheme of things.

This is just ridiculous.

I absolutely agree with everyone saying that 2100 gallons, or whatever the actual amount is, in the grand scheme of things isn't really that big of a deal.

But like I said in an earlier post, when does it become a big deal ? This isn't the first, or 50th time the human race has polluted the ocean.

I'm equally concerned about humanity as I am concerned about the environment, because they go hand in hand.

Take the bees for example, humanity is killing them off. Humans will not survive if the bees die off. And I'm sure 10 years ago someone said "What's a few bees dying in the grand scheme of things."

If we keep taking these attitudes we're going to look back and say to ourselves, "Why didn't we do something."

And it's not just nature, it's our (I fully include myself) whole mindset. When faced with issues in government most people say "I vote, there's nothing else I can do to change things."

That's my point, not just with nature with everything we do, we need to change our mindsets and get back our civic virtues, personal responsibility, and morals.

CWST, I guess I am second guessing the USCG in a way.

I got the 2100 gallons from the article.

Isn't America supposed to be the most advanced and intellectual country on the planet ? I'm just asking if it was thought through in that way. It seems to me that our government makes decisions to take the easy way out, destruction. The easy way out is hardly ever the intellectual way out.

I love how folks want to attack me, when I've never attacked anyone on here or name called like a good number of posters. I still entertain peoples posts that try and bash me, or nanny nanny boo boo me, because I believe in discussion and an intelligent back and forth.

And now I'm the third party everyone is talking about amongst themselves, which is quite comical to me. It used to get me discouraged, now I just walk away in hopes that I've sparked some critical, intelligent thought causing someone to look a little deeper into the facts I present. And maybe, just maybe, one day helping that person or people to put all the puzzle pieces together.

A good number of people on this thread alone are claiming I'm "holier than though". Looking at the way I'm being talked about like a group of schoolgirls would, with no rational, legitimate, or reasonable argument to my posts, is kind of like the pot calling the kettle black, no ?

I might be on a soapbox, that I'll admit, but I'm looking up at a good numbe of people on their high horses.

I feel as if my post provided a rational, legitimate, and reasonable argument to your posts.

Again, did I miss your facts? I can't find them in any post, but there are like 12 pages. I could be missing them. I only read you saying something to the effect of... "2,100 gallons just have to have an impact... it just HAS to..."

Nothing about the ability of the ocean to naturally process out chemicals? Nothing about the ability of the fish in the area to process out poisons? Anything about the currents and where the diesel fuel will end up on land? How about the effects of floating around in the Pacific on the degradation process of diesel fuel? How about the evaporative qualities of diesel fuel? Anything factual at all, other than "It just HAS to do SOMETHING?"

I'm perfectly willing to engage you in rational, legitimate and reasonable argument. I offered my apologies for getting a chuckle at your expense, and I meant it genuinely.

However, every salvage business on the West Coast turned down this boat, FOR FREE. Now, it is easy to sit here and second guess the people who are actually on the scene, but there are people who handle this sort of thing. Being that every private salvage company turned it down, it falls to the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard. I would wager that the Coast Guard considered the alternatives, and the environmental risk, and decided it was menial enough to sink the boat.

I would love to read your evidence or facts that contradict the decision of every major salvage company on the West Coast, and the Coast Guard. Forgive me if I feel that trusting the experts makes more logical sense than "2,100 gallons just HAS to affect SOMETHING."

Thanks for your time, and again, I apologize if I have offended you.

With regards to your question, (paraqphrase) "where does it stop?" I would point out that this is simply a freak accident. An earthquake and a giant tsunami dragging a boat out from its moors and across the largest ocean on the planet doesn't happen everyday. It is a rather rogue event. In my opinion, it makes much more sense to take a stand against corporations dumping into our lakes and rivers and oceans and atmosphere. Take a stand against a government that lets them. Take a stand against something we are willfully allowing to destroy the planet.

The freak 'ghost ship' that's been floating around the Pacific for a year after being taken from its dock in an earthquake and tsunami? To paraphrase, if you'll allow me, "Crap happens. Deal with it." The stuff we are causing, I agree with by all means. This was just an unforeseen random event. They're dealing with it.

I actually wasn't referring to any of your posts at all dAt crazy bOk, and you're still missing my point.

My overall point was legitimized with your paraphrase "Crap happens. Deal with it." and the fact that you say it's just a freak accident. I never argued that point at all, which makes me question your motives in repeating yourself over and over again, when I completely agree with that point. But if we continually address social, political, and environmental issues with "Crap happens, Deal with it.", and expect a corrupt government to do it and do the right thing when my facts prove they hardly ever do, or "What can one person do." and other excuses, nothing will ever change. We're facing a crisis with our economy right now, and people say "But what can I do.", we're facing a crisis over the bees dying, but a few years ago it was "No big deal, crap happens, we'll deal with it." Do you get what I'm saying ?

I'm all for just dealing with it, and crap does happen. My overall point was that this isn't the first, second, or one hundredth time something like this has happened. And also it doesn't seem like there was any thought put into the decision based on the story. According to the story, it all boils down to cost, which I just can't accept.

I didn't present any facts about the sinking of this ship, since I don't have many besides what was presented in the story. But I did present numerous facts to back up my argument, but since you missed my overall point and want to keep using the same example over and over, I can understand your confusion.

You're repetitive and singular argument towards me, another point of mine I guess I wasn't clear enough on, as you so eloquently put it "it just HAS to" . YES, I agree that the pollution of this diesel fuel in the ENTIRE ocean is just a blip on the radar, not a big deal. But common sense does tell me that in the immediate area where this ship sinks, yes, some marine life will be affected by leaking diesel fuel into. It might only be 10 to a few hundred marine life, but some life will be affected.

No offense taken at all my friend. I have learned to base my emotions on the two basic human emotions that all emotion stems from, love and fear. There's nothing to be afraid of here, so only love is left, and I love you Brethren.

I'm just saying, I feel like there are better things to start with than this particular example. This isn't something we can do an environmental impact study on. It isn't something we can take months to figure out what it is going to impact. It is floating around, unaided and unguided, into a relatively congested part of the ocean. This is something that must be dealt with IMMEDIATELY in order to prevent possible loss of life, or catastrophic collision with another vessel. We can't always get things the way we want them, and I feel like the ideal situation was to let the Coast Guard get a little practice.

It is hard to think of a comparable situation, but imagine a blimp had broken free from its ropes and was floating around the sky. It starts to float towards a major city. If you shoot it down over the empty field, you may indeed killa few rabbits, deer, and other small animals. If you let it keep flying, it could possibly enter the flight path, or crash into an apartment. What do you do? Well... you take the chance that a few deer and bunnies could die.

With regards to your overall point, I agree completely. I have protested numerous issues and written my Congressman or television and radio networks on numerous other occasions. I think that everyone should make their voice heard. If we all raised our collective voices, we could actually make a difference. I just disagree that this event merits our collective outrage.

Peace and love unto you and yours.

Agreed on all points. My initial posts on this story were just a comment, questions, and an opinion or two.

As you can see it evolved into something much deeper. And as I've stated before I love the back and forth discussions. I not only hope to possibly cause someone to look at a subject from a different perspective, sometimes I actually learn something from another poster, as I did here with pbrb.

I'm not outraged by this, I agree that there are much larger issues to be outraged over. And if I was msnbc wouldn't be the place I release my outrage.

I'm glad we cleared the air and I loved the conversation and alternate perspective dAt, thank you.

I started on the vine to learn. I love learning. My entire life pretty much consists of work, school, my 18-month old son, and research. I have grown so disillusioned with newsvine, because I don't really learn anything, anymore. I just read other opinions, and most people either aren't able to, or don't have any desire to, explain the rationale behind their opinions. It is rather frustrating, at times. Opinions are a dime a dozen. Rarely does one's simple of expression of opinion lead to any sort of revelation, at least for me. The revelation is in the rationale, for me. I want more rationale, and less opinion.

For example, your point (paraphrase) "It may not be a big deal, globally, but it will definitely impact the immediate area", this is something I often find myself struggling with. With certain issues, such as socioeconomics, or politics, I am very small-scaled. I see things on the local level, the county level, the state level, and finally the national and world levels. With regards to the environment, and race, and others, I tend to think of on a much larger scale. I tend to see the end result, or the whole of the picture, and probably become desensitized to the smaller scale. That mindset is probably a bit dangerous, in the long run.

I appreciate this moment of self-realization, as I essentially arrived on this post as a bit of a troll. I haven't posted in a while and showed up, took a shot at you, and didn't even comment on the article. Thank you for taking the high road and dragging me up to it with you. I'm sure our paths will cross again around the vine.

There are approximately 187,200,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water in the Pacific.

2,100 gallons of deisel is 1/89142857142857143 of that amount. The phrase "drop in the bucket" doesn't do it justice.

Imagine adding a single drop of deisel to an olympic size pool ... that still a higher percentage of deisel than we're talking about here.

I seriously doubt they think its radioactive. It floated off right after the tsunami. It took a while for the nuclear plant to start spewing radiation.

As for dropping anchor....really? Didn't think that one through did you? You think they have a few thousand feet of anchor chain on that boat? Ever watch Deadliest Catch? Even if they had that much chain how long would the boat last in 40 foot seas?

It is an abandoned boat in the middle of the ocean if someone wants it they can take it. So the idea of auctioning it off is ridiculous. Its junk and soon it will be on the bottom of the ocean.

And for the other guy worried about asbestos....Its toxic when it gets into your lungs. If it is in a few thousand feet of water no mammal can breath it in. And fish, due to their physiological design, don't have anything to worry about.

This pretty much explains why:

Mosley said there was no intention for officials to board the Japanese ship because the structural integrity of that vessel cannot be verified and could pose an unnecessary risk should somebody board it

Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/plans+sink+Japanese+ghost+ship+sighted+Alaska+shores/6412872/story.html#ixzz1rBu9Rv61

They don't have to "auction it off," anyone with a tow boat and a desire to own her can just go pick her up and have her if they want under marine salvage, the owner has already said he has no intention of claiming her even. So go ahead, call the Coast Guard, tell them to hold off a few minutes, call a tow boat company, ask how much money it would be to go 200 miles offshore, hook up to a disabled vessel, hope you don't fall in the water and be crushed between the two vessels getting on board, or fall through the rotting decks while trying to find a tow point, tow it back in 200 miles (and in the process probably burn more diesel fuel from your own tanks into the air that you are supposedly saving from the water in the middle of the ocean), hope it doesn't sink behind you and pull you to the bottom of the ocean as a 100 ton anchor, get to shore, pay to have it dry docked, pumped out, cleared of nonrecyclable material, and cut down for a minimal scrap value.

Sounds so easy right? Well there are plenty of people who do that as their job, and none of them want to do so in this case, so there you have it.

Just drop anchor? Are you serious? How deep do you suppose the water is 200 miles offshore? And the anchor chain has to be longer than the water is deep. It doesn't just go straight down to the bottom. And your idea of strobe lights, although it sounds plausible, is insufficient. Ships don't just turn on a dime, and by the time the ship would be spotted visually because of the strobe lights, it might be too late to avoid a collision. And by the way, the ship would not be radioactive. It was sent out to sea by the receding tsunami. It was long gone by the time radiation was leaking, and even if it was not, I think it probably has rained a time or two out at sea in the past year, and any dust on the surface of the ship is long gone.

Hex92

I seriously doubt they think its radioactive. It floated off right after the tsunami.

Really? And you know that as fact? How?