E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSRAW VIDEO: In this U.S. Coast Guard video, a USCG boat fires on a Japanese ship adrift off the coast of Alaska in an attempt to sink the unmanned vessel and clear it from shipping lanes.
Updated at 10:30 a.m. ET: A fishing vessel set adrift by the tsunami in Japan has sunk in the Gulf of Alaska after a cutter fired at it, The Coast Guard said.
Petty Officer David Moseley told msnbc.com that the vessel caught fire and took on water after the Coast Guard Cutter Anacapa fired its 25mm cannon at the derelict ship on Thursday, aiming to sink what it called a threat to shipping.
The ship sank to the bottom of the ocean after it was pummeled at by high-explosive ammunition, the Vancouver Sun reported Friday morning. Explosives were fired at the stricken vessel in a "slow and deliberate" manner to ensure accuracy, Veronica Colbath, Coast Guard public affairs officer, said, The Sun reported.
It took about four hours for the ship to vanish into the water, said Chief Petty Officer Kip Wadlow in Juneau. It sank into waters more than 6,000 feet deep, about 180 miles west of the southeast Alaska coast, the Coast Guard said.
Citing a Coast Guard spokesman, the Associated Press reported the firing began after a brief delay caused by a Canadian ship that wanted to salvage the Ryou-un Maru -- but then quickly found it it wasn't able to tow it back to shore.
Besides clearing a shipping lane, sinking the nearly 200-foot-long vessel provides the Anacapa crew "a great way for them to put their skills to use," Coast Guard spokesman Kip Wadlow told msnbc.com from Juneau, Alaska.
Wadlow said the drifting vessel makes shipping in the area extremely dangerous. "There's no crew on board, it doesn't have any light ... and it's in a high volume shipping lane," he noted.
The Coast Guard fired cannons on the ship that had drifted to the Gulf of Alaska after becoming unmoored after the Japan tsunami, choosing to sink the vessel rather than having it pose a risk to maritime traffic. NBC's Savannah Guthrie reports.
The fishing boat, which was in port waiting to be scrapped when the tsunami took it out to sea, is far enough away that any fuel on board would not make it to shore, Wadlow added. The Coast Guard later elaborated that it appeared to be carrying little fuel since it was riding high in the water, the AP reported.
A Coast Guard C-130 was flying over the area to warn away any nearby ships for what is described as a "live fire exercise."
More photos of the Ryou-un Maru sinking
Dropping crews aboard the boat is too dangerous, Wadlow said, and "the owner no longer wants it."
But that didn't stop the Bernice C from trying to make some money off the rusty vessel.
Based in Petersburg, Alaska, the Anacapa arrived Wednesday night alongside the Ryou-un Maru, which entered U.S. waters on April 1. The ship was moored at a harbor in Hachinohe, Japan, when the earthquake and tsunami hit on March 11, 2011.
The vessel is the first large object to reach North America following the tsunami. Smaller objects have been found on U.S. coasts but much more debris is expected to make its way via currents to U.S. and Canadian beaches by 2014.
State officials have been working with federal counterparts to gauge the danger of debris including material affected by a damaged nuclear power plant, to see if Alaska residents, seafood or wild game could be affected.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
You guys REALLY need to get your video pages right. Just do one and don't make it go into an endless loop. GOSH thats annoying!!!!
That does kind of crack me up though! It can drift 3000 miles but they can't tow it 200. LOL In think that one poster was right "They just want to blow @!$%# up". Now some salvage company will probably dive for it.
Irresponsible journalism - While the article may be of some interest to someone, I came across the headline, "Coast Guard sinks derelict ship" on MSN on my computer and of course I think that we sunk some other country's ship that was actually an aggressive threat. You can imagine the reader's first response. Course, you know that which is why the severely inflated headline reads like it does. Are you that hard up? Sad, man.
No, that's actually quite accurate and not 'irresponsible' in the least. 'Derelict' means 'abandoned' or 'neglected'.
like any of this is going to matter in another 100 million years.
I don't have kids,,soo,,lol,,F the human race,all the rich have
trigger happy morons that boat even though it was destined for the scrap heap is techincly some ones property. not to mention the fact of spilling yet more fuel unesscarily into the oceans (like we need more of that) makes it worse. way to go you shoot 1st ask questions/think later psychos. oh and as for the shipping hazerd kiss my ass the likelyhood of that is astronomicly less then that of colideing with a whale (which should be more worrying cause it happens quite alot). you can also kiss my ass over the target practice since last i checked those guns are automated/programed I.E u punch numbers into it and it aims and shoots for u. i have thus refuted the central point of their theorys and have an almost perfect 9 out of 10 trollometer score.
Stories about this ship have been around for some time, I am sure all channels were consulted as to the environmental impact, possibility and feasability of salvage, and yes, if you read the article the owner was contacted and declined any desire to have it back. Even IF there were actually 2,100 gallons of fuel in the ship, that will be nothing 200 miles offshore in the ocean, and a proper tug would burn more fuel going out and getting it and bringing it back right into your precious atmosphere then would be save. Since the ship was already awaiting demolition in Japan before the Tsunami it is unlikely it had much if any fuel on board, much less the volume the media was first reporting. As for "shipping hazerd kiss my" you have clearly never been in or near an offshore shipping lane. Yes the ocean is a big open place, but major commericial ships don't just run willy nilly around the ocean in circles, they have specific offshore navigational channels that they stay in between ports. This husk had wandered in to one, and in bad weather, high seas, without any markings, there is a chance that it could colide with another ship, and THEN you would have a real disaster on your hands. But what do I know, I actually work in the marine industry for a living, you have a "trollometer," so you are definitely right.
Read the artical again, they said they had no intention of getting it or wanting it. Derpa-derp..
I love the comments about the oil that will leak from the boat. Being in the service, specifically serving on an aircraft carrier, that ship alone dumps 10 tons of garbage everyday. EVERYDAY. That's one ship out of thousands of huge ships on the ocean at any one time. That has been going on since aircraft carriers and other ships have roamed the seas. What, do you think they haul all the garbage 5000 men (and women now) back to the port it left from? Hardly. The amount of trash that has been dumped in the ocean is so vast it boggles the mind. The ocean is a very vast, corrosive environment and nothing we can do to the ocean will harm it in the short life time man has inhabited this world. Period. You should be more concerned with all the nuclear tests that have occurred over the last 60 years, and by the way, are still occurring. How about all the radiation that was dumped in the Pacific during the latest Japan nuclear meltdown(s). Were do you think that water or radiation went? How about all the waste that came out of your body in your life time? Think any of that might have ended up in the ocean, rivers or streams? This ship poses no threat to the environment whatsoever. Next.....
Yet another Dharma Initiative artifact left adrift by the Others. I wouldn't be too surprised if it shows up again.
All of ya go to bed!
but dont wanna mommy! u cant make me!
Well, perhaps I can talk you into it. But first - may I suggest spell check for you? That way, half your battle of trying not to look like a dumbass is over. Then you only have the other half to deal with - consisting of your mindless and unsubstantiated ranting. Tough battle. Nighty-night.
I get so tired of MSN's useless, over-hyped, show nothing videos.
Environmental nuts bitch about the dumbest things. Guess they would rather have the little amount of fuel on board spill out when it finally made it closer to shore and split open when it got grounded. Or better yet, since it had no lights it crashes with a fully loaded tanker in the dark and splits that open. Then you'll all end up bitching that nothing was done earlier to prevent it from happening.
Geese they had no clue of the difference in the Gulf of Mexico temperature from the Valdez temperature and how the different temperatures affects the evaporation of petroluium distillates.
And what does our dear leader say about it? Surely he must have some comment, doesn't he always?
Hello,, just beach it,,on land,,,and let the homeless live in it,,give them some paint and let thm fix up there home.
NEW USA,,,,,,,,
Tow it to Chicago and Let Barrack Obama use it as his new home in January 2013
All of this rhetoric over a ship that has been scrapped by the Japanese owner ? And now sunk by the U S Coast Guard. It's over, folks. Move on for crying out loud.
It probably would have been better to tow it out to a coral reef site empty the fuel, then have the coast guard sink it. The threat would be eliminated of a collision and the ship would help the coral Eco system.
That would be nice but due to the collapse of our economy thanks to Barrack Obama and the Democratic Party we can not longer afford to be nice to the environment
sammy,
You're probably right....about the "No longer afford to be nice to the environment" part.
Bullets are cheaper then towing a ship. Also the environments not hurt any from the ship being sunk there. Oil seeps naturally from the ocean and everything else in a thousand or 2 years will have given into the carbon salt mix of the ocean and been disintegrated. Lead, Iron, Steel all exist in the ocean floor as well and were still not seeing 2 headed seals and polar bears. Widely used biodegradable plastics will do exactly what they are suppose to as well. I think we'll live including whats in the immediate area currently of the sunken ship just fine. Unless a stray bullet struck a fish. Over time pools will nest in the ship and waa-la ocean life is thriving off the swiss cheese boat and used for shelter for the small guys to hide within for centuries to come.
Do you have any idea how many vessels were sunk during WWII? over 2,000. Most of them had explosive armament on board. The ocean is doing just fine.
I was talking about another solution than the one they have already chosen, cold.
coldbrick: Thank you !
The other day I went to my local metal supplier and bought some used steel from the remnants bin. They want 35 cents a pound for remnants. Am I really supposed to believe that this ghost ship is really too dangerous for the coast guard to board with all of their training and fancy equipment? For cripes sake it's been floating abandoned for a year, I don't think it's going to suddenly sink as soon as a couple of guy board it. Is the CG really that out to lunch or are they just looking for something to shoot at?
Yes, on paper it might cost more to salvage this ship properly than to just sink it. But...I still can't quite figure out why it is easier or cheaper to mine and process iron ore to make steel than to simply salvage and re-process already processed steel.
On the other hand even if salvaging this ship is not a profit maker, it would put people to work and it would be the right thing for the environment. Besides if you have ever tried to mine and process iron ore your self, you will quickly reach the conclusion that it is much easier to simply cut a hunk of steel out of a rusted ship when you need a piece of steel than to spend all of that energy trying to process iron ore.
Part of being green and caring about the environment means not wasting resources such as the tons and tons of steel in this ship. Where is the steel to make re-bar and other building supplies supposed to keep coming from?
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.
Okay, suppose we use your example of 35 cents/pound for steel. That would be the retail price, not what it is worth floating 200 miles offshore. How many customers do you suppose are going to charter a ship to go 200 miles offshore so they can take their cutting torch out to harvest some steel when they need some? I'll bet none, because there are much less expensive ways to obtain steel. What do you suppose it costs to tow a ship of this size 200 miles at sea? And the ship is not just made of steel. There would be a huge amount of work to separate the steel from the rest of the ship. Just cutting up the hull would require a great deal of energy. And I don't think the risk of boarding it has anything to do with it "suddenly sinking", but rather from the risk of lowering people onto a ship which is pitching around (the ocean does not hold still, you know), and trying to miss all of the masts and superstructures. Usually ships that are boarded are manned, which means that someone on board is keeping the ship pointed into the swells, thus minimizing the ship's rolling. This ship, being unmanned, would be pitching about randomly, making lowering a person between all the masts very risky indeed. Once you get on board, assuming you could, the risks are just beginning. The air inside the ship is undoubtedly bad, since there has been no ventilation for a year, and there would be many chemicals, solvents and lubricants on board. Rusting removes the oxygen from the air, and fresh air is not being pumped into this vessel. The ship was being scrapped, so it had already begun the process of disassembly. It was not an intact ship, and that alone poses enormous risks to personnel. Equipment is almost certainly missing, and the ship was no longer able to function. Fuel removal would be something that would be performed early in the salvage process in order to protect salvage personnel and to prevent spillage, so there would have likely been little or no fuel on board at the time the tsunami hit. Even if there was fuel on board, pumping fuel from one randomly bobbing ship at sea to another would carry enormous risk, and the fuel would be so degraded that it would be more of a hazmat situation than it would be salvaging anything even remotely useful. I would like to think that the Coast Guard took all the above into consideration when they made the decision to sink the ship. I think they also probably took into consideration that the ship was in a shipping lane, and the likelihood of a collision with another ship was too great a risk. I'm not exactly pleased that the ship was sunk, but I think we have to give the Coast Guard the benefit of the doubt here. If they found the ship to be a hazard, and not worth the cost of salvaging, they just might have a point.
lokay you've posted this identical comment 7 times on this article. No matter how many times you say it it still doesn't make it true. The ship was swept out to sea long before the nuke plant explosion, and isn't likely or known to have ever been contaminated.
The decision seems to have been based on what posed the least risk for human life, passing ships, and the ocean and coastal environments.
If anybody had come forward who was willing and capable of solving the problem differently the Coast Guard would have released the ship to them, happily I expect. No one offered, because the risks were unacceptably high.
Ask yourselves why privately funded environmental activist groups like Greenpeace and Sea Shepards didn't step in and take charge, either directly, or through hiring a towing company and salvager to do the work.
But it IS likely, but unknown, that the ship was contaminated. See, it works both ways.
Obviously the ship was sunk because it was contaminated with radiation, otherwise it would have been salvaged.
"... too dangerous to board" ? I bet it was!
Go to enenews.com for more information Re "Ghost Ship"
Seriously? Some of you people must have slept through simple biology. The ocean floor seeps oil as is! Adding a ships worth to it wont even make a dent unless your dropping it on top of a oceanic life area (coral reef, pools). Other then that judging by where the boat is DOES NOT MATTER. For the diesel mechanic that says he does not know how diesel breaks down. Whats one of the primary agents in salt water that eats away at anything over time? SALT! Also you maroons crying about ice caps melting because of global warming.. What about all the carbon the ocean itself lets off naturally (biggest issue) or the natural underwater volcanic activity near the polar caps that will melt them away anyways specially when something erupts. Get a life and cry about something that matters not something not you nor I or anyone for that matter can control. Your a waste of LIFE!!
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.
It does seem waistful to spend money shooting into this ship. I was not here I dare not guess. I know a Captain at sea has the final say and no one on that ship has a right while at sea to second guess once a order is given.
Happiness is a warm gun.
Interesting... I emailed a member of congress two days ago and expressed an interest in retrieving this ship and refurbishing it. Not just any old member, but one who had publicly expressed concern over the tsunami debris, and specifically mentioned this ship. Never heard anything back. Perhaps because that wasn't part of the agenda?
Why doesn't the article talk about whether the ship was radioactive or not?
Maybe because it clearly was not. The ship would have gone out with the receding tsunami. The radiation came considerably later. Even if that were not true, radioactive dust on the ship would have all been external. Do you suppose it has rained sometime during the past year at sea?
If you think rain will wash the decks of radioactivity you know absolutely nothing about radionuclide contamination. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Check out the decontam efforts necessary on the carrier Ronald Reagan after exposure off the coast of Japan.
How about you answer a couple yes or no, and some simple short-answer questions lokay5.
Don't forget to provide links to reliable and unbiased sources:-)
Dubbya R
And you know that this ship was not radioactive? How?
Answer my questions first lokay, you're the one making the affirmative claim. You've spam-posted the same basic information and the same cut-n-paste 7 times on these pages, So now it's up to you to prove that claim.
You're claiming the ship was contaminated, now prove it.
See if you're able do it without continuing to direct readers to that same specific website you've been promoting, one with a distinct and particular anti-nuke bias.
If you can't return with credible and unbiased sources supporting your claims, I'll just assume you're here to comment-spam and redirect readers to boost page-hits for that site.
By the way, are you affiliated with that site, and who's that site registered to? Just wondering.
Nope. Sorry. Not affiliated.
Believe what the MSM tells you. That's what nuclear power advocates want.
Still dodging and diverting from the questions lokay5?
So apparently you don't actually have any evidence that the ship was ever contaminated.
Nor do you seem to have any credible or unbiased sources to support your comments, nor have you yet answered any questions with credible references.
I guess your gut tells you so, therefore it must be true, and if people like me don't just take your word for it on faith...it's clearly our fault for listening to the 'dreaded' and 'evil' MSM?
In what way are you different, let alone more reliable than an energy industry 'advocate'?
You look the same to me.
Effects of
Radiation from Fukushima Dai-ichi on the U.S. Marine
Environment
Congressional Research Service
Eugene H. Buck, Specialist
in Natural Resources Policy
Harold F. Upton, Analyst in Natural Resources
Policy
April 2, 2012
Thanks, I appreciate your responding, but your comments have been claiming that the ship was contaminated:
Yet neither your answer or link mention the ship, or deal with any confirmation that it [specifically] was or was not ever contaminated; which was your claim and my question.
Instead, your own link provides this conclusion [below].
BTW, in the section directly above the one you quoted, the report you sourced suggests that finding high levels of radiation [in the debris plume] would be 'unlikely'.
yep thats the good ole USA , lets just blow it up!! To bad the boat was not towed instead of dumping all that fuel and oil in to the sea, Nice job, wonder how much sea life just got destroyed from that!!
It's doubtful there was much, if any, fuel on board, as the ship was being salvaged at the time the tsunami hit. The fuel tanks would likely be evacuated in the interest of safety during salvage operations. As for sea life being damaged, are you aware of the Artificial Reef Society? They sink decommissioned ships to provide habitat for sea life. Several warships have been sunk along the coast of British Columbia, and it has been a real boon for local economies with the influx of divers, and their patronage of local hotels, restaurants and dive charter companies. Sea life begins to colonize new wrecks within hours of sinking. Have you ever dove on the wreck of HMCS Chaudiere? It is an amazing dive site!
Very true .. several ships are now reefs off the costal waters of BC but this was after they were drained of all fuel and stripped of their doors and other attachments that could give harm to divers or those exploring the ship as a reef. Sorry but in this case the Coast Guard were just plan STUPID! and honestly they deserve to be called STUPID for this act!
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.
Yes, there was over a year spent preparing HMCS Chaudiere for sinking, but that was because it was made safe for divers. That took a lot of time and work. I don't think that was a consideration in this case, since the derelict Japanese ship was sunk 200 miles offshore. Not much chance of it becoming a diving magnet. So the other consideration, making it safe for the environment, comes up. But there would probably be no fuel on board, since the ship was already being salvaged when it was washed out to sea. It would not be "hot" from radiation from the Japanese power plant because it would have headed out to sea with the receding tsunami, long before the radiation leaks, and in the unlikely event that any radioactive dust landed on the ship, it has rained a few times at sea during the past year. Probably not much chance it will do any damage to the environment either. So given that the wreck will not endanger divers, and it will not damage the environment, how was it stupid of the Coast Guard to remove the navigation hazard, potentially saving dozens or even hundreds or thousands of lives, should a cruise ship have hit it? Or how about the environmental damage, should an oil tanker have hit it? But I guess you're not thinking about that.
But Bearwolf....
Think of all the shrimp lives that will be saved now that the shrimp catcher's on the bottom! LOL
The Coast Guard used it to practice firing their guns, so, let the guys using the shipping lanes know it's there and let them practice dodging large obstacles. From recent happenings in the shipping and leisure industry, they could use the practice. This would keep them awake, maybe. :-)
And if one of the "guys using the shipping lanes" hits the "large obstacle" that's okay with you? Even if it's, say, an oil tanker? How about a cruise ship? You do realize, don't you, that large ships don't just turn on a dime (remember the Titanic?) and as one admiral was quoted years ago, "Just one collision at sea can ruin your whole day"? I can just imagine the outcry then! 'Why didn't the Coast Guard do something to remove this hazard? Aren't they supposed to protect folks at sea? Isn't that their job?'
Remember the Titanic? If President Oblumbles were the captain of that Ship, after hitting the berg, he would have ordered the breakup of the lifeboats for firewood.... to start a fire to melt the iceberg..... So that no other ships would hit it.
That's the way liberals think.
s55amg
Do you think those Italian Cruise ship captain's girlfriends would also benefit from ''dodging the obstacle" in the shipping lanes too?