It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Navy sink ship; Alaska fishing shut down??

page: 10
59
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 


You should start a thread discussing the possibilities in relation to the ship you are mentioning. Its an interesting topic worth looking into.

Because this thread is just rumor.




posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Who needs the Bible, predictions or the Mayan calender, humans are doing a great job all on our own for 2012............and beyond. All the high tech things we have done without any thought of recourse seem to be coming back to to show us what our arrogance has got us into.

We truely do reap what we sow it would seem.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
I remember the smell of that Fukushima reactor. It traveled all the way to New Mexico and came down in the rain. It was the same smell the entire rain had in the decade of the 1960's. The smell of fission. I'm glad the dispersal of it is so great, not much chance of getting radioactive seafood or geographic areas, cept for Fukushima, Chernobyl and a few other hot spots. No worries people, it disperses, the ocean is huge, I survived nuclear testing, you will survive this.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
I remember the smell of that Fukushima reactor. It traveled all the way to New Mexico and came down in the rain. It was the same smell the entire rain had in the decade of the 1960's. The smell of fission. I'm glad the dispersal of it is so great, not much chance of getting radioactive seafood or geographic areas, cept for Fukushima, Chernobyl and a few other hot spots. No worries people, it disperses, the ocean is huge, I survived nuclear testing, you will survive this.

Greetings:


I'm glad the dispersal of it is so great, not much chance of getting radioactive seafood or geographic areas, cept for Fukushima, Chernobyl and a few other hot spots.

Tell that to the people in the cities in America that are experiencing radiation levels routinely many times over background... like St. Louis.

And your statement is based on...?

Really.

Peace Love Light
tfw
[align=center][color=magenta]Liberty & Equality or Revolution[/align]



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 


You should start a thread discussing the possibilities in relation to the ship you are mentioning. Its an interesting topic worth looking into.

Because this thread is just rumor.

Greetings:

Good idea... in the works.

How's this?

The Surreal Saga of the 'ghostship' Ryou-Un Maru

Thanks for the interest.

Peace Love Light
tfw
[align=center][color=magenta]Liberty & Equality or Revolution[/align]



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 

Here is one
www.nmfs.noaa.gov...
I pay these guys with my tax dollars, they check the radiation. I saw them flying around the other day at an airport, heard 'em on the radio too. Cool pilot voice. They seem to be well equipped and trained too
www.noaa.gov...
They are protecting my freedom, really.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 


OK, first your graphic is from Intel Hub?...you might as well be pulling it from Godlike productions in that case so I will have to dismiss that.

Second, granted things float slowly in the ocean, yet again.....they tested the boat....it was NOT radioactive....and again we don't predominantly get weather or wind patterns from Japan...in all honesty the amount of debris floating toward the state is surprising.....even then the amount compared to the heap currently in route to California is negligible at best. The fact that the boat came that far north to begin with is a fluke.

And lastly.....there has been NO notable increase in radiation in Alaska and the surrounding areas, sea wise, since the quake.......if that was the case.....Alaska would have had more to worry about than before anyone even noticed the boat floating in this direction.

A long time friend of mine is a deckhand on a tug out of SE Alaska. He follows such things closely due to his trade....The boat was not radioactive......it was a rust heap......but not radioactive.

Here, go nutts

This would explain WHY it wasn't irradiated.....it was from much farther north than Fukushima.....it also would explain why it came that far north...the currents in that area tend to flow toward Russia...and then across.
Check it out

I hope this answers your query.....your wind patterns from your 2nd illustration wouldn't have touched it in its float north.
edit on 29-4-2012 by BooKrackers because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-4-2012 by BooKrackers because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkblade71
 


Just like to say, I like your signature quote.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by RicoVig
Wow. That is really scary. Thanks for the thread. I have a friend who is in AK for the summer to go work on a fishing boat, and I just sent this thread to him.



Maybe he can confirm or deny this.... any extra information will be appreciated one way or another. If he does hear of any thing, make sure you've got an article or a news link to back it up. If not, just make it clear that he can't find any one that has heard of this news. Thanks.....



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by thorfourwinds

RIddle me this: Why put out a fire that you, yourself, started on a boat you are attempting to sink?


Simple, the Coast Guard was using this for training. The Coast Guard is responsible for aiding distressed ships. Sometimes these ships are on fire, and the Coast Guard needs to put the fire out.

How often does the Coast Guard get to do a live training exercises in open currents on a real burning ship? Probably not that often.

Training exercise one: Open fire on ship. This will assess the crew's ability to accurately fire upon a vessel.
Training exercise two: Extinguish fire to assess the crew's capability to extinguish such fires.
Repeat above steps until Crew Officer's are satisfied and feel like calling it a day.
Final step: Sink ship entirely.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7
 


Originally posted by intrptr
There are all kind of considerations before legally sinking a vessel at sea. Cargo, currents, anchoring (so storms don't move it), any environmental hazards, etc. You would never just blast away, set it on fire and sink it. Well at least according to the law anyway.

The military routinely scuttles ships for multiple reasons. The regulations you relay relate only to private ship owners:

en.wikipedia.org...

Don't know about routine. And yah, lots of reasons: From (the) link:


Controversy surrounds the practice. Notable actions against the practice include the USS Oriskany, which was scuttled with 700 pounds of PCBs remaining onboard, contravening the Stockholm Convention on safe disposal of persistent organic pollutants which has a zero tolerance for PCB dumping in marine environments.

Including I guess knowingly dumping (in this case PCB) waste. I like the zero tolerance bit. Like I conclude every post herein, I have no confirmation that the ship had radioactive contamination aboard, neither has any poster here brought any proof it didn't. Just a lot of CAPS and MSM.

The Us Military has always pretty much done what it wants. You want dumping, look up Pacific testing of Nukes.
Things have changed somewhat since then, maybe not? Its more a matter of practicality and always a matter of money.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWarrior17
Why is this BREAKING!!! news this is old stuff? What should be of concern is the recent earthquakes today. Their popping off pretty good.

Sunday April 29 2012, 17:28:46 UTC 3 hours ago off the east coast of Honshu, Japan 4.5
Sunday April 29 2012, 15:45:08 UTC 5 hours ago Volcano Islands, Japan region 4.9
Sunday April 29 2012, 15:02:19 UTC 6 hours ago Near East Coast Of Honshu, Japan 5.4
Sunday April 29 2012, 10:28:51 UTC 10 hours ago near the east coast of Honshu, Japan 5.8



Holy cow, thanks for that info. Looks like Japan is rockin' and rollin'. I bet they are fearful of another big one, I would be. That's a lotta shakin' goin' on..... I hope every one is okay.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtectedWitness
 

Originally posted by thorfourwinds

RIddle me this: Why put out a fire that you, yourself, started on a boat you are attempting to sink?


Simple, the Coast Guard was using this for training. The Coast Guard is responsible for aiding distressed ships. Sometimes these ships are on fire, and the Coast Guard needs to put the fire out.

How often does the Coast Guard get to do a live training exercises in open currents on a real burning ship? Probably not that often.

Training exercise one: Open fire on ship. This will assess the crew's ability to accurately fire upon a vessel.
Training exercise two: Extinguish fire to assess the crew's capability to extinguish such fires.
Repeat above steps until Crew Officer's are satisfied and feel like calling it a day.
Final step: Sink ship entirely.


Actually, I think the intent was to burn off the remaining ships stores of oil before sinking it. Somewhere there is a link that said the ship burned for hours. That is one of the odd parts. That fuel oil (say 2000 gallons) at 2 dollars plus a gallon... should be removed before scuttling the boat. Instead they opted to burn it at sea. That's eco illegal for sure. And part of the suspicious part. Why didn't they go aboard and practice decontamination procedures? They can practice fire fighting without actually polluting the environment any other day. How did they know it wouldn't explode? Sitting that close to it could have been hazardous. Why not put it out right away instead of waiting?
edit on 29-4-2012 by intrptr because: BB code



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by snarky412
 


This is not actually out of the ordinary for Japan, it is one of the most seismically active areas in the world:


Q: Which Country has the most earthquakes?

A:

The answer to this question is not as straightforward as it may seem. In order to most accurately answer it, we will rephrase the question four different ways:


1) For which country do we locate the most earthquakes? Japan. The whole country is in a very active seismic area, and they have the densest seismic network in the world, so they are able to record many earthquakes.


2) Which country actually has the most earthquakes? Indonesia is in a very active seismic zone, also, but by virtue of its larger size than Japan, it has more total earthquakes.


USGS



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by BooKrackers

Originally posted by RubberDuckGB
Sorry to put this here but as a new member I cant a new thread. The ONLY reason why I am doing this is that hopefully some one else will confirm what I saw.

PS - Mods please move this message to the appropriate section please.

LONDON UK Heathrow.

I went outside and I saw a light but this light was not a planet. I know - mars etc done that seen that. It was really bright. So I called my son to have a look. When he came out we then saw three bright lights moving acros the sky, Now consider that I live next to Heathrow airport. But these lights had no flashing lights - constant bright lights. Then another two lights up. I said to my son, that is def. not a plane(the moving lights) or a satellite (the bright light above us on the horizon - location HEATHROW ENGLAND at 9.30PAM GMT)


The reason why I put this MODs is i cannt put an new thread out here but I thought this was too important to get this message out there. Any UK london ATS chaps or gals see what I saw?

PS. When me and my son looked at the "bright light" its looked triangular.

Sorry for any spelling mistakes but need to get this out now while other people might see/confirm what me and my son saw.


RubberDuck



We should put this whole thread in the "joining the circus" category. *face+palm* .....

At least im wearing appropriate attire for this thread........




This guy is new, he just needs a little help. Go easy on him. Me being kinda new myself, I sorta know how he feels about the do's and don'ts of postings and threads. And one false move and boy, do I get slammed. Maybe one of the Mods or an old time member can help him out.

Nice clown attire by the way.......

edit on 29-4-2012 by snarky412 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
I thought something was suspicious when officials said the ship was too damaged to get it to shore. We pull all kinds of stuff off the ocean floor and manage to get it to shore. That ship was said to be drifting. A drifting ship can be easily pulled to port. God Damned it.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by tidycat
 


Again alaska waters are quite rough....and it was in a major shipping lane.....a hull that big would cause quite the damage if pushed into another vessel by waves. And if they couldn't tow it......they sink it. Chances are it wasn't worth the salvage effort due to rust.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Xterrain
 


interesting... and frightening..

My story is this..

surfed for over half my life..

west coast, east cost.. Baja California trips both sides..

ate from the sea for over 3 decades with no problems..

last June, Alaskan King Crab & Lobster grillin for my birthday..

boom, straight in the hospital.. Anaphylactic shock for the first time ever..

label said fished within the week from Alaska ..

dam near died.. shift change happened..

new nurse walks up & says "what happened, you eat some radiated crab?"




posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by BiggerPicture

- how did one particular ship get contaminated with so much radiation?

- wouldnt sinking it add and disperse even more radiation into the sea?

- couldnt they have towed it to some uninhabited isle then bury it in concrete etc??

- will they be sinking more ships that are chock full of radiation? surely this can't be the ONLY one can it???


Towing it and sinking it further out would have been way to smart and so would have testing it for rads obviously!!!



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   
There is really something wrong with this picture, first the Gulf Oil Spill, which is total bullcrap and lies.
Now we have this, which is possibly 1000s of time worst than the oil splill and might from what people say very well be the end of life on Earth as we know it.
There is something very fool afoot and what only one person prosecuted so far.

These fools are suppose to be so smart and they are being allowed to destroy the world.



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join