This American agrees. One of the biggest problems we have, relations-wise, is our tendency to ignore the whole "Do unto others" thing. We went into Iraq citing their refusal to obey UN orders, but when the UN ordered us to wait we just laughed.

Well I'll have to agree with the "hubris-filled balloons". You describe yourself quite nicely.
"Your inference of more or less" is your inference not mine so gall all you want. My reference to not being clean has to do with the loch being used as a British submarine base during double-ya-double-ya-two. You know, the war we saved your(yo) ass in. I'm sure they were all tree huggers back then and properly disposed of contaminates and scrap metals along with the odd landing craft or two let alone the two sunk submarines floating around there in the Clyde.
But yes it was all US Navy people that dumped all the gangways, pontoons and soda cans along with all the pcb's and what have you. All 150 locals that worked at the base knew nothing about it did they? They must have made them look the other way when they did the dastardly deeds.
If you looked through the information available one Mr Devine proudly bugled that he worked for the navy for twelve years "processing" waste into the water. All those locals working at the dock and dry-docks refitting subs with all those nasty chemicals didn't have a clue about what happened with them once they were done with them, it was all those evil U.S. Navy people making them dump it into the water.
So I guess what I'm saying is you have the gall to plead the locals being deaf, dumb and blind when it was in all probability the locals doing the "actual" dumping. But they knew nothing of it or what, they didn't know it was bad stuff? Yes the navy was wrong doing/allowing it but don't plead the innocent bleeding dupe job. I think there is more than enough blame to pass around. So if you want to whine about arrogant, bullying Americans crapping in your nest look at who is doing the actual crapping.

The difference being that Davy's never went into major circulation or actually made a difference in lighting.

Wrong by technical standards. The first actual computer, that was similar to Babbage's, was invented by the Greeks thousands of years before. It could do mathematical calculations, calculate planetary movements, and even map constellations. I'm referring of course to the Antikythera Mechanism.

True, but both Drebbel's design and Bourne's design were simply bells towed by a boat. Basically, they were diving bells, and the diving bell had been in existence for quite some time (it was said that one was made of glass during Alexander the Great's rule, and he was lowered beneath the sea to experience the invention; true or not--well, hard to answer). What we can be certain of is that diving bells had been in use before the 16th century.

A kite basically with a steam engine attached.:rotfl: Fact is, designs like this had been in existence before. Never made, but they were in existence (1830's "house plane", for instance; preposterous idea, but it was still a fixed-wing craft with an engine). Either way, the other simple fact is that it didn't fly. The first actual fixed-wing flying machine was invented by the Chinese in 559 AD. It was just a kite with a fixed-wing design, like William Henson's (save for the engine), but the difference here is that the Chinese design actually flew.

True, although I was referring to Fathullah Shirazi's design for Akbar the Great during the 1500's (first one that used gunpowder, though the "balls" were cannon balls, not musket balls; bullets are totally out of the question for that design, however). I'll credit them with that.

True for the modern telephone. I was thinking of Kung-Foo-Whing's design during the 900's AD (little more than tubes, however, that one yelled through; not really a phone at all!:rotfl:).

Ha, I've met Russians, that claimed they invented all this stuff:rotfl: :roll: .

I think the funniest one I heard was from a man from India who claimed that the boat was invented by their people!:rotfl: As if. Those dogs couldn't make a proper sandwich if they wanted to.:rotfl:

bradclark1- You'd do yourself a huge favour by just stopping now. I know you probably think that you're cooking up some that'll-show-'em ballbusters to zing the opposition, but by attempting to defend the indefensible you simply continue to dig an enormous hole for yourself and confirm the very mentality that leads to this kind of thing in the first place.

Fact is, all that crap at the bottom of the loch wouldn't be there without the USN. Whether they got the odd native to help out is immaterial. The waste was generated by them and dumped on their watch. You have turned one man into an excuse for three decades of systematic dumping. And yes, in my experience civilians do tend to follow the orders of those in uniform, especially if their jobs depend on it. "150 locals" employed at the base includes everyone from clerks and cleaners to the guy who used to have the Dunkin' Donuts stand at the old pier. I suppose you'd all have them as toxic waste dumpers?

As for the Royal Navy submarines lost in the Clyde - these were tragic accidents that resulted in the loss of all hands, and where possible they were salvaged. Are you really trying to compare the two? Jesus wept.

Nice job at coming over as an arrogant ass, though.

Well, everything I've seen from the UKers so far as been backed up. :-?

I'll join this nationalism pissing-contest, the first US Navy was built by an Irishman, who taught in my hometown :)

Nope, fraid not. I'm not ballbusting and I'm not defending. I'm putting the blame where it belongs, on both sides. Acting the persecuted windbag doesn't change that fact.
I haven't turned one man into anything but an example to show that the locals were not deaf, dumb and blind as you inferred. There was no armed guards ready to shoot those that refused to dump. Now you seem to insinuate that they would have been fired if they didn't dump. Out of 150 locals probably 80 to 90 or more would have worked on the docks to include the Dunkin Donuts man. I'm sure that such modern conveniences as the telephone did exist and all it would have taken was an indiscreet phone call or two to get all sorts of attention drawn to the dumping.
What is the difference between unsalvaged wrecks and the dumping of scrap metal? You can write a litter ticket for the scrap.
Thank you. It's nice to be appreciated. You set the example for all to go by.

Chill - Either you need to do something else for a bit, or go take some valium. Way too worked up man. Just a conversation.

And the USN didn't do you any favors or anything. How about this, you pay for our men and equipment losses in coming to your defense, and we clean up your stuff? Sound fair? I can guess who's bill is going to be the larger! :D

-S

(sigh)

Okay. I'll spell it out country simple, making every allowance I can since there seems to be a cultural misunderstanding here:

1) Two WWII submarine wrecks in the Clyde estuary (not the Holy Loch), HMS Vandal is the only one whose name immediately springs to mind. Accidently lost with all hands in tragic circumstances. Now a protected wreck under Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 since there are 37 dead sailors within her hull. It is illegal to dive on or disturb the wreck in any way. Same goes for the carrier, HMS Dasher.

2) Estimated 6000 tonnes of military waste (4500 tonnes since recovered), piled 30ft high in places, including toxic materials (not "scrap metal") dumped in shallow waters over the course of 30 peacetime years rather than find some way to dispose of it responsibly. Asbestos fibre, wiring and cable (lots of it), lead piping, drums of various oils and sludge, pontoons, boilers, domestic waste, plastics, railings, gas bottles, chemical fire extinguishers, forklifts, etc.

Things becoming clearer?

Oh, the only reference I can find to a "Mr Devine" is a statement made in the local paper by Greg Devine who lives along the road in Sandbank.

"I worked with the American Navy for 12 years and used to take waste to be processed over the water"

("over the water" = the mainland, or perhaps the Gareloch)

There is no mention of his being involved in any dumping. In fact, I cannot find one source that references local contractors being asked to take part in the dumping.

The quote also appears online, in that illustrious oracle, Scottish Socialist Voice:

http://www.scottishsocialistvoice.ne.../issue103.html

What you've done is subtitute the word "into" for "over". He was talking about transporting waste by boat over to the mainland for processing there. Somehow in your mind this became evidence of corrupt, co-opted locals enthusiastically despoiling their own waterways.

Wow, what a wit we have here. H.L. Mencken look out. I am rubber, you are glue, Guybrush.

@ Stealth Hunter: My only point is that British claims are as valid as anyone's, since, as the great British scientist Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants." I will agree that if they want to lay sole claim to any of them, they're full of hot air. But that's true of just about anybody. The Wrights made the first practical airplane, but their version was ultimately a dead end. Glenn Curtiss is the true father of American aviation. There's always somebody somewhere who is willing to pick up where others left off.

Oh, and Bourne's design and Drebbels invention were not diving bells towed by boats; they were manned submersible boats rowed by oarsmen.

I'll concede for the stellar Mr Devine. Over is not in. I was unaware of bodies still on the sub.

Now you take that very long list of scrap, toxics, landing crafts, and garbage in general that covered two thirds of the loch that was dumped over thirty years and tell anyone that has the slightest trace of grey matter in between their ears that the locals didn't know a thing about it nor had a hand in any of it? In fact you even point to how ludicrus that zero knowledge excuse is. How can an estimated 6000 tons of military waste, piled 30ft high in places get there with no one seeing? Thats what you expect people to believe? Ray Charles could see that you have spread the manure a little thick. Of course you won't find one reference for local contractors taking part in the dumping. Would you own up to it when you find out how toxic the loch was?

Like I have said there is enough blame to go around due to action or inaction when all one would have to do is make a simple phone call to the MOD, Enviro groups(if they were around back then), newspaper, or anti-navy/nuke groups that regulary protested. Yes the United States Navy was the main culprit and nobody can deny that but locals do share a part of that responsibility. If I were a judge I would say it was an 80/20 split.
Yes, this is our own little Monkey trial.

Because it's a hundred odd feet UNDERWATER. Did you think we were talking about 30ft mounds of waste piled up on the shore? Can you see underwater?

And no, rec diving was strictly prohibited when the USN was there, so no local divers to report on it. Strictly no fishing either, so no echo sounding either. As long as they held the lease, they effectively controlled the entire stretch of water.

And if I were a judge I'd ask for some evidence before coming to a judgement. It's sort of a fundamental thing for judges. So far your only source has been proved bogus. The fact that you have convinced yourself that the local community, entirely complicit in your story, somehow kept it zipped for thirty years (for what? maximum shock value?) just doesn't wash - especially since you can't come up with a shred of proof to back up your pet conspiracy theory. Have you got anything to elevate your argument above the level of sophist mud-slinging? Something that conforms to Occam's Razor perhaps?

My turn to sigh. [Sigh] You think 6000 tons of waste was dumped at night when nobody was around? Just on weekends? The navy had lookouts to make sure no civilians were around? I'll tell you what, I'll bend to your wisdom and you tell me how the navy dumped 6000 tons of waste with the locals being none the wiser.
Ok. I'll bend again. All the locals that worked the docks were very stupid not to mention deaf, dumb and blind. Thats your theory for them having no knowledge of the dumping? And no, I haven't slung any mud let alone be devious about it. In fact I'm trying to make the locals look somewhat more intelligent than you are trying to project because I don't think people can be that thick-witted.
How much simpler could it be? Or is simplicity the ultimate sophistication for you.

If we can't get beyond that I believe the limits have been reached.