Enviromental impact of Drumbeat

[doomlordis]

Nowadays if a tanker spills more than a litre the lefty eco warriors have a candlelit vidual , i have read many books on the Uboat campaign and a few specifcally on drumbeat.
There is no mention of the impact of sinking 52 tankers off the east coast of the US , i would imagine the impact would have been terrible and long lasting..

Anyone know more on this?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by doomlordis

Nowadays if a tanker spills more than a litre the lefty eco warriors have a candlelit vidual , i have read many books on the Uboat campaign and a few specifcally on drumbeat.
There is no mention of the impact of sinking 52 tankers off the east coast of the US , i would imagine the impact would have been terrible and long lasting..

Anyone know more on this?

You're a lefty eco warrior if you care at all about oil slicks ruining fish and wildlife and our beaches ? Noted.

And so as not to turn this into a General Topics crap slinging fest, I think the size of the tankers sunk has a lot to do with it. Not all were full, and they were generally less than 10,000 tons. The Exxon Valdez, for example, was 200,000 tons.

[doomlordis]

I was being sarci, i care about trees and bushes and fish as much as the next guy.

[coasterdigi]

Well, keep in mind that, in the US, the eco movement really didn't begin in earnest until we managed to light our river on fire up here in Cleveland...for the third time....in the 70's. I'm sure there was a significant local ecological impact, but I don't believe that people really paid that close of attention to stuff like that in the 40's.

Of course, you're assuming that the tankers spilled their entire volume of cargo into the ocean all at once, too. Judging from the fact that the USS Arizona is STILL leaking oil, I'd be willing to wager that only a percentage of the total oil on board was spilled at the time of the attack. 10,000 barrels spilled over 40 years is significantly different than 10,000 spilled over a few days.

[EDIT] Sorry, did I say "third time?" I meant thirteenth. Oh, Cleveland.

[Nausicaa]

Of course the sinking of ships did ecologic damage in WW2 - enormous damage. The thing is just that nobody thought about it back then, because there was no ecologic sensible thinking in general, and nobody measured any effects with scientific methods. Bu they were there.

[ggregoro]

Originally Posted by Nausicaa

Of course the sinking of ships did ecologic damage in WW2 - enormous damage. The thing is just that nobody thought about it back then, because there was no ecologic sensible thinking in general, and nobody measured any effects with scientific methods. Bu they were there.

Talk about your "no ecologic sensible thinking", in an attempt to ascertain the damage from atomic explosions, the US Navy made guinea pigs out of a fleet of obsolete warships and exposed whole lot of sailors to radiation in 1946.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Nausicaa

Of course the sinking of ships did ecologic damage in WW2 - enormous damage. The thing is just that nobody thought about it back then, because there was no ecologic sensible thinking in general, and nobody measured any effects with scientific methods. Bu they were there.

Correct. Even today a uboat leaks mercury and is a great hazard. The oil spilt did create problems. Large whales were hit by subs and vessels. Coral reefs were destroyed in the Pacific.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

You're a lefty eco warrior if you care at all about oil slicks ruining fish and wildlife and our beaches ? Noted.

And so as not to turn this into a General Topics crap slinging fest, I think the size of the tankers sunk has a lot to do with it. Not all were full, and they were generally less than 10,000 tons. The Exxon Valdez, for example, was 200,000 tons.

Will not be a slingfest. Looks like a legitimate question to me.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...455652,00.html